How many people should live in Chicago? (low income, rent)

[compactspace]

I'd say 4-5 million, filling from the Loop outwards. There are so many vacant lots and surface carparks that the place wouldn't need to be a concrete jungle to make that happen. Just some high-rise in the Loop precinct and 5-10 story mid rise from there. The streets are broad enough that this needn't be claustrophobic.

The city would need more transit though -- probably achievable by some sustainable capital raising, careful taxation and elimination of waste. Density, of course, is key. As is the demarkation of public space, which needs to be carved out of street-fronting, mixed-use buildings that facilitate commerce and walkability.

[chiMT]

If it's 2.7million now, I'd say 2million would be perfect.

If they did something about traffic (on highways, streets, and lakefront) then maybe more people could work.

I'm surprised so many people want such a higher population. Do you guys not drive or bike or take public transit in Chicago? I suppose some people might like being smothered and taking forever to crawl to their destination...

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by chiMT

...I'm surprised so many people want such a higher population. Do you guys not drive or bike or take public transit in Chicago? I suppose some people might like being smothered and taking forever to crawl to their destination...

But the thing is, if Chicago lost 700,000 people, things wouldn't get better. Unless you're trying to do some sort of economic eugenics where the 700,000 poorest people are no longer living here. But that's not the discussion at hand (nor a solution).

If Chicago gains people, then there would be more money (taxes) to draw from to make improvements. If there were less people then things would be stagnant, or decline.

Do you think that if 100,000 fewer people were to ride the CTA on a daily basis there would be money to keep making improvements? Sure, it might be less crowded, but then there isn't a need or financial incentive to have as many runs per day… so things end up crowded again, but with fewer trains, buses, and longer headways.

[Freefall18]

And of course one of the main obstacles to getting a higher population is getting rid of the NIMBYs

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by chiMT

If it's 2.7million now, I'd say 2million would be perfect.

If they did something about traffic (on highways, streets, and lakefront) then maybe more people could work.

I'm surprised so many people want such a higher population. Do you guys not drive or bike or take public transit in Chicago? I suppose some people might like being smothered and taking forever to crawl to their destination...

Originally Posted by A2DAC1985

But the thing is, if Chicago lost 700,000 people, things wouldn't get better. Unless you're trying to do some sort of economic eugenics where the 700,000 poorest people are no longer living here. But that's not the discussion at hand (nor a solution).

If Chicago gains people, then there would be more money (taxes) to draw from to make improvements. If there were less people then things would be stagnant, or decline.

Do you think that if 100,000 fewer people were to ride the CTA on a daily basis there would be money to keep making improvements? Sure, it might be less crowded, but then there isn't a need or financial incentive to have as many runs per day… so things end up crowded again, but with fewer trains, buses, and longer headways.

A2DAC1985 is right. If Chicago bled another 700,000 people, you would not see an improvement in the quality of services you currently enjoy. Why run the buses or trains as often if no one is there to take them? Especially if the city had less money to run said services due to a depleted tax base.

Also, as the current census highlighted, those people wouldn't be fleeing the North Side neighborhoods in droves either. You'd just have the South and West Sides become even more empty, and the lake front bike path would still be as crowded as ever.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

3.5-4 million easily by simply building up depopulated neighborhoods of the west and south side to gentrified north side densities (these neighborhoods share similar housing stock, or at least did before much of the west and south sides housing was torn down.) That's without even densifying the newer S, SW, and NW side neighborhoods (bungalow belt).

This.

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by Freefall18

And of course one of the main obstacles to getting a higher population is getting rid of the NIMBYs

If you filled in all of the bombed out neighborhoods, you could probably add half million people pretty easily. Not many NIMBYs there.

[pvande55]

Three million. Theoretically you could squeeze more in but who wants to live at high density? Perhaps if there were better schools more would move in, if more business friendly more companies would set up shop, etc. Parts of the city are wasteland. For example, the East side has plenty of land but is filled with industrial waste.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

3.5-4 million easily by simply building up depopulated neighborhoods of the west and south side to gentrified north side densities (these neighborhoods share similar housing stock, or at least did before much of the west and south sides housing was torn down.) That's without even densifying the newer S, SW, and NW side neighborhoods (bungalow belt).

Imagine if Woodlawn, Washington Park, Englewood, North Lawndale, and Garfield Park were as densely populated as Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Unfortunately, lots of the historic housing which gives LP and LV their charm are no longer standing in these other neighborhoods, but some of it is, and these neighborhoods still have the el access which enabled them to have high density in the first place.

Here's a great graph that shows the massive population loss of the west side and south side neighborhoods near the el.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=6374

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Imagine if Woodlawn, Washington Park, Englewood, North Lawndale, and Garfield Park were as densely populated as Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Unfortunately, lots of the historic housing which gives LP and LV their charm are no longer standing in these other neighborhoods, but some of it is, and these neighborhoods still have the el access which enabled them to have high density in the first place.

Here's a great graph that shows the massive population loss of the west side and south side neighborhoods near the el.
SkyscraperPage Forum - View Single Post - CHICAGO: Transit developments

I would be interested to see how much that graph changes when including the 2010 Census data.