Would a declining population create a stronger Chicago? (Springfield, Jacksonville: insurance, loans)

[steeps]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

There will always be more people than jobs.

I don't know what you mean by "perpetual growth is unsustainable". Why is it "unsustainable" for a metro area to grow? Chicago has been growing perpetually basically since inception. Isn't it more "unsustainable" when areas have underused infrastructure, like you see on the South and West Sides?

And the economic data has already been posted. Chicago isn't losing "unskilled or less educated". That's the constant refrain being used when boosters are being confronted with population data. "Yeah but it's just poor ghetto dwellers on the South Side" is the basic premise (again, not supported by the economic numbers; Chicago's economic growth has been lagging for some time now, and still hasn't matched the pre-recession jobs totals, while the U.S. as a whole passed that milestone years ago; and local income growth has also been relatively slow).

You climb to accept the US CENSUS RIGHT?

USA TODAY article notes Cities with DECLINING BLACK POPULATIONS. IN cities.... It NOTES the CENSUS LOSSES OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS FOR CHICAGO.... It is also not all poor Black population either..... as THE CENSUS NOTES....

Black populations fall in major cities - USATODAY.com

The trend is playing out differently in Chicago. The city lost more than 200,000 residents, LAST CENSUS and more than 180,000 of them were African-American.....ACCORDING TO THE US CENSUS TOO.... In the metropolitan area, the black population fell 3.5% to 1.6 million, pushing it 66,000 below metro Atlanta's. Houston is also gaining a large African-American growth.....THEY ARE COMING FROM SOMEWHERE....

NO IT IS NOT MERELY MADE-UP BOÔSTERISM that DENIES WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS THE BULK OF THOSE LEAVING.... BUT FACTS OF THE US LAST CENSUS.....So you can adjust your claims as if ALL WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS LEAVING...... A lot is to do with REMOVAL of 10s of thousands of Chicago's NOW GONE HIGH-RISE PROJECTS... and only a FRACTION REPLACEMENT TOWNHOUSING...But a good portion WERE MIDDLE-CLASS AFRICN-AMERICANS..... Not mere White Middle-Class.

[marothisu]

^ Yes. The Black population of Chicago was by far, not even close, the group that lost the most people between 2000 and 2010 in the city of Chicago. It's not even close. Here's a look at the change from 2000 to 2010 for the groups:

* White (including white Hispanic people): -2480 people
* Black (including black Hispanic people): -177,401 people
* Asian: +21,190 people
* American Indian/Alaska Native: +3047 people
* Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: -775 people
* Two or more Races: -11,289 people
* Other: -32,710 people

* Hispanic, of any race: +25,218 people

SOURCE: American FactFinder
Table DP-1 for both 2000 and 2010.


If we instead took to compare to the 2014 1 Year ACS, then it would be like this:
* White (including white Hispanic people): +102,654 people
* Black (including black Hispanic people): -212,253 people
* Asian: +38,659 people
* American Indian/Alaska Native: -2723 people
* Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: -776 people
* Two or more Races: -19,359 people
* Other: -79,811 people

* Hispanic, of any race: +48,601 people

Source is same as above, but the table for 2014 data is DP05

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Here you go. Chicago distinguishing herself yet again. Per Brookings, we are the most segregated metropolitan area, and in Chicago, only white incomes are rising...

The most American city: Chicago, race, and inequality | Brookings Institution

Anyone with an IQ higher than a 2x4 could see the social problems from segregation coming starting about 30 years ago. Getting rid of some of this segregation is what really would create a stronger Chicago, not simply pushing the segregated and isolated out of the City.

"A great book...Chicago and other lesser towns that make up urban America may or may not die. But you won't understand why they hurt so much unless you read Boss" - Washington Post

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

"A great book...Chicago and other lesser towns that make up urban America may or may not die. But you won't understand why they hurt so much unless you read Boss" - Washington Post

Quoting an article from 44 years ago?

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...2,587904&hl=en

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Quoting an article from 44 years ago?

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...2,587904&hl=en

About a book written by the greatest columnist Chicago has ever seen, and ever will see. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Heck sometimes you can find cultural commentary about Chicago from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle that is just as relevant today. And that book was written 110 years ago.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

About a book written by the greatest columnist Chicago has ever seen, and ever will see. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Heck sometimes you can find cultural commentary about Chicago from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle that is just as relevant today. And that book was written 110 years ago.

Is that why you luv Chicago so...... in so many threads.....

