Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and there is something else that you and others should consider: population growth is not necessarily a good thing. We don't always have to get bigger. If that weren't the case than we would be expected to expand continuously: 3 million, 6 million, 9 million, 27 million....and that's just plain nuts.
Population growth is certainly better than population loss.
I agree with Larry & Ace above and believe that folks could learn a lot by watching south side developments, especially those near to the lake like in South Shore. It is true that a long time ago there was a sizeable middle class even upper middle class population down there. For folks that "stuck it out" through the west side riots that area could've integrated at least to the degree that Oak Park did but if you look at why it lost popularity a few things stand out: First it had homes of smaller size and GREATER density than either Oak Park or even nearby Hyde Park. That at least partially explains why density is NOT always a good thing. Second, like Hyde Park it has relatively poor public transit, if you are not OK with buses that means you kinda need a car. Places like Beverely or Morgan Park, with even lower density, are pretty "car friendly" and garages are common so parking is easy -- in contrast cars in South Shore became targets for crime.
There lesson to be learned about taking steps to keep a place vibrant with appropriate changes in police support and realistic views of both private vehicles and public transit. I fear that too few people in Chicago, both Ciy Hall and so called 'urbanists', really care about the lessons from South Shore and violence / neglect will continue to be tolerated as it makes more of the south side untenable...
I also will add that when I see stories about "young families moving back to the city" and they are from places like the Twin Cities or Denver I think that folks trying to use those as "models" for Chicago really have their heads in the sand! Those cities never had the wide spread racial issues of Chicago and never had the stupid high density public housing that concentrated crime and hopelessness. There is a negative legacy of density and folks that do not learn from that are likely to miss other key points too. I think I've said before that many of folks that once did work in massive factories in the rust belt had crappy jobs. While the UAW made some difference and twisting bolts into place for 8 hrs a day was never as dangerous as the sweat shops in China that kind of work was NOT exactly gratifying. Lots of alcoholics were born out of the boredom of work that is better done by robots. Heck the relative degree to which electronic communication has decreased the need for "head count" is something that too few 'urbanists' even acknowledge. Once there were lots of good jobs for people in mail rooms and clerks that moved the paper that has been eliminated. Does it really make sense to think that populations and densities will increase given these realities?
I know for a fact that the City has been exploring covering the railroad tracks to extend Grant Park (or whatever name they'd give it) all the way to Roosevelt, if and when that happens, I won't be surprised if you see development take off yet again in the South Loop.
River development is a given, especially when the Feds finally force the MWRD to give the effluent the extra step of UV treatment/whatever that step is we currently are skimping on.
Biggest challenge IMO is our outdated highway and L system which bottlenecks in the Loop. They have got to get semi trucks off of the highways during rush hours, it is just a pitiful waste of resources for everyone to have those things plodding along at 2-3 mph in stop and go traffic, cars trying to weave around them, etc. Get a *real* circle line which gets out to at least Western and then we've got some infrastructure which will allow us to grow. There are only so many people you can squeeze near L stops that will get people to the Loop in a reasonable amount of time, and there are tons of people who work along other vital commercial corridors, or could if the travel wasn't so prohibitive for customers and workers alike.
Population growth is certainly better than population loss.
i'm not sure that is always the case. it is only the case if you case if you believe in endless growth. no city has ever existed that hasn't experienced both population gain and loss.
I agree with Larry & Ace above and believe that folks could learn a lot by watching south side developments, especially those near to the lake like in South Shore. It is true that a long time ago there was a sizeable middle class even upper middle class population down there. For folks that "stuck it out" through the west side riots that area could've integrated at least to the degree that Oak Park did but if you look at why it lost popularity a few things stand out: First it had homes of smaller size and GREATER density than either Oak Park or even nearby Hyde Park. That at least partially explains why density is NOT always a good thing. Second, like Hyde Park it has relatively poor public transit, if you are not OK with buses that means you kinda need a car. Places like Beverely or Morgan Park, with even lower density, are pretty "car friendly" and garages are common so parking is easy -- in contrast cars in South Shore became targets for crime.
There lesson to be learned about taking steps to keep a place vibrant with appropriate changes in police support and realistic views of both private vehicles and public transit. I fear that too few people in Chicago, both Ciy Hall and so called 'urbanists', really care about the lessons from South Shore and violence / neglect will continue to be tolerated as it makes more of the south side untenable...
