Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year, (Highland, Phoenix: tax, to live in)

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yeah, and at the same time it doesn't mean that the city will get less money from taxes or anything. The replacement people could merely spend more money on goods and services that are taxable than the family. You know - who knows how often it happens but it's definitely a reality in some senses.

Yes but growing cities like NYC and LA are getting both the wealthy small families and keeping the low-moderate income families. The best way to revitalize places like Austin and North Lawndale is population growth which will push up land values and real estate prices.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Yes but growing cities like NYC and LA are getting both the wealthy small families and keeping the low-moderate income families. The best way to revitalize places like Austin and North Lawndale is population growth which will push up land values and real estate prices.

I wasn't talking about in respect to that. I was talking about it in general. Anybody who looks at only population for a city and thinks they can tell what's actually going on in the city based off of just that is nothing short of naive and stupid.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by BRU67

It also has to do with demographics. This has been said on here several times but I'll just say it again. In general, the more affluent households in our present economy tend to be small. So, when a low-moderate income family in Humboldt Park sells to a young yuppie couple and moves to Elmwood Park, and a similar thing is repeated several times in the same area (as will tend to happen), the population of the City will go down. That's not cause for panic but, rather, a simple representation of a changing reality.

True if the housing units stay equal. Unfortunately in Chicago, it often also results in a decrease of housing units (2&3 flats become SFH). When that isn't offset by an increase in units elsewhere in the neighborhood (and neighborhood groups seem to always fight multi-unit development), the city is worse off for it.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

True if the housing units stay equal. Unfortunately in Chicago, it often also results in a decrease of housing units (2&3 flats become SFH). When that isn't offset by an increase in units elsewhere in the neighborhood (and neighborhood groups seem to always fight multi-unit development), the city is worse off for it.

I've been thinking about that lately - it won't always result in decreased density either. And in the end, the tax burden for the entire building will probably stay around the same.

[compactspace]

Originally Posted by AtlasTraveler

It all comes full circle. Look at Oakland and Brooklyn. Once in absolute decline and now they're the bell of the ball. Look at SF... Was in absolute decline and now it's the most expensive place in the U.S.

Chicago is a great city with amazing transportation. It is still a World City, etc.

Today in a meeting at my company in SF, one of our VPs was mentioning how Chicago is a steal. I have to agree. Economic exuberance always runs out and people become rational. Chicago real estate is an absolute steal and those buying it up will have their day.

I would agree with this.

If Chicago can get its fiscal house in order, rein in its NIMBYs and fend off suburban-themed developments then it should see a renaissance. That said, it needs people. Soon.

The city has such great potential for vibrancy and street-life. It's reasonably priced and largely very urban. And there's so much beautiful housing stock, well-connected to transit, that's lying fallow. Much of it would be perfect for law-abiding working class and creative class people looking for the urban life that's so rare in the States. (Sunbelt cities are not the pattern to follow. Right-wingery scares off talented people.)

Make it happen, Chicago.

[MassVt]

Chicago's housing stock is a nice mix of old and new, i.e 19th-century clapboards along with 1920-30s bungalows, and small ranch homes from the post-war period. If you enjoy density, there's plenty of that in Chicago, but there's also more personal space too, as represented in the bungalows and ranches mentioned above.

[steeps]

All this debate on Chicago GAINING 82? How about Italian cities losing?

Italian municipalities:

1981:
Rome - 2,840,259
Milan - 1,604,773
Napoli - 1,212,387
Turin - 1,117,154
Genoa - 762,895
Bologna - 459,080
Florence - 448,331
Bari - 371,022
Catania - 380,328
Venice - 346,146
Trieste - 252,369
Cagliari - 233,848

2011:
Rome - 2,617,175
Milan - 1,242,123
Napoli - 962,003
Turin - 872,367
Genoa - 586,180
Bologna - 371,337
Florence - 358,079
Bari - 315,933
Catania - 293,902
Venice - 261,362
Trieste - 202,123
Cagliari - 149,576

All of them lost more than 50k Big and smaller cities. Of course over decades... but still it is in Europe too. Should we lessen Rome?

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by steeps

All this debate on Chicago GAINING 82? How about Italian cities losing?

Chicago lost far more residents than every one of those Italian cities. So not exactly a good example.

Chicago lost many hundreds of thousands of residents during the same time period.

Originally Posted by steeps

Should we lessen Rome?

Yup. Italy hasn't exactly been an outperformer lately. Rome is well known as an economic laggard.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Chicago lost far more residents than every one of those Italian cities. So not exactly a good example.

Chicago lost many hundreds of thousands of residents during the same time period.

Yup. Italy hasn't exactly been an outperformer lately. Rome is well known as an economic laggard.

Just a reminder ..... you were fine with a Chicago increase of 82. Because it goes with bias of OVERALL DECLINE. BUT STATICTICS ARE ALWAYS GOOD EXAMPLES. But do not say it all.. especially in populations.
European cities also have their issues. At least some American cities WITH LOWER OVERALL GROWTH NUMBERS. Still have HAD BOOMING CORES. But that statistic can be irreverent to some? With Metro growth irreverent too, when they have already argue against that city and disregard others statistics here.

Again I am still in awe of you arguing over Chicago NOT LOSING BLACK RESIDENTS. But only White middle-class. NOT accepting others statistics and validity.

There are those who do claim the 200,000 Drop last census for Chicago may have had considerable under-counting. That will never be known and still now irreverent. You would argue it was accurate. Even intellectual and those who claim living in many nations. Are not without their own bias and would disregard statistics that go against personal bias.

Also NOTE PARIS IS LOSING POPULATION. Europeans just blame COST THERE. NOT ARGUE IT IS WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS.

But thank you for 2 rare replies now. I was respectful and nothing personal meant in this reply.

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by steeps

Just a reminder ..... you were fine with a Chicago increase of 82. Because it goes with bias of OVERALL DECLINE. BUT STATICTICS ARE ALWAYS GOOD EXAMPLES. But do not say it all.. especially in populations.
European cities also have their issues. At least some American cities WITH LOWER OVERALL GROWTH NUMBERS. Still have HAD BOOMING CORES. But that statistic can be irreverent to some? With Metro growth irreverent too, when they have already argue against that city and disregard others statistics here.

Again I am still in awe of you arguing over Chicago NOT LOSING BLACK RESIDENTS. But only White middle-class. NOT accepting others statistics and validity.

There are those who do claim the 200,000 Drop last census for Chicago may have had considerable under-counting. That will never be known and still now irreverent. You would argue it was accurate. Even intellectual and those who claim living in many nations. Are not without their own bias and would disregard statistics that go against personal bias.

Also NOTE PARIS IS LOSING POPULATION. Europeans just blame COST THERE. NOT ARGUE IT IS WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS.

But thank you for 2 rare replies now. I was respectful and nothing personal meant in this reply.

Your excessive use of caps makes your posts annoying to read. Only the first letter of each sentence and proper nouns should be capitalized, anything after that is for emphasis. But you can't emphasize half a whole sentence again and again.