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by emathias

With segregated schools you can bus kids around. With segregated neighborhoods what do you propose? Forcing people to move into areas where they'd be non-majority?

Chicago is not particularly more segregated than other large northern cities. Western cities and Sun-belt boom towns are less segregated because so much of their grow happened post-civil-rights era. Parts of Chicago that are least segregated today tend to be areas that are gentrifying. If you really wanted to speed up desegregation, you'd have to enable gentrification is solidly minority areas and there are really two ways to do that: 1) get, and keep, crime down in minority areas with high crime and 2) make sure that those areas have excellent transportation to jobs centers. If you do those things, places will eventually gentrify. But it takes decades, sometimes generations, for gentrification to really take hold.

The other way you can do it is to place micro-public-housing units in areas that will statistically result in some amount of integration. That can be tricky, though, politically because even people who are objectively not racist, can be stridently classist.

Fundamentally, we need to cause people to move around, yes. Busing would be pointless within the CPS because most middle/upper middle class parents in Chicago either send their kids to private schools or rely on magnet schools, which still should have high academic standards. So largely, you'd be busing them from one stinky school to another.

Now, if you want to talk about busing them to high performing districts in the suburbs, that could work. But you would first have to mitigate the risk of parents in those districts pulling their kids out of the system. As you point out, people are classist. The most affluent citizens of our region tend to be extremely liberal, but put a bunch of poor inner-city kids in class with their children and my guess is that you'd see a radical change in political philosophy pretty fast. You'd need to create a severe disincentive against doing that. Maybe a "school luxury" tax or something along those lines. You can segregate your child, but you're going to pay for it.

Another way is to eliminate crime and at least make the high poverty segregated neighborhoods safer, both for the current residents and potential new residents. Chicago inexplicably has not adopted the "community policing" methods that NYC used with success. Police union maybe? Regardless, I think the City could be doing more to reduce crime. That should be done no matter what.

Enhancing our public transit system is a no-brainer. We should be planning and building new L lines and improving bus service in the interim. A huge problem a lot of the south side (and to a lesser extent the west side) has is that it's quite isolated from the main job center. Unfortunately, there's mis-matched priorities where we spend our transportation dollars on new highways. Our government should recognize the clear shift to urban living and adapt accordingly.

[marothisu]

Unfortunately, the crime thing in the US is a lot more complex than most people think.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

"A great book...Chicago and other lesser towns that make up urban America may or may not die. But you won't understand why they hurt so much unless you read Boss" - Washington Post

You can learn quite a bit from Mike Royko, without question, and his understanding of Daley 1's political machine is 2nd to none, and quite fun to read. You can also learn a great deal about 20th century Chicago by reading Studs Terkel and Nelson Algren, too..

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ Yes. The Black population of Chicago was by far, not even close, the group that lost the most people between 2000 and 2010 in the city of Chicago. It's not even close. Here's a look at the change from 2000 to 2010 for the groups:

* White (including white Hispanic people): -2480 people
* Black (including black Hispanic people): -177,401 people
* Asian: +21,190 people
* American Indian/Alaska Native: +3047 people
* Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: -775 people
* Two or more Races: -11,289 people
* Other: -32,710 people

* Hispanic, of any race: +25,218 people

SOURCE: American FactFinder
Table DP-1 for both 2000 and 2010.


If we instead took to compare to the 2014 1 Year ACS, then it would be like this:
* White (including white Hispanic people): +102,654 people
* Black (including black Hispanic people): -212,253 people
* Asian: +38,659 people
* American Indian/Alaska Native: -2723 people
* Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: -776 people
* Two or more Races: -19,359 people
* Other: -79,811 people

* Hispanic, of any race: +48,601 people

Source is same as above, but the table for 2014 data is DP05

These numbers aren't accurate.

In the 2010 Census, Chicago lost about 25,000 white people, which was the greatest loss of any major U.S. city. Chicago, overall, lost over 200,000 residents in the last Census. The white loss is particularly notable in that whites concentrate either downtown (unlikely to have losses) and in the "cop" neighborhoods (where legally they can't leave). Yet despite this Chicago has greater white losses than other cities (even though those other cities generally don't have residence laws forcing people to stay).

And I still don't get the race-related "spin". Black people are people just like anyone else. Population loss isn't "better" if it's people not of your race.
Population loss is population loss, regardless. More expensive, more gentrified cities don't seem to be having the same issues.

The fact is that Chicago has, by far, the most problematic population trends of any Top 10 U.S. city. Rahm is toast, so what is Chicago's next mayor going to do about it?