I also will add that when I see stories about "young families moving back to the city" and they are from places like the Twin Cities or Denver I think that folks trying to use those as "models" for Chicago really have their heads in the sand! Those cities never had the wide spread racial issues of Chicago and never had the stupid high density public housing that concentrated crime and hopelessness. There is a negative legacy of density and folks that do not learn from that are likely to miss other key points too. I think I've said before that many of folks that once did work in massive factories in the rust belt had crappy jobs. While the UAW made some difference and twisting bolts into place for 8 hrs a day was never as dangerous as the sweat shops in China that kind of work was NOT exactly gratifying. Lots of alcoholics were born out of the boredom of work that is better done by robots. Heck the relative degree to which electronic communication has decreased the need for "head count" is something that too few 'urbanists' even acknowledge. Once there were lots of good jobs for people in mail rooms and clerks that moved the paper that has been eliminated. Does it really make sense to think that populations and densities will increase given these realities?
chet, there is really only one reason I believe that population and density could and will rise in Chicago: the economic realities of the cost of energy. Our sprawl into the far corners of suburbia were based on cheap energy, the ability to extract fossil fuels. The technology to do so rose in the late 19th century. In the 20th century, oil was pretty much the name of the game. At this point of being at or past peak oil, the cost of sprawl becomes more and more prohibitive. so, yes, I think a tightly knit core city with the infrastructure of a great transportation network and its very walkability are more in tune with what our lives will be in the 21st century than the car culture of suburbia.
Look at the European model: the real wealth has been in the cities, the highly prized central locations.
"Once there were lots of good jobs for people in mail rooms and clerks that moved the paper that has been eliminated." true. and lots and even better jobs in the industries that built our great cities. But I'm not sure that is even related to urban/suburban comparisons. The problem isn't that those jobs are no longer in the cities; the problem is that entry level jobs with minimal pay and the norm everywhere. and you can't build a society around them. Income inequality is virtually at third world levels in the United States, a nation that once prided itself in having the narrowest gap and the most social mobility. Outsourcing and the weakening the voice of labor affects all of society.
Keep in mind, too, that living in cities is not only an economic choice; today it is very much a lifestyle choice as well. And there are more and more people who embrace the urban lifestyle and hate the sterility and the disconnect of suburban living. What happens to all those grads from college who live in the suburbs...they come to the city. Sure, many go to suburbia when they start having their families. But suburbia has lost some of its glow for these folks, too; the public schools are not what they used to be. And the expense of having children keeps rising; the need to follow the old expected route of having kids is not what it once was.
Chet, I think I look at the whole city/suburban thing a lot differently than you do. I think you see a level of importance of municipality within the metro fabric more than I do. To me, it's all Chicagoland. So I'm looking at core differently than you may be. A lot of what I'm saying about Chicago is not based on municipality but on its urbanized nature, and the distances from downtown. For example, in essence I look at Saganash and Edgebrook as suburban; I see Evanston and Oak Park as more part of the city, true extensions of it. The very extension and the age of the el lines that extend into both contribute to my belief. In some ways, the transition across Howard St from Chicago to Evanston or Austin Blvd from Chicago to Oak Park are not that much transition at all.
Perhaps my paradigm is far easier to understand, to know where I'm coming form, by looking at LA instead of Chicago. In LA, places like Beverly Hills and Santa Monica are separate cities, both in prime locations within the LA Basin, the core of the city. I find those places to be "more LA", more part of LA than areas that are actually incorporated into the city limits across the Hollywood Hills in the San Fernando Valley that are basically more like suburban towns, just not having their own govenments. If you choose to live in LA because it is LA, Beverly Hills, a separate city, is more of a choice than Encino, out in the valley but within city limits.
In NYC, I see a good part of NJ's Hudson shore to be more a part of the sphere of Manhattan than I do the outlying sections of Queens and all of Staten Island.
i'm not sure that is always the case. it is only the case if you case if you believe in endless growth. no city has ever existed that hasn't experienced both population gain and loss.
I'd agree if it was a slight variation. A city the size Chicago was losing 1/4 of it's population is in no way a good thing. You have to maintain infrastructure and provide services for the same area but with fewer people paying for it.
