Visting Chicago after 23 years (2013, neighborhoods, vouchers)

[steeps]

Yes this along the Chicago River virtually all was not there 23 years ago

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8882...5cRA!2e0?hl=en

In Millennium Park

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8820...!2e0!3e5?hl=en

[UC18]

OP, I'm curious to know what kept you away for so long, especially since you live relatively close in Iowa?

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by Attrill

There are loads of changes downtown - Millennium Park, the new wing at AIC, a lot of work has been done along the river, State St. is actually a street again, and a lot of new buildings (Trump, Aqua, Spertus, and plenty more).

In terms of gentrification I think the areas that have changed the most noticeably are along the Blue Line. If you were familiar with Division between Ashland and Western you won't recognize it today. Large stretches of Milwaukee between Chicago and Diversey are very different. University Village and Pilsen have changed quite a bit. The West Loop (especially along Randolph) is incredibly different.

The areas around Cabrini and Robert Taylor have changed, but they're more empty than gentrified (although there are a bunch of new townhouses beginning to fill in the Cabrini lots). It's tough to say where most of the residents went, but the shift to section 8 vouchers allowed people to move to wherever they chose. Chicago lost 200,00 residents between 2000-2010 (including over 180,000 black residents), and some of that is likely connected to the demolition of projects.

Most of the Cabrini and Robert Taylor residents are still in the city--likely further west and southwest in areas that have seen an increase in poverty. The big group that left were middle income residents (generally black and white). Their numbers are down almost 300,000. The next biggest loss is poor (mostly African American), but those losses are considerably lower. These losses were partially offset by wealth moving back into the city.

[Gemini1963]

Originally Posted by Attrill

In terms of gentrification I think the areas that have changed the most noticeably are along the Blue Line . . . .

This reminds me: Here's a quick summary of the new L route names since you left (something I had to get used after I returned after a long spell, like you are doing):

October 2, 1994 - The CTA officially changes the last of its route names to color designations. (Routes still have proper names, however.) The lines are now as follows: Red Line (Howard-Dan Ryan); Blue Line (O'Hare-Forest Park-54/Cermak); Orange Line (Midway); Brown Line (Ravenswood); Purple Line (Evanston); Green Line (Lake-Ashland/63-East 63rd); and Yellow Line (Skokie Swift).

(Here's the link I got this from, in case anyone wants to check it:
Chicago ''L''.org: History - CTA Chronology (1947-present) )

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by UC18

OP, I'm curious to know what kept you away for so long, especially since you live relatively close in Iowa?

I'm from Iowa City and wondered that too - it's a very easy 3.5 hour trip straight over on I-88 and I-80. I've done the drive a hundred times, or taken the quick 35 minute flight from O'hare if I find cheap tickets.

Like everyone else said, the northwest side is fairly similar, the northern lakefront and downtown/near south and near west sides are completely different.

South and West sides are still a mess for the most part, although I think people really underestimate a huge swath of the south side. It might have higher crime rates, but a lot of it LOOKS really nice still and totally put together. Get away from the "ground zero" spots around Washington Park, Englewood, Garfield Park and North Lawndale areas and most of the south side is very physically intact.

Not really sure where the 200,000 projects residents went, although I'm guessing most of them are still around, people just didn't bother to fill out any census requests as opposed to the projects where you're counted by the city itself.

Crime is much lower city-wide for the most part since the 1970's through the early 1990's. It has a reputation now, but people who say it's sky high don't know anything on its past. From what you say about crime I agree the feelings and dynamics are the same, a vast majoriy of it is concentrated and criminals going after criminals. I moved here from Iowa City in 2001 and I have never found myself personally afraid of crime or violence. Lived in Logan Square, Uptown and now Lakeview. Take public transit everywhere day and night - never once felt any fear on that.

The population dynamics have changed a lot. Of the 200,000 people lost in the 2010 census, 180,000 were blacks, and to narrow it down more, 115,000 of the total amount was just blacks under the age of 19. Quite a small slice of the pie to represent almost 60% of the total decline. The other big loss was elderly white people, whos numbers were backfilled with a 40,000 increase in whites aged 0-34.


