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.
The Census Bureau's 2014-2015 estimate showed Chicagoland losing some population. Granted it was just an estimate, and their estimates have been wrong before, but it is what it is.
It doesn't mean Chicago is dying or anything though. Another poster compiled the population fluctuations year over year for America's large metros in the City vs City forum, and both NYC's MSA and LA's MSA had multiple negative growth years in the 00s. This is the first time Chicago's MSA has had a negative year since the 80s, so we'll have to see how long it lasts.
i'm lost, NOLA, but I usually am when you post. Everything I goggled came up with the same stat's for the last two census years.......2000 comes in as 9,098,316 and 2010 as 9,461,105. that's more than a 350,000 gain.
meanwhile the 2015 estimate was 9,554,598....which is only an estimate, but even as an estimate, it is up.
Where is the population loss you speak of?
All cities/metro areas grow and contract. Growth is never constant and luckily for us, it is not. The only thing that grows continuously is cancer. Honestly, NOLA, I can't understand you one bit. You make no sense to me. You are obsessed with a city/metro area that you neither like, have anything good to say about, or believe it has any kind of future, so you come here and throw around the most ridiculous, absurd crap about the place.
You are driven by your hate and disgust for Chicago and seek only to tear it down. It's a joke, NOLA.....we in Chicago and Chicagoland are blessed, utterly blessed, by having one of the greatest, most dynamic, diverse, culturally rich, economic powerhouse, architectural gem, eclectic, cities in America.......sitting there in the rarified and short listed air at the apex of urban america. it's a helluva of (toddling') town, world class alpha metropolis that is strong and major force to be reckoned with....now/today.....and very, very, ever-so-very well, well into the future. I travel coast-to-coast and if people find out i'm from chicago, i invariably get the same response: what a fantastic city, i love the place, Chicago's incredible.
Jeez, man, can't you find better things to do with your time than endlessly spewing your over-the-top negativity and garbage about Chicago, the city you obsess over, on a virtual daily basis here.
I agree. There is no secret that baby boomers are retiring and moving to warmer climates. Also young couples starting families tend to move to the suburbs for better schools. There is no mass exodus happening in Chicago like people want you to believe. In the near future, I am sure many young professionals like myself will consider Chicago over other mega cities due to the lower COL. As a matter of fact, below are my reasons to support why I will be moving there in 2 months:
Chicago offers far more than Atlanta (Currently). It offers a great lifestyle for far less when compared to SF, LA, Boston and NY.
Many of my associates & friends, whom left Atlanta for Chicago, do not have any plans on coming back, unless if it is something family related.
I can potentially make $20,000 to $30,000 more annually in Chicago and the cost of living is only roughly $8,000 more a year that Atlanta. I am frugal so a small COL increase will not harm me.
I am tired of driving 90 mile round trips just to socialize with family and friends, so Chicago's public transportation is ideal for me at this point.
When you factor in car payment, tag, taxes, fuel, insurance and maintenance, I pay on the average about $700 a month for car transportation in Atlanta. Before moving I can sell my car and potentially free up $700 a month for investments.
Everything is in close proximity so a family with two cars in many sprawling cities can get by with just one in Chicago.
The food options are great.
Chicago offers great options for bikers, something Atlanta is still 20 years behind on.
Access to Lake Michigan and not being landlocked.
So overall, here is my thought process. While people may feel Chicago is on its last leg, others will find ways to seize opportunities there.
Chicago is a city of polar opposites. For some (most likely those posting on this thread), Chicago is a growing city with a tremendous building boom going on.
For others, Chicago is a violent, dilapidated city, with neighborhoods in shambles.
I can't think of any reason to think losing 1 million residents is ok; it's really sad driving through neighborhoods like Austin or Englewood and seeing literally abandoned houses for miles.
The loss of architecture is alone a terrible shame.
