Chicago's Comeback (Phoenix, Davis: to rent, home sales, neighborhood)

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

I don't think Houston will surpass Chicago anytime soon. Even if it does surpass the city proper, it would take a long time for Chicago to become the fourth metro area and not remain the third.

Let's not forget that while the '10 census showed a loss of population in the city, the '00 census showed a gain. Who's to know what will happen by '20! Fiscal balance will probably be a big key to a resurgence in Chicago.

If there is job growth there will be population growth.

[gomexico]

Originally Posted by Dream Chaser

Chicago at the moment is stable, not booming or nor decaying. Chicago popualtion decreased. By next census Houston will pass us. The population increase or decrease is symbolic,shows the current state of a city. Chicago has it flaws like huge corruption and taxes. I want to see Chicago thrive again but it takes time and effort.My question what do you think can be done to make the city better? All opinions matter.What are you guys thought?

The sky is not falling.

I like Chicago just the way it is. It's been an excellent place to live/work my entire life - and it's been thriving. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. You see flaws I don't see. I've lived in other cities, though, and appreciate that Chicago is better than any place I've lived/worked before.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Dream Chaser

Chicago at the moment is stable, not booming or nor decaying. Chicago popualtion decreased. By next census Houston will pass us. The population increase or decrease is symbolic,shows the current state of a city. Chicago has it flaws like huge corruption and taxes. I want to see Chicago thrive again but it takes time and effort.My question what do you think can be done to make the city better? All opinions matter.What are you guys thought?

Houston's population grew about 100,000 from the 2000 to 2010 census. so what on earth would give you the idea that it will pass Chicago in 2020?

where is Houston supposed to get its influx? Immigraiton from Mexico is down to its lowest level in years. Houston's economy is so heavily built around fossil fuels which continue to decline (we are past peak oil).

Houston has no zoning and exceedingly low taxes. Its quality of life will continue to suffer.

Should I worry that Houston will pass Chicago in size? Hardly. San Francisco is considerably less than half of Houston's size. Boston would be the pretty much the same.

And by virtually any measure I could think of, San Francisco and Boston are far greater than Houston. San Francisco, for what it matters, is California's fourth largest city and the Bay Area's second largest. Do you think there are any San Franciscan's who give a rat's ass over those rankings?

So how much of size is a factor. Point is that places like San Francisco and Boston and, of course, VERY MUCH, Chicago are great.....and you don't need to look at population figures to realize it.

and here's an interesting thought in the way, way, (did I say "way") overpopulated globe of the 21st century: what on earth makes anyone think a larger population is in and of itself a good thing? and couldn't it prove to be very bad? I don't know about anyone else, but if you were to offer me a Chicago with 12,000,000 people in a Chicagoland of 30,000,000 in a decade or two, it would send shivers down my spine. not the good time.

12,000,000 is not a great size for a city, just as 12 inches isn't a good size for.....well.....whatever.

[55degrees]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Should I worry that Houston will pass Chicago in size? Hardly. San Francisco is considerably less than half of Houston's size. Boston would be the pretty much the same.

And by virtually any measure I could think of, San Francisco and Boston are far greater than Houston. San Francisco, for what it matters, is California's fourth largest city and the Bay Area's second largest. Do you think there are any San Franciscan's who give a rat's ass over those rankings?

EXACTLY. It will take much more than an increase in Houston's population ranking to make it better than Chicago, just as Houston is not automatically better than the cities lower on the population list.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by 55degrees

EXACTLY. It will take much more than an increase in Houston's population ranking to make it better than Chicago, just as Houston is not automatically better than the cities lower on the population list.

add to that the absurdity of looking at city population (which is rather meaningless) and not at metropolitan population (which is what really counts).

and in those terms, Houston has no edge over another metro area, D/FW, in its own state.

[Davis Street]

Originally Posted by Dream Chaser

Chicago at the moment is stable, not booming or nor decaying.

Chicago popualtion decreased.

I'm trying to reconcile your two statements, but I can't.

How can Chicago be losing hundreds of thousands of residents (per U.S. Census) yet be "stable"? Wouldn't "stable" indicate roughly flat population growth, not massive decline?

Or are you only talking about the central "good" parts of Chicago? Then I can see your point. The city, as a whole, is declining, at least in regards to population.

[Davis Street]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

The decrease in population within the city proper has to do with demographic shifts; specifically gentrification. Young professional singles or couples are moving into spaces once occupied by families of 4-6 in many places.

