Chicago's Comeback (Davis: loans, houses, to buy)

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Davis Street

City Limits or Metro?

For Metro, many cities will grow by 500,000 per decade.

For city, NYC grew by nearly a million residents per the 2000 Census. LA grew by nearly 500,000.

City, Chicago metro actually grew faster on a % basis than NYC and LA metros.

[tribecavsbrowns]

^Vlajos is right. A very representative neighborhood is Noble Square north of Division, i.e., Census Tract 2416. Definitely fits the bill of a gentrifying, up-and-coming neighborhood. Still had gang problems around 2000, but today you see kids from the suburbs/other states with U-Hauls moving in every week. The Census 2010 result for this neighborhood: a population loss of 18 percent. 47 percent increase in white people, 58 percent decrease in Hispanic people.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Davis Street

I don't understand what you're trying to argue.

I never said that there were no exceptions to the rule. I said that almost all gentrified neighborhoods grew population, and almost all non-gentrified neighborhoods lost population, which is true.

If you look at the map, clearly 90%+ of gentrified core neighborhoods grew, and 80%+ of non-core, non-gentrified neigborhoods lost population.

You've changed your argument. Very snaky of you.

You wrote "neighborhoods in which gentrification is occuring" (emphasis mine), which is present tense, are growing.

I said, no, gentrifying (present tense) neighborhoods do NOT grow in population, but I also wrote "you will see a return to population growth *if* a city has zoning that accommodates larger buildings being built and higher density," which is a past-tense reference to gentrification. In fact, one of the best indicators that gentrification is complete is a return to population growth.

Now you've changed your claim to saying that "gentrified" (past tense) neighborhoods are increasing in population. Which I already pointed out for you - that AFTER gentrification, population starts to climb again (after having dropped due to gentrification).

If you're going to change your argument and pretend like you haven't (or, worse, are too ignorant to realize you've changed your position), then, sorry, thanks for playing, but you're just going to make a fool of yourself.

It is NOT "urban theory" that gentrification causes a drop in population, it is demographic FACT. Supported by nearly any evaluation of area demographics in Chicago, in New York, in anywhere. About the only exception to that, where gentrification leads immediately to population gain is in areas that have lost so much population that there are enormous numbers of empty properties sitting unoccupied. But that almost isn't even gentrification, because gentrification is usually defined as the replacement of a poorer demographic with a "gentry" class of demographic. If there's no poorer demographic to be replaced, it's more urban pioneering than gentrification. "Real" gentrification is only controversial because it's the gentry replacing a poor demographic, because it's displacement. If gentrification was simply infill, it would be much less controversial.

Also, the same forces that lead gentrification to cause population loss also apply if a gentrified area goes beyond gentrification. This is happening in places like Lincoln Park, where the very wealthy continue to move in and create massive single family homes to replace 3-flats and things like that. That's beyond mere gentrification, but it has the same population impact due to the same principles.

Specifically to Chicago, you really should read this:
http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdccensus1.php

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by emathias

Also, the same forces that lead gentrification to cause population loss also apply if a gentrified area goes beyond gentrification. This is happening in places like Lincoln Park, where the very wealthy continue to move in and create massive single family homes to replace 3-flats and things like that. That's beyond mere gentrification, but it has the same population impact due to the same principles.

Specifically to Chicago, you really should read this:
Straight Dope Chicago: Where everybody went

Exactly, I've seen two flats or SFHs bulldozed to be replaced by one home.

[PulSamsara]

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?

Population decrease is not necessarily a bad thing.

I could mean that the housing stock is being used for something more closely resembling what it was built for and less 12 member extended families living in illegal basement units.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by PulSamsara

Population decrease is not necessarily a bad thing.

I could mean that the housing stock is being used for something more closely resembling what it was built for and less 12 member extended families living in illegal basement units.

It was usually "built for" a mother, a father, 3-4 kids, and probably a couple grandparents or an uncle or aunt.

Most housing in Chicago built prior to the population peak in the 1950s decidedly wasn't usually built for a childless couple to live on their own with a dog and a cat.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by emathias

Most housing in Chicago built prior to the population peak in the 1950s decidedly wasn't usually built for a childless couple to live on their own with a dog and a cat.

My father grew up with his parents and three sisters in a 1000 ft^2 two bedroom apartment in Chicago.

These days it would be considered a tight squeeze for a couple, especially in 'vintage' units with their tiny holes that almost resemble a closet.

[Dream Chaser]

I created this thread to hear people's opinions about the city and the future for the city.Thank you for your thoughts.
For the few posts being offended for thinking I'm saying Houston better is wrong.Chicago is a better city than Houston.Chicago has culture and one of the most urban cities in the US.But what makes Houston attractive is warm weather and cheap cost living.Few decades ago LA passed Chicago for one of the same reasons, Warm weather.

[Aleking]

we're embracing global warming head on...get back to me in 50 years.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Dream Chaser

I created this thread to hear people's opinions about the city and the future for the city.Thank you for your thoughts.
For the few posts being offended for thinking I'm saying Houston better is wrong.Chicago is a better city than Houston.Chicago has culture and one of the most urban cities in the US.But what makes Houston attractive is warm weather and cheap cost living.Few decades ago LA passed Chicago for one of the same reasons, Warm weather.

a bit confused here, Dream Chaser. LA....especially without the smog....has one of the best climates in the nation....very Mediteranean, few extremes in temperature (at least in the basin; the valley can get exceedingly hot).

but people going to Houston for the climate? that one I don't get at all. I think one would make a hard argument that a Houston summer is better than a Chicago winter.

Houston is loaded with heat and tremendous humidity (where LA is low on the humidity). I think saying Houston has a good climate is a lot like saying New Orleans has a good climate. i don't think either one comes close to that description. I'd take Chicago's climate over Houston's any day.