Far from it, but is Chicago heading to turn into Detroit 2.0? (Fulton: low income, high crime)

[beaniemac]

I know in where I live out south they are selling new houses like crazy. two just went contingent within a block of me in different directions.

[newengland17]

Detroit is resurgent and South side Chicago isn't so much.

So no, they're going in different directions.

[LeotheOrangeCat]

Originally Posted by flamadiddle

As a kid, I lived in the area around 79th and Crandon, which you would think by the news today has turned into a war torn third world country. Thanks to google maps, one can drive through the area now from the comfort of their living room, which I did recently. I was actually shocked at how well kept the homes were! It actually looks like a pretty damn nice place to live!

It does look very nice.

[goillini8]

I think it's far from it, but something that could be similar in the future, if it continues to lose population, is that it will be too big land-wise for the the population - thus empty stretches of the city in very poor condition (there's already some, but there will be more). And, it's hard to develop or repurpose it because of all the red tape and the fact that there's a lot of different owners and interests. In a booming city, like Atlanta, it's worth it for someone to deal with the redtape and turn areas around. Of course, the "too big" problem will not affect every neighborhood, but still.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by prhill

let the population drop. less people means less problem, less congestion. The last thing I want Chicago to be like would be New York or LA! Those places are bad because they have too many people

Well, you're in the right place then. Chicago's MSA has about 30 years of stagnation under its' belt. It's in decline now so you should be happy.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

Well, you're in the right place then. Chicago's MSA has about 30 years of stagnation under its' belt. It's in decline now so you should be happy.

This is inaccurate.

Chicagoland's MSA in 1970 was home to 7.6m people. That number grew to 8.0m in 1990. 9.0m in 2000. Now we're at 9.5m for the MSA.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

This is inaccurate.

Chicagoland's MSA in 1970 was home to 7.6m people. That number grew to 8.0m in 1990. 9.0m in 2000. Now we're at 9.5m for the MSA.

Between 1970 and 1990 the Chicago MSA added around 200,000 people. So, you're right. It was only 20 years of stagnation.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

Between 1970 and 1990 the Chicago MSA added around 200,000 people. So, you're right. It was only 20 years of stagnation.

1970 was 7.6m and 1990 was 8.0m. That's 400,000. Not jaw dropping by any means, but it's double 200,000.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

1970 was 7.6m and 1990 was 8.0m. That's 400,000. Not jaw dropping by any means, but it's double 200,000.

There was a thread about this:

Historical population of metropolitan areas by decade

Chicago gained 299,000 people in 20 years. That's virtual stagnation in most people's eyes.

According to this site, it's 209,000:

Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com

[Urban Peasant]

Chicago is building more residential towers than any other city so someone must be moving in.

http://chicago.curbed.com/2017/3/24/...r-construction