A Midwest without a viable Chicago: the implications? (Jacksonville, Washington: for sale, 2015)

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by edsg25

i don't disagree, but that's not what i'm asking.


However, for the record, I would say that Chicago pushes the "San Francisco" portions outward into the "Detroit" portions as an expanding core area gobbles up near south and near west side territory.

Near south (north of Cermak) and near west (east of Western) are already almost fully gentrified. We will see if the mid-south side and the west side west of Western continue to improve; there's only so much demand for "nice." However, there is a lot of land available for greenfield development in the outlying south and west areas.

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Chicago is very segregated. You can easily be blissfully ignorant of other cultures in this city and go about your merry way like you live in some wealthy suburb. If you are in this state and fortunate enough to live in one of our City's most glistening neighborhoods, the problems facing the rest of the city will seem distant and unreal to you. I like to call this social ignorance.

If you were to drop the typical Lincoln Parker off in Little Village, he would feel like he was in a foreign country. He wouldn't be able to wrap his brain around the fact that this exists in the same city. The social ignorance is eventually going to lead to some severe problems though. I can feel it.

I'm only a former Lincoln Parker, not a current one, but I've been in 74 of Chicago's 77 community areas. I've managed to miss Riverdale, West Pullman, and Calumet Heights. Give us white folks some credit.

[Graywhiskers]

Chicago is going to drag the rest of Illinois down with it. Property taxes are too high in IL. With unfunded pensions, taxes are going to go much higher. Past financial mismanagement clouds IL future. Don't expect a federal govt bailout, it didn't happen for Detroit. Look at the net out-migration of young people. There is no answer, except for following the Michigan example for Detroit.

[RJ8089]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Houston is growing at a faster rate, but has been hitting a slump over recent years due to the low price of oil. Meanwhile, its physical land area is more than double that of Chicago, so it's not that Houston is really becoming the third largest in practice. Still though, Chicago and Illinois do have much to improve.

Also, can't see how liberalism so directly ties into automation technologies and a globally competitive economy. I think there was a long string of missteps a long time in coming.

Land area doesn't mean much. Ever heard of a high-rise? Houston may be in a little slump, but the population is still projected to surpass Chicago in 10 years. Yes, regulation and tax affect economics in a massive way, which is why the liberal mentality plays a huge part. I'm sticking with my original comment on that. Illinois is simply not conducive to business, but Texas is. That's why TX has had way more economic growth than IL.

[green apple]

Originally Posted by Graywhiskers

Chicago is going to drag the rest of Illinois down with it. Property taxes are too high in IL. With unfunded pensions, taxes are going to go much higher. Past financial mismanagement clouds IL future. Don't expect a federal govt bailout, it didn't happen for Detroit. Look at the net out-migration of young people. There is no answer, except for following the Michigan example for Detroit.

Wow. You took several sort of truths and twisted them all to support the same myopic conclusion. That is pretty impressive.

I think people read some clickbait article at the Chicago Tribune about how Chicago's population is shrinking. I googled the phrase and that same article about Chicago and Houston popped up, lol, way to research.

The reality is that we are seeing population loss on the south side, and the downtown area is showing population growth. Development is increasing in the loop area, both in terms of real estate/population and economically, with the rebound from the recession. More development in the city proper is the exact opposite of a sign of a declining city.

In our continuing efforts to be colorblind and "not see race" as well as a national narrative grossly over-invested in hyperbolic claims of "Chi-raq," the story that is not being told is that it is black residents leaving Chicago in high numbers.

this is from may of this year:

The drop wasn't much, more like a wobble, with an estimated loss of 0.11 percent, or about 3,000 people last year. And frankly the decline in the metro area population is more disturbing. But a decrease of any magnitude is going to draw attention from those eager to declare that Chicago has at least nine toes in the grave.

Far more interesting, though, is what's happening within that number, the trends within the trend. It's hard to tell for sure, but there's strong indication that Chicago's “tale of two cities” is quickening.

African-Americans continue to flee the city as they did in the last decade, when the black population dropped a stunning 17 percent, to 872,000. Now, though, Chicago's white population seems to be on the rise. In fact, the total population of whites now may exceed that of blacks.

My information comes from Rob Paral, a well-known local demographer who runs consultancy Rob Paral & Associates on the North Side. He compared 2010 census data with figures from the 2014 American Community Survey, which also is conducted by the Census Bureau, after I asked him to take a look.

His findings: Chicago's black population has dropped another 30,000, to about 842,000, plus or minus 10,000. But the non-Hispanic white population is up about 12,000, to an estimated 867,000. That's within the 15,000 sampling margin of error, but just barely.

According to Paral, the city's Asian-American population also is up about 18,000, while the number of Latinos (who can be any race) grew by 23,000.

I didn't ask Paral to explain why this might be true. In an earlier interview, he mentioned the influx of young adults into the central part of the city and the possibility that white ethnic neighborhoods on the city's periphery have quit aging (and dying off) as quickly. To that, I'd add the obvious: Chicago's violence wave is mostly concentrated in black neighborhoods. Why would anyone voluntarily stay in a community in which they fear for their lives?