I'd agree if it was a slight variation. A city the size Chicago was losing 1/4 of it's population is in no way a good thing. You have to maintain infrastructure and provide services for the same area but with fewer people paying for it.
perhaps. or perhaps they could be turned into parkland in part, maybe urban farmland. I'm just saying sometimes we have to think outside the box. Is there a law that Chicago couldn't take empty areas of the city and turn them into forest preserves, let them return to nature, even if it were on just a temporary basis? We're a flat city so seeing something like that would seem strange. But how about where it happens naturally. The Santa Monica Mts (Hollywood Hills) cut through the heart of LA, separating basin from valley. Sure there are wealthy communities interspersed in the area and the canyons that run from city to valley are populated. but much of the Hollywood Hills remains in a natural state; and those areas do not require a great deal of city services.
here's something else to consider in population loss: you can have population loss through fewer people living in each residence on the average. In vast areas of downtown, the lakefront, the North Side, there are highly desirable areas with fewer people living in them than once more because there are a lot more single people or couples without children. Look at San Francisco, a city with a large population of singles and couples without kids, the most child unfriendly city in America; it actually saves money by having to run fewer schools.
Population growth is certainly better than population loss.
It depends on the reason for the population loss. If a city or neighborhood loses population because people don't want to live there, then population loss is bad. If a city loses population because people can afford more space per person, then it's good. When Chicago reached its peak population a half century or so ago, the Lakeview building I used to live in had 52 people living in "kitchenettes" which were the worst kind of slum apartments. In 1974 a rehabber bought the building and in 1979, when I moved in, there were 6 (six) people in space that once housed 52. Was this population loss bad or good? Do you want Chicago to have 3.6 million people again if they have to live in those conditions? Draw your own conclusions.
It depends on the reason for the population loss. If a city or neighborhood loses population because people don't want to live there, then population loss is bad. If a city loses population because people can afford more space per person, then it's good. When Chicago reached its peak population a half century or so ago, the Lakeview building I used to live in had 52 people living in "kitchenettes" which were the worst kind of slum apartments. In 1974 a rehabber bought the building and in 1979, when I moved in, there were 6 (six) people in space that once housed 52. Was this population loss bad or good? Do you want Chicago to have 3.6 million people again if they have to live in those conditions? Draw your own conclusions.
I tend to support part of Larry' reasoning -- a more desirable situation where people are not shoehorned into tenanments is a wiser path. That said such a situation seems at odds with what others have said about "income equality" and other such social engineering concepts that too many 'urbanists' hold dear.
It's funny too because areas like Sauganash or Edgebrook ( to say nothing of south side upscale communities...) have totally lost out to Lincoln Park and other near-to-the-lake areas. The kind of successful business people that once had their own firms are more likely to be near the Loop or ensconced in an even more costly compound that covers the area of half a dozen normal city lots...
I also find it curious that some folks toss area that are adjacent to Chicago into the "urban" category. While there are some parts of Evanston or Oak Park that have 'urban-like' density on the whole these towns embody a different pattern of development that is firmly in the suburban camp, namely they could not exist without the significant employment in Chicago, most of the higher income residents especially commute to well paying office jobs in the Loop. The fact that some percentage of folks take CTA is sort of irrelevant as without it the Metra service would still be preferred and fit the classic destination of suburbs connected to city...
Sad fact is that undesirable areas of Chicago that are losing population won't be turned into nature areas or farms. Such a move would require massive resources / court fights and is just impossible. Think of what it would do to areas close to the "frontier" -- more functional areas like Garfield Ridge would basically have to have "fortifications" to maintain access to Midway and similar economic necessities. Thinks start to look more "Escape From New York" pretty quickly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel
It depends on the reason for the population loss. If a city or neighborhood loses population because people don't want to live there, then population loss is bad. If a city loses population because people can afford more space per person, then it's good. When Chicago reached its peak population a half century or so ago, the Lakeview building I used to live in had 52 people living in "kitchenettes" which were the worst kind of slum apartments. In 1974 a rehabber bought the building and in 1979, when I moved in, there were 6 (six) people in space that once housed 52. Was this population loss bad or good? Do you want Chicago to have 3.6 million people again if they have to live in those conditions? Draw your own conclusions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good points...
