Would a declining population create a stronger Chicago? (Time: crime rate, wages)

[KoNgFooCj]

I think in most ways it will. For instance as the city becomes more expensive and family sizes shrunk, the city will be filled with more productive professionals. This will boost economic output and gross domestic product. The city will also become safer.

Then later on, when the City is safer and more productive (like NYC for example) it will become an international magnet for more professionals and even more diverse incomes. So I do think that the city needs to shrink a little bit before it can grow again. And if Chicago does want to grow again, more higher density housing will need to be built.

[personone]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

I think in most ways it will. For instance as the city becomes more expensive and family sizes shrunk, the city will be filled with more productive professionals. This will boost economic output and gross domestic product. The city will also become safer.

Then later on, when the City is safer and more productive (like NYC for example) it will become an international magnet for more professionals and even more diverse incomes. So I do think that the city needs to shrink a little bit before it can grow again. And if Chicago does want to grow again, more higher density housing will need to be built.

You seem to like this topic, as you've been bumping old threads on this. The example you have given has already happened in Chicago's core (downtown and adjacent neighborhoods). Tons more professionals moving in, booming development and international investment. Huge economic output and growth in all business sectors.

Although, I would argue as I always have, that you still need the other parts of Chicago to thrive and get better for a sustained, productive city. Other parts of the city that relied on manufacturing and other blue collar jobs, need more economic options and investment. But in order for that to happen, those neighborhoods need to be safer. That would stop population loss and set up a pipeline for continued growth and development throughout the city, which will lead to even more investment and prosperity.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Those are not liberal cities. You're conflating "votes Democrat" with "liberal".

Which is completely wrong to do, yes. Amen!

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by edsg25

BRU, I hope that in the original post, i got across the very points you raise (and raise so well) here: Chicago has failed its inner city, and any sense of gain from the loss of population needs to reflect this very failure.

The very meaning of the word "inner city" has changed. Inner-city Chicago is vibrant and mostly unaffordable. It's the outer city that's suffering.

[Chicago South Sider]

I think the op grew up in the Jim Crow era. He was probably fantasizing about the good old days when he made this post.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

I think in most ways it will. For instance as the city becomes more expensive and family sizes shrunk, the city will be filled with more productive professionals. This will boost economic output and gross domestic product. The city will also become safer.

Then later on, when the City is safer and more productive (like NYC for example) it will become an international magnet for more professionals and even more diverse incomes. So I do think that the city needs to shrink a little bit before it can grow again. And if Chicago does want to grow again, more higher density housing will need to be built.

Maybe. Maybe not. The problem is, even though we've got what, two hundred years of experience with large cities in the USA, you can't look solely at history to predict the future. For instance, at one time, Seattle was thought to be a "dying craphole". Then Microsoft, Starbucks, and other large companies gave it new life, and it has eclipsed Chicago in the past two decades with respect to real estate prices and "desirability". The other side of that same coin is Detroit. Declining industry, fleeing population, and urban decay has left it as a shell of its former self. Can it ever return to its former glory? Doubtful. California is going to be very interesting to watch in the next twenty years, with so many businesses leaving it for Texas (or so they say).

I haven't researched it much, but it sure does seem like we are in a period of "extraordinary" domestic migration currently, such as happened in the early 20th century when there was a huge migration of African Americans from southern to northern states (partly to flee Jim Crow, but mostly, I think, for economic opportunities). It seems that with the Baby Boomers relocating for retirement, and people fleeing certain states (New York, Illinois, New Jersey and California are the biggest, I think), and others growing in population (Florida, Arizona, Colorado and Texas have probably grown the fastest), the country is changing dramatically. Where Chicago will land in all this is anyone's guess. But I can tell you that the huge legacy costs (debt) in Illinois (and the Chicago area will end up paying the lion's share of it) are going to be very large detriments to future growth.

[ToriaT]

Its only a matter of time where people will begin to move back to Chicago or stay here. Climate change, water shortages and people sick of the west coast fires etc. will change people's perceptions and they will want to live here.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by ToriaT

Its only a matter of time where people will begin to move back to Chicago or stay here. Climate change, water shortages and people sick of the west coast fires etc. will change people's perceptions and they will want to live here.

It's going to take serious reform to make Chicago an overall more desirable place to live, not some hypothetical climate change.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by ToriaT

Its only a matter of time where people will begin to move back to Chicago or stay here. Climate change, water shortages and people sick of the west coast fires etc. will change people's perceptions and they will want to live here.

People tend to either move where they can get the best "deal" (housing per dollar, services per dollar, desirable work / wages, etc.), or where they have family or history, or believe they can attain some imagined "standard of living" (near the arts, beautiful scenery, entertainment options, good health care, areas with low crime, etc.). The Chicago area has some things that make it a very desirable place to live. It also has some serious faults. Unless it can keep the former and minimize the latter going forward, the recent trends will continue. I'd say that its largest detriments currently are the obscene property taxes, the (mostly perceived) high crime rate (very bad in some neighborhoods, not bad at all in most), and the huge debt that has the potential to drive ever-higher taxes, which may or may not restrict further economic growth.

"Climate change", while real, is not going to be driving immigration for many years. If it makes the Great Lakes region a more desirable place to live, there are a whole lot of other cities located on them that may or may not offer a better "deal" than Chicago by the time the effects take hold.

[raleightransplant]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

People tend to either move where they can get the best "deal" (housing per dollar, services per dollar, desirable work / wages, etc.), or where they have family or history, or believe they can attain some imagined "standard of living" (near the arts, beautiful scenery, entertainment options, good health care, areas with low crime, etc.). The Chicago area has some things that make it a very desirable place to live. It also has some serious faults. Unless it can keep the former and minimize the latter going forward, the recent trends will continue. I'd say that its largest detriments currently are the obscene property taxes, the (mostly perceived) high crime rate (very bad in some neighborhoods, not bad at all in most), and the huge debt that has the potential to drive ever-higher taxes, which may or may not restrict further economic growth.

"Climate change", while real, is not going to be driving immigration for many years. If it makes the Great Lakes region a more desirable place to live, there are a whole lot of other cities located on them that may or may not offer a better "deal" than Chicago by the time the effects take hold.

Thoughtful post.