People lament the decline in population and what it means for the economy, but it's interesting that when you look at the numbers, the declines were all in people too young to have a job, or elderly people who were most likely retired.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Most of the Cabrini and Robert Taylor residents are still in the city--likely further west and southwest in areas that have seen an increase in poverty. The big group that left were middle income residents (generally black and white). Their numbers are down almost 300,000. The next biggest loss is poor (mostly African American), but those losses are considerably lower. These losses were partially offset by wealth moving back into the city.

I just read an article that about 40% of the former CHA residents that had to move out due to the Plan for Transformation are unaccounted for. CHA has no idea where they are. They didn't take vouchers and don't live in the replacement housing.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

I'm from Iowa City and wondered that too - it's a very easy 3.5 hour trip straight over on I-88 and I-80. I've done the drive a hundred times, or taken the quick 35 minute flight from O'hare if I find cheap tickets.

Like everyone else said, the northwest side is fairly similar, the northern lakefront and downtown/near south and near west sides are completely different.

South and West sides are still a mess for the most part, although I think people really underestimate a huge swath of the south side. It might have higher crime rates, but a lot of it LOOKS really nice still and totally put together. Get away from the "ground zero" spots around Washington Park, Englewood, Garfield Park and North Lawndale areas and most of the south side is very physically intact.

Not really sure where the 200,000 projects residents went, although I'm guessing most of them are still around, people just didn't bother to fill out any census requests as opposed to the projects where you're counted by the city itself.

Crime is much lower city-wide for the most part since the 1970's through the early 1990's. It has a reputation now, but people who say it's sky high don't know anything on its past. From what you say about crime I agree the feelings and dynamics are the same, a vast majoriy of it is concentrated and criminals going after criminals. I moved here from Iowa City in 2001 and I have never found myself personally afraid of crime or violence. Lived in Logan Square, Uptown and now Lakeview. Take public transit everywhere day and night - never once felt any fear on that.

The population dynamics have changed a lot. Of the 200,000 people lost in the 2010 census, 180,000 were blacks, and to narrow it down more, 115,000 of the total amount was just blacks under the age of 19. Quite a small slice of the pie to represent almost 60% of the total decline. The other big loss was elderly white people, whos numbers were backfilled with a 40,000 increase in whites aged 0-34.


People lament the decline in population and what it means for the economy, but it's interesting that when you look at the numbers, the declines were all in people too young to have a job, or elderly people who were most likely retired.

Looking at the latest ACS numbers, Hispanics, Asians and whites are all growing since 2010. It looks like the City is still losing African Americans though.

[marothisu]

I think this was partially, indirectly touched on, but also education of the city. The population in 1990 is less than 100,000 more than what it was in 2010 and maybe 60,000 more than it was estimated for 2013. However, there are over 250,000 more people today with a Bachelor's degree or higher versus 1990.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

...
Not really sure where the 200,000 projects residents went, although I'm guessing most of them are still around, people just didn't bother to fill out any census requests as opposed to the projects where you're counted by the city itself.
...

I can with absolute iron clad certainty that there is NO WAY that there are any residents that simply have not filled forms that can account for the massive depopulation of Chicago's less desirable areas. Quite the opposite, there are HUGE political dynasties the heavily demand on the inflation of population numbers to support their ability to hold onto office. It has been poorly reported in Chicago that there are enormous irregularities in who the Census Bureau as accounted for residents in many parts of the the city -- Chicago Census Bureau shrouded by mystery | New York Post

[marothisu]

Censuses are messed up all around the world and there are probably thousands of people not accounted for in the census in any given large city in the US (also pretty much anywhere in the world). On the flip side, there are numerous cities, probably more common in other countries, with people registered in the cities that actually live elsewhere (I know this goes on in a big way in Turkey for example). The allocation of monies relies on these things - so it can be a big deal especially when many people recognize it (though it's obvious many people in the US have no idea why a Census is actually taken).

Anyway, as far as the question of where did the people go? There's a lot of things being thrown around here like facts but they aren't. Just because there are 20,000 less people in 2010 who are between the age of 36 and 44 doesn't mean that the people moved away. The census accounts for who is there at the time, not who moved necessarily. Who moved is a lot more different of a question that we don't have much data on in reality other than who is in the city at that moment in time (relatively accurate though not absolutely 100% accurate in any sizable city).