For those that dismiss the negative effects of Chicago's well known lawless south and west sides while they enjoy the comforts of their affluent nearer to the lake neighborhoods north of the Loop I would suggest they read up what others have found by examining other violence seemingly driven by warring drug gangs -- The Real Reason Behind Rising Violence in Mexico City | Americas Quarterly
Quote:
... the study detects a very strong relationship between high-crime areas and what criminologists refer to as “social disorganization” and “institutional anomie.” Put succinctly, crime rates are positively correlated with underdevelopment, income inequality, voter turn-out and, especially, the extent of family cohesion.
... narco-trafficking gangs are only part of the problem. A particularly robust predictor of violent crime is family disruption, especially the proportion of female-headed households.
And why do I focus on the lack of employment options in the violent areas of the south & west sides?
In Chicago, 47 percent of 20- to 24-year-old black men were out of work and out of school in 2014, compared with 20 percent of Hispanics and 10 percent of whites. The rate for black men in Chicago was higher than in New York and Los Angeles.
The highest rates of unemployment in Chicago were in South and West side neighborhoods that also have some of the highest rates of poverty and crime — Englewood, East Garfield Park and North Lawndale.
[quote=McdonaldIndy;43830844]The utter desperation and sugar coating by Die-Hard Chicagoans has reached new highs today.
Problem Solving rule 101: In order to solve a problem you must first ACKNOWLEDGE there is a problem. If you like Chicago's current decline and the Status Quo then by all means keep living in denial and sugar coat reality. Illinois is set for a similar implosion as well. The stench of desperation is filling up the room here. Someone get Febreeze.[/QUOTE)
gee, McDonald, I hardly think it is a matter of liking Chicago's current decline.....when a damned large percentage of us don't believe it is. then again, we're not the omniscient, all knowing type like you are, Mac.
ah, yes, the government's lack of quality is going to bring us down. Can that happen? Sure. But here's the deal, Big Mac: the quality and approval rating for Chicago's municipal government and Illinois's state government are hardly lower than that of the US's national government.
And, quite frankly, Mac, there are a helluva lot of people who believe the United States is very much in decline. So whether you're in Indy or elsewhere in this enlightened land of ours, you, too must be exercising that "stench of desperation." Indeed, it's probably time to grab that red, white, and blue canister of Fabreeze and start spraying away.
No level of our governments....city, state, or national.....affect us the way that the national does. and, with single digit approval ratings, it's on life support. So Chicago and Illinois very much may be going down the tube, but hey, guess what: they're taking the rest of this atlantic-to-pacific train wreck with them.
Chicago is a city of polar opposites. For some (most likely those posting on this thread), Chicago is a growing city with a tremendous building boom going on.
For others, Chicago is a violent, dilapidated city, with neighborhoods in shambles.
I can't think of any reason to think losing 1 million residents is ok; it's really sad driving through neighborhoods like Austin or Englewood and seeing literally abandoned houses for miles.
The loss of architecture is alone a terrible shame.
yes, the bolded words have a ring of truth about them. but, prey tell: is this a new phenomena in Chicago? Seems to me that our inner city areas, those vast stretches of real estate on the south and west sides, have been violent, dillapated, and in shambles for an eternity. Certainly we can trace this very despair back to the post-WWII era, the 1950s, the abandonment of the city by much of the white middle class. There is nothing new about this, Far.
it's terribly sad...race and discrimination marganizes people and creates this tragedy. that "other" Chicago? sadly it is not all that affected by what happens in the inner city and frankly far too many of us don't really care about the inequities and the unfairness of it all. It tends to be out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind.
what will happen on the south and west sides? these areas are dying out. they have been passed up by the new economy and they can't even access its offering. I suspect the population will drop a lot further.
and I also suspect that as more and more land becomes available for redevelopment, that redevelopment will take place. I'd bet on it. Chicago's transportation system....both rapid transit and commuter rail...is one of the most extensive in the nation....the only places that offer such service are the cities of the Northeast corridor and the Bay Area. We are blessed with that type of infrastructure and large, vibrant, core that is the center point of our rail systems.