Here are a couple of other pertinent points: Earlier research by Paral for the 2001-10 decade showed that the big black population drop was in the age brackets of 0-10 and 31-40 years. In other words, the exodus includes a lot of families with children, who would be the most affected by gang violence and unrest at Chicago Public Schools.

The other thing is this: Census data indicate that Chicago now has caught up with New York and widened its lead over Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia, in the percentage of the population with at least a bachelor's degree. Obviously, people of all races and ethnic backgrounds go to college, but the rate is significantly higher among whites, so the gain—the share went up to 34.9 percent in 2014 from 32.2 percent in 2010—suggests growth in the white share of the population.

I'll try to take a closer look at some of these data later. But it looks like the changing face of Chicago involves a lot more than the loss of 3,000 people last year.

Even in this thread, there is a subtle dog whistle at the idea of the "Detroit parts" of Chicago being responsible for its demise. The irony is not only that it's ignorant of the actual situation, but the dog whistle itself is unintentional.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by RJ8089

Land area doesn't mean much. Ever heard of a high-rise? Houston may be in a little slump, but the population is still projected to surpass Chicago in 10 years. Yes, regulation and tax affect economics in a massive way, which is why the liberal mentality plays a huge part. I'm sticking with my original comment on that. Illinois is simply not conducive to business, but Texas is. That's why TX has had way more economic growth than IL.

Why doesn't it mean much? Chicago is 234 square miles. Houston is 620. If Chicago annexed enough of the surrounding burbs to hit 620 square miles it would add a couple million people and leave Houston in the dust. And Chicagoland has 3.5 million more people than Greater Houston.

[RJ8089]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

Why doesn't it mean much? Chicago is 234 square miles. Houston is 620. If Chicago annexed enough of the surrounding burbs to hit 620 square miles it would add a couple million people and leave Houston in the dust. And Chicagoland has 3.5 million more people than Greater Houston.

It's still on track to lose it's #3 rank. So........ no amount of what you are saying will change that.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by RJ8089

It's still on track to lose it's #3 rank. So........ no amount of what you are saying will change that.

But that's not what I was responding to. Nobody cares that Houston with its massive city limits will surpass Chicago. The metropolitan statistical area is the only metric that matters, and the Chicago metro area is still several million more people than Greater Houston.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

But that's not what I was responding to. Nobody cares that Houston with its massive city limits will surpass Chicago. The metropolitan statistical area is the only metric that matters, and the Chicago metro area is still several million more people than Greater Houston.

This is something people here don't seem to understand or don't want to because it sounds better to say Houston has overtaken Chicago as the third largest CITY.

Who knows though. Houston's economy is heavily tied to oil. Oil (for the sake of our planet) is on its way out. Guess that means a large portion of Houston's jobs are too. If anyone in the U.S. is on track to be the next Detroit, it's Houston.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

But that's not what I was responding to. Nobody cares that Houston with its massive city limits will surpass Chicago. The metropolitan statistical area is the only metric that matters, and the Chicago metro area is still several million more people than Greater Houston.

Bluefox speaks the truth


and we should care? global, golden boy, awash-in$$$ San Francisco ranks 13th in size among US cities. San Francisco is the 4th largest city in California, behind LA, SD, SJ. Within it owns metropolitan area, the Bay Area, San Francisco is the second largest city, behind San Jose.

I suppose that SF could create the west coast rendition of the legislation that created Greater New York, whereby the city brings Marin, San Mateo, Sanata Clara, Alameda, and Contra Constra, all borough like, into the fold. Aint going to happy....neither the Bay Area wants this, nor San Francisco.

How much does San Francisco care about those 13th (SF being the little sister to the colossus that is 12th in the form of Jacksonville....that being FLA in case you weren't sure where), 4th, and 2nd rankings in population? Not a damn. Totally meaningless. Boston, comfortably under a 1,000,000, feels basically the same way.

Population of a city means little, although I definitely have to credit to metro population meaning a heck of a lot more.

The global cities in the US are not the top 6 in population. Far from it. Our true global cities are the likes of Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. None are looking at their census reports to determine their importance.

the city I feel most sad, tragic , for in this whole city population mess we seem to have created for ourselves would be NYC. Shanghai, Karachi, Beijing, Sao Paulo, Dhaka, Delhi (at least NYC has more delis than Delhi), Lagos (YES...f'ing Lagos!, a city put together by small interconnected pieces of plastic), Istanbul, Tokyo, Mumbai, Moscow, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Suzhou (QUICK: name where these two are located), Kinshasa (I want to be a part of it, Kinshasa, Kinshasa), Cairo, Jakarta, Lahore (no...not THAT Lehore; the other one), Seoul, Mexico City, Lima (truly a has bean city....but still ahead of New York), and London (This one I've heard of) are all larger than New York. Meanwhile Bangalore is only 100,000 shy of NYC, so our largest city may well drop in the ranks. NYC, it must seem obvious is now a city of utter insignificance on the world state

After all this.....I'm trembling in my boots at the thought that Houston may pass up Chicago in population.