the "chicago decline" syndrome (Evanston, Oak Park: crime rates, most dangerous, safest)

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by Davis Street

Detroit Metro is growing too. In fact, it grew signficantly faster than Chicago metro before 2000. Would you then say that Detroit Metro is economically healthy, and all is fine?

No, not in the slightest. Detroit MSA is at its smallest population number since between 1960 and 1970; from 1980 to 2000 it barely grew, and shrank 3.5% from 2000 to 2010. Chicago MSA is at an historical high. From 1970 it has recorded a growth of nearly 1.8 million people, and within the next 10 to 15 years it will be the third metro area in the U.S. to hit approximately 10 million people.

Now I am not necessarily correlating economic health to population growth (just look at Riverside, CA!), but there is no way that the modern population growth of Detroit and Chicago MSAs are similar.

[Aleking]

Davis Street is a troll, you guys

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by Aleking

Davis Street is a troll, you guys

I was going to say - you realize who you're fighting with, right? The same person who finds 5 random things to repeat over and over while they sit back watching people call them out on their mistakes and give them attention. He doesn't care about any of this...it's just trolling for fun.

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

I have no desire to live in Oak Park or Evanston, let alone their equivalents from other Midwestern metro areas. Wide lawns and narrow minds, as Hemingway said.

Yes, as we all know that every suburbanite is closed minded and all city dwellers are open minded. What an absurd quote.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

Yes, as we all know that every suburbanite is closed minded and all city dwellers are open minded. What an absurd quote.

I view it as more humorous than absurd, but I see many in this thread are taking it way too seriously. I think it's a funny quote from a great author, and it came to mind when Oak Park was brought up. I realize things have changed since 1920, and the type of people who used to move to Oak Park now move to outer burbs. I still like the quote. It's also worth noting that Hemingway was from Oak Park, so I think he had the experience from which to comment. It wasn't like he was some random jerk who passed through the place and condemned it.

I was just saying that Oak Park and Evanston, to me, do not compare to the non-Chicago Midwestern locations I mentioned like Madison, Minneapolis, or Ann Arbor, nor to the western locations I mentioned like Seattle, San Fran, or Denver. They just don't, for me. I have no desire to live in Chicago suburbs, inner or outer. As a friend of mine put it last weekend, "If I'm going to live in Chicago I want to live in Chicago." It's okay for others to have other preferences. I was just stating mine.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by edsg25

those narrow minds were the hallmark of both suburbs a half century back. but today? Evanston is the most liberal suburb of Chicago and Oak Park are right up there with it. Both are more "in the suburbs" than they are suburban. Let's face it: we define "suburban" as being outside the city limits, surrounding the city which really encompasses vastly different territory, some like Evanston and Oak Park as urban in nature.

Evanston is far more urban than parts of Chicago like Sauganash or Beverly. If you were to wipe away the political map and remove all municipalities, the area that is now Evanston would come across much more urban than the area that today is Sauganash.

Exactly.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Exactly.

I actually agree with that statement, too. I tend to think of those places as suburban (even though they're technically in the city), and I wouldn't want to live in them, either. If you forced me to choose between Evanston and Beverly, I'd likely choose Evanston. I've actually spent a fair amount of time in Evanston. To me it feels more like a wealthy suburb (albeit an inner, more urban one) than a college town. Even my Northwestern alum friends don't want to live there, though they enjoy visiting now and then, as do I. It's just not the kind of place I/we want to live. If it is for you, that's cool.

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by edsg25

ok. i'm the guy who always whines about the insanity of population numbers being the worth of a city.

it's a joke and something that is almost insanely unique to the US: the almost orgasmic thrill of higher numbers, as if more people makes a city better off.

What do you get with the 13th largest city in the US/the 4th largest city in California/the 2nd largest city in the Bay Area:

SAN FRANCISCO

And do you think any San Franciscan worries or even cares about those numbers? of do you think there are San Franciscans out there who would want New York's numbers....or even Chicago's?

Among global cities (city, not metro) larger than New York: Shanghai, Karachi, Mumbai, Dhaka, tianjin, Guangzhou, Delhi, Shenzhen, Jakarta, Bangalore, Donguan (for the record, NYC is 19th in population). Should I be impressed by the list above?

Most Populous Cities of the World — Infoplease.com

What is it with you people out there who have the population fetish? Did it ever dawn on you a city can get too big? That too much crowding, too much density, too much packed together isn't a good thing, but bad?...

I agree with what I left out, and I'm not saying I necessarily disagree either with what I'm quoting, but I have some thoughts on this:

You're some kind of socialist, aren't you?



I kid because this is America. And if anyone, anywhere in the world, knows anything about America, they know we're capitalists. Bigger is better here. The more people you can sell your product to, the better. More employees, more customers, more sales, more money. Essentially, the more people that buy into your product the more influence you have in the marketplace. Consumers vote with their dollars.

So why is there an obsession(?) with population numbers? It's driven by capitalism.

The more people that live in a city, or if you prefer metro area, the more that city has "sold" people on their "product". And with this in mind, why wouldn't San Francisco take another 100 square miles of land that already considers itself the Bay Area (that is anchored by San Francisco) if annexation was a realistic possibility? The city only stands to gain more money via more people living in "the city". More people living in a city (buying into a product) means that the free market is favoring that city/product over other similar, substitutional, or completely different cities/products, even if it is through a contrived method such as annexation.

With that in mind, I don't think D.C. gets as much credit as it should considering it has a height limit and a land area limit (If D.C. was a company, it would be like they were selling a product that after 'X' amount of money was made in sales, all the rest of cash, no matter how much it was, went to some place other than the company that made the product). And on that same token, it is rather conspicuous that O'Hare is inside Chicago while not adding in new people and simultaneously adding area... yet adding tax revenue .

Apparently, in the long run: Money > Population Per Square Mile

More people = More Money = More Sales = More People Like You Over the Other Options.




Once again, my thoughts.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

I actually agree with that statement, too. I tend to think of those places as suburban (even though they're technically in the city), and I wouldn't want to live in them, either. If you forced me to choose between Evanston and Beverly, I'd likely choose Evanston. I've actually spent a fair amount of time in Evanston. To me it feels more like a wealthy suburb (albeit an inner, more urban one) than a college town. Even my Northwestern alum friends don't want to live there, though they enjoy visiting now and then, as do I. It's just not the kind of place I/we want to live. If it is for you, that's cool.

It's not exactly my kind of place necessarily either. Although its the closest thing in Chicagoland. Most of my family is in the Chicagoland area, and so I felt obligated to live close to them if they need me.

10,000 ppsm give or take two or three thousand is my ideal population density. Places like this are usually characterized by a mix of SFH homes on smaller lots as well as low rise (3 stories) apartment buildings. places at this pop density are almost always walkable too. This usually allows for the landscaping foliage to obscure the buildings enough to be physically green. But with few to no high rises, and public transportation that may be present, but not so the passing trains shake the buildings.

I lived in Oak Park for two years, until I realized that if one likes areas that are cool, hip, and exciting that are in the middle ground between urban and suburban, Chicagoland options are limited. Its better for those who prefere completely urban or completely suburban.

[Chi-town Native]

The most dangerous cities in America, 2012 - Yahoo!

This is why Chicago won't be declining any time soon.