Chicago's enviable mass transit system will be a real selling point. And truth is, areas on the periphery of downtown core on both the south and the west have recovered very nicely and are fully part of modern, future oriented Chicago. Look how redevelopment has gone from the Loop westward to the warehouse district and further west to the United Center and the med center. South it has spread from the Loop to enfold McCormick Place into its midst and go further south...to Chinatown and Bridgeport. Is there any question the south side lakefront from McCPl to Hyde Park is going to fill in?
Mega projects keep breaking ground in the juiced up downtown core areas in a way that would never, ever happen in a city in decline. Simply put: it isn't. not by a long shot.
The simple result of this is that Chicago will have to pay much more to borrow, digging a deeper hole in it financial disaster, forcing ever higher property taxes and destroying the already perilous equity of the most at-risk homeowners.
yes, the bolded words have a ring of truth about them. but, prey tell: is this a new phenomena in Chicago? Seems to me that our inner city areas, those vast stretches of real estate on the south and west sides, have been violent, dillapated, and in shambles for an eternity. Certainly we can trace this very despair back to the post-WWII era, the 1950s, the abandonment of the city by much of the white middle class. There is nothing new about this, Far.
it's terribly sad...race and discrimination marganizes people and creates this tragedy. that "other" Chicago? sadly it is not all that affected by what happens in the inner city and frankly far too many of us don't really care about the inequities and the unfairness of it all. It tends to be out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind.
what will happen on the south and west sides? these areas are dying out. they have been passed up by the new economy and they can't even access its offering. I suspect the population will drop a lot further.
and I also suspect that as more and more land becomes available for redevelopment, that redevelopment will take place. I'd bet on it. Chicago's transportation system....both rapid transit and commuter rail...is one of the most extensive in the nation....the only places that offer such service are the cities of the Northeast corridor and the Bay Area. We are blessed with that type of infrastructure and large, vibrant, core that is the center point of our rail systems.
Chicago's enviable mass transit system will be a real selling point. And truth is, areas on the periphery of downtown core on both the south and the west have recovered very nicely and are fully part of modern, future oriented Chicago. Look how redevelopment has gone from the Loop westward to the warehouse district and further west to the United Center and the med center. South it has spread from the Loop to enfold McCormick Place into its midst and go further south...to Chinatown and Bridgeport. Is there any question the south side lakefront from McCPl to Hyde Park is going to fill in?
Mega projects keep breaking ground in the juiced up downtown core areas in a way that would never, ever happen in a city in decline. Simply put: it isn't. not by a long shot.
Agreed.
If you are a poor minority, life probably sucks in Chicago. There are many other cities where these groups of people can get back on their feet and thrive.
I also think you are correct that at some point, the South and West sides will see massive redevelopment, though I doubt in my lifetime, and I'm 33. The thing though, is what type of city will that turn Chicago into? The majority of that potential development will no doubt be suburban crap that really has no place in the city, This massive redevolopment will also most likely come at the expense of the Greystones and bungalows that dot the West and South Side (or at least what's left of them); so while these areas will at least grow, the neighborhoods will no doubt suck.
Location: Schaumburg, please don't hate me for it.
955 posts, read 1,831,897 times
Reputation: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast
Chicago is a city of polar opposites. For some (most likely those posting on this thread), Chicago is a growing city with a tremendous building boom going on.
For others, Chicago is a violent, dilapidated city, with neighborhoods in shambles.
I can't think of any reason to think losing 1 million residents is ok; it's really sad driving through neighborhoods like Austin or Englewood and seeing literally abandoned houses for miles.
The loss of architecture is alone a terrible shame.
Nothing new here. Those two hoods have been mostly slums for the last 35 years.
But no longer. Chicago's metro has population loss this last Census year.
In fact Chicago is the only major U.S. metro to show population loss.
How many times can you say this to the exact same group of people? I guess I'll continue to say what I have been saying. You are quoting ESTIMATES. The ESTIMATES prior to 2010 showed a substantial population INCREASE only for the official census to indicate the opposite. Maybe you should address your root issues causing your obsession with the destruction of Chicago instead of consistently posting the same thoughts...it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Last edited by IrishIllini; 04-25-2016 at 05:19 PM..
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.
