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.
It grew about 34k from 2010 to 2014....not bad. Even last year, it posted growth of 4k annually, much better than just 82 people that Chicago shown on the estimates.
That's great but like I said, those other metro's are growing much faster. Anyway, Chicago is treading water at this point. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Exactly....the underlying intent of the original post is so obvious....it's funny though....it's actually not mostly poor blacks that are leaving...usually, they're too broke to actually run away....it's actually the working middle class blacks that are leaving who actually do pay taxes and who are law-abiding citizens, but people from Chicago won't differentiate that because again...it's a very racist city.
Atlanta, NYC, D.C. Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston all have large black populations, yet they're posting fantastic population growth numbers. There's zero excuses for Chicago. World class cities provide for all different types of peoples, not just a one or two.
I never believe the Chicago spin anyways but it's not an exodus of poor blacks leaving the city and, agree, that the ''poor'' tend to stay put. The Chicago spin knows no bounds.
Chicago's real threat is the fleeing middle class of all races.
Exactly....the underlying intent of the original post is so obvious....it's funny though....it's actually not mostly poor blacks that are leaving...usually, they're too broke to actually run away....it's actually the working middle class blacks that are leaving who actually do pay taxes and who are law-abiding citizens, but people from Chicago won't differentiate that because again...it's a very racist city.
Atlanta, NYC, D.C. Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston all have large black populations, yet they're posting fantastic population growth numbers. There's zero excuses for Chicago. World class cities provide for all different types of peoples, not just a one or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamms
I never believe the Chicago spin anyways but it's not an exodus of poor blacks leaving the city and, agree, that the ''poor'' tend to stay put. The Chicago spin knows no bounds.
Chicago's real threat is the fleeing middle class of all races.
Atlanta, Dallas and Houston are all Southern states and as such drawing direct population growth number comparisons with them is, at best, complicated.
Washington's growth has a lot to do with the ebb and flow of government and, more recently, the explosion of lobbyists.
Philly and NYC are fair comparisons.
New York is growing overall but actually losing African American population. Philadelphia's black population numbers are essentially stable, although it's possible that because their "foreign-born" population is growing that their African American population could be declining slightly. At any rate, it's certainly not going up or down dramatically.
And I don't think most serious demographics lovers are saying that it's all poor blacks leaving. It is fairly obvious that it is mostly people from neighborhoods that are predominantly populated by poor blacks that are losing population, though. But a lot of serious demographics wonks actually assume that it is the African American middle class in the city moving to the suburbs much in the same way that prior to 1990 the white middle class was moving en mass to the suburbs.
-------------------------
Chicagoans worry about population loss, and for good reason - all things being equal, you don't want to lose population. Now, the primary reason Chicago has lost population since it peaked in about 1950 has been a reduction in household sizes, which has been happening across the country. Adults make up a much higher percentage of populations almost everywhere than they did a century ago, and Chicago still is at or near peak number of households. And the greater downtown area of Chicago is one of the fastest-growing downtown regions of any city in America. In the last census, the area within 2 miles of City Hall added over 36% in population despite at the same time losing thousands of public housing units in that area an the financial crisis freezing new development for several years. Between 1990 and 2010, the greater downtown area grew by 114%. Since then, construction in the greater downtown area has resume.
Chicago has lost 24.9% of its population since peak. That puts it in similar company to places like Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Milan, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Boston, and Washington.
Consider Paris - from its peak population, it has lost 22.9% of its population. Both Chicago and Paris have had some years of growth along the way, but the trend has been down since peak. Is Paris worse off than it was at peak population? Probably not. Different, to be sure, but not worse. I think the same can be said of the other cities I mention.
But consider bigger-loss cities. Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Cleveland have all lost over 50% of their population since their peaks. And internationally you can add Manchester, Liverpool and Glasglow to that list as having lost nearly half. These are the cities that have truly struggled, where population declines far eclipse simple demographic changes.
Does Chicago have challenges? Yes it does. Does losing population hurt it? Certainly. Can it survive the population loss it has sustained, even thrive during and after? If the experience of similar cities is any indication, then it absolutely can.
Consider Paris - from its peak population, it has lost 22.9% of its population. Both Chicago and Paris have had some years of growth along the way, but the trend has been down since peak. Is Paris worse off than it was at peak population? Probably not. Different, to be sure, but not worse. I think the same can be said of the other cities I mention.
You can't really compare Chicago and Paris though. Even today, Paris has a population density of 55,000 people per square mile. It's way more developed and urban than Chicago. There are huge swathes of Chicago that have emptied out. That's certainly not the case with Paris.
You can't really compare Chicago and Paris though. Even today, Paris has a population density of 55,000 people per square mile. It's way more developed and urban than Chicago. There are huge swathes of Chicago that have emptied out. That's certainly not the case with Paris.