This isn't true. In fact, the opposite is true.

Gentrification is occuring in the neighborhoods which are growing. Gentrification is correlated 100% with growth.

The declining neighborhoods (Englewood, Wild 100's, etc.) have no gentrification.

[chicago103]

Originally Posted by Dream Chaser

By next census Houston will pass us.

I wish people would stop repeating this nonsense. I grow tired of dragging out the same statistics every time this claim is made. It will take 30 years for Houston to surpass Chicago, 20 years at best under the most ideal conditions and we all know that demographic trends don't always hold in the first place. Even if Houston had a boom like the 1990's this decade and Chicago has an exact repeat of the 2000's Houston would still come up short. Will Houston surpass Chicago someday? It is possible sure but it is far from inevitable especially in the time frame you suggest. People who keep stating this are either ignorant or have some agenda where they actually want it to be true.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by chicago103

I wish people would stop repeating this nonsense. I grow tired of dragging out the same statistics every time this claim is made. It will take 30 years for Houston to surpass Chicago, 20 years at best under the most ideal conditions and we all know that demographic trends don't always hold in the first place. Even if Houston had a boom like the 1990's this decade and Chicago has an exact repeat of the 2000's Houston would still come up short. Will Houston surpass Chicago someday? It is possible sure but it is far from inevitable especially in the time frame you suggest. People who keep stating this are either ignorant or have some agenda where they actually want it to be true.

please take chicago103's very sane observation and ask yourself this question as well:

what on earth does houston have that will continue to make it a magnet for growth? is it built on a sustainable future? no. it's built on fossil fuels which won't even be there at the time frame suggested by chicago103 above.

do people go to houston for the climate? hell, no (with the emphasis on "hell" since that pretty much covers not only June, July, and August but a bunch of time before and after them. Would anyone in their right mind rather go through a Houston summer than a Chicago winter?

Does Houston prepare for its future? another, hell, no. It's no tax, low wages, and little done for the commons. indeed, wild west Houston doesn't even have zoning laws.

what about hispanic population, the one that has most increased Houston's numbers. sorry again. The US, in its race for the bottom, is no longer more attractive for Mexicans than Mexico itself is; that's why immigration today from Mexico is a mere trickle (no mater all the hyperbole that goes into the whole "border under assault" thing).

Chicago103 mentions "30 years." In 30 years, Houston will be sitting on no oil nor dealing with its sale and trade. But in 30 years, Chicago will continue to be sitting in a better position than any city on the earth on the most precious (by far) resource out there: WATER!!!!!

If I had a $100 for every time a yahoo out there suggested Chicago was in decline, I'd be a multimillionaire many times over. If Chicago is not the Energizer Bunny, what city is.

For the record, if Chicago today is bleeding population, that population is heavily African American. And that demographic is leaving major cities throughout the northeast, midwest, and west coast and heading back to where the great migration began: down South.

Is this a tragedy? Yes. An American one. It shows the enduring power of prejudice and discrimination that stems back to 1607 and Jamestown and the first slave ships and continues very much today with a black president in the White House and a significant part of the crazed population unable to handle that.

Blacks leave, but they are not leaving good jobs. Or even jobs at all. This has always been an unemployed and undervalued part of our region's economy as it has elsewhere in the north.

It is a shame that blacks are leaving areas in the south and west sides they've occupied for decades, but those areas will be redeveloped. Chicago, highly concentrated and with an excellent public transportation system, makes these inner city areas among the most attractive in the nation. and the large scale abandoned areas which include closed factories and underutilized rail lands can led to large scale redevelopment.

Look at the growth era of the 80's and 90's, often built on unused rail lands which Chicago had like no other city.

But for the record: I still wish folks get off this insane notion that growing population is good. It isn't. We are overpopulated....nation and world....and endless growth is nothing short of cancerous.

We keep having our very provincial conversations here in some sort of closed off under a bubble America. But the real competition is not between American cities but how they stack up against cities around the world (just as how does the US stack up against other nations).

and that's a battle we're losing. today, the biggest source of NYC growth immigration. Do you really think that one is an endless well, just because it has been the only real story throughout the nation's history? Guess again. The pull of immigration to our shores lessens all the time. And we keep giving growth to the idea of push, that will send folks elsewhere.

this isn't an internal US city battle. it is an issue of whether the US and its cities will be competitive in this rapidly changing world....a definite cause for concern.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by edsg25

...
12 inches isn't a good size for.....well.....whatever.

it's a great size for a ruler ...