There are huge swaths of Paris that have emptied out, too, it's just not as visible as in Chicago because Paris, unlike Chicago. didn't tear down huge swaths of infrastructure. The difference is that Paris population declined in a more even manner, whereas Chicago has areas that have had HUGE losses of population while at the same time has areas that have gained large amounts of population. Part of the reason that happened is that Paris was more built out, and also because Paris has not embraced highrises in the traditional footprint of the city, forcing new arrivals to move into areas where people were leaving eliminating the need to destroy infrastructure and maintaining active uses over the entire city. Chicago's urban renewal plans and willingness to tear down entire blocks of neighborhoods has caused a kind of blight that is harder to recover from. In many ways, an active slum is far more desirable for a city than an urban prairie, a lesson many American cities never learned. New York also benefited from not tearing down infrastructure nearly as much as Chicago did. Sure, the Bronx burned, but the rest of the New York has not had mass teardowns of disruptions of its urban fabric.
So the comparison to Paris is very instructive - Chicago should do whatever it can to avoid tearing down existing buildings, and taxes and other policy tools should be used to try to keep structures active whenever possible. While it is easier to build new on empty lots, it's much easier to get a few homesteaders to move into existing, low-rent buildings and rehab them themselves than it is to get people to invest in new construction in a decimated neighborhood.
There are huge swaths of Paris that have emptied out, too, it's just not as visible as in Chicago because Paris, unlike Chicago. didn't tear down huge swaths of infrastructure. The difference is that Paris population declined in a more even manner, whereas Chicago has areas that have had HUGE losses of population while at the same time has areas that have gained large amounts of population. Part of the reason that happened is that Paris was more built out, and also because Paris has not embraced highrises in the traditional footprint of the city, forcing new arrivals to move into areas where people were leaving eliminating the need to destroy infrastructure and maintaining active uses over the entire city. Chicago's urban renewal plans and willingness to tear down entire blocks of neighborhoods has caused a kind of blight that is harder to recover from. In many ways, an active slum is far more desirable for a city than an urban prairie, a lesson many American cities never learned. New York also benefited from not tearing down infrastructure nearly as much as Chicago did. Sure, the Bronx burned, but the rest of the New York has not had mass teardowns of disruptions of its urban fabric.
So the comparison to Paris is very instructive - Chicago should do whatever it can to avoid tearing down existing buildings, and taxes and other policy tools should be used to try to keep structures active whenever possible. While it is easier to build new on empty lots, it's much easier to get a few homesteaders to move into existing, low-rent buildings and rehab them themselves than it is to get people to invest in new construction in a decimated neighborhood.
I don't follow any bit of this. "So the comparison to Paris is very instructive - Chicago should do whatever it can..." - why? just because you say so?
Paris is 5x's as dense as Chicago. And they have "embraced highrises in the traditional footprint of the city". Do you know what that says to me? That Paris is a VERY desirable city to live in versus Chicago, and Chicago's area is much more sprawling.
Maybe Chicago hasn't "embraced highrises" because there is no demand to.
I don't follow any bit of this. "So the comparison to Paris is very instructive - Chicago should do whatever it can..." - why? just because you say so?
Paris is 5x's as dense as Chicago. And they have "embraced highrises in the traditional footprint of the city".
...
Having just returned from Paris, I can assure you that while there are a couple actual highrises within the traditional footprint of Paris, and there are a number of what we'd probably call midrises in a few areas of Paris, Paris has in no way anywhere near the number of highrises of even smaller American cities. La Defense is not within the traditional footprint of the city.
If you're going to disagree, at least get your facts straight.
The differing densities mean f***-all when it comes to comparing strategies to deal with population loss. Part of the problem with Chicago's population loss has been the destruction of infrastructure, because that makes the demolished areas more difficult to re-use to accommodate newly arriving populations, extending the period of time when those sections of the city will recover. Anyone talking only about density is missing the point I'm making about infrastructure being key to both retaining existing and enticing new residents.
As far as "why - just because you say so," goes, I think you apparently lack basic comprehension of what a discussion board is for. Why should you even post here, "just because you say so?"
Paris can't be very instructive because Paris exists in a very different context. It's the capital of a strongly centralized government that is much more protectionist than the US and Paris itself is a pretty strong beneficiary being the capital city. Chicago can't embark on the kind of major potentially net-benefit projects that Paris and even smaller French cities can with greater ease because the federal government is somewhat limited in how much funding it can allow for such. Neither Chicago, nor Cook County, nor Illinois can enact funding and/or protectionist measures in the same way because it does not have wide-ranging authority to do so and attempts to do so, such as passing additional taxes to fund infrastructural improvements or social remediation measures can be easily undercut by people and businesses uprooting to elsewhere in the US oftentimes with other cities or states actively trying to poach businesses away.
The only real obvious measures that can be taken from Paris are certain innovations that are relatively easy to implement such as the bikeshare program as larger lessons that would be far more helpful, such as converting Metra into a much more useful through-running secondary rapid transit system running similarly to the RER (which Chicago and a handful of other US cities have much of the pre-existing infrastructure to put in place) would require a kind of funding commitment and regulatory changes that the US as a whole is currently unequipped to do and unwilling to progress.
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.
