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.
So...if Chicago’s population mark doesn’t crack the three million mark, is that necessarily a bad thing?...
It’s definitely not as good as a healthy economy driving people to stay and to move to Chicago to the likes of 3 million people by the 2030 census.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc
The number of people exiting the state of Illinois due to its severe taxation and potential bankruptcy issues, is enough to cause Chicago to lose population from now until 2030.
The real questions should unfortunately be "Will Chicago city population remain above 2.6 million by 2030?" and "Will Chicago fall to 4th in US city population rankings before 2030?" (Houston most likely will push to 3rd)
Yes, it could be a bad decade for the city, county, and state, but the reasoning behind why there are some good signs that may see Chicago gaining population I’ve outlined in the original post.
Not as long as Global Chicago is thriving, right? lol
Right? Of course you are right, CSS. I have gone to great lengths on the Chicago sub-forum and actually on most forums here on C/D to state that "CSS is by far the most intelligent, the most insightful forumer in C/D....by far." You are The Man, my man. My guru-to-end-all-gurus.
As for "Global Chicago", I have to admit not too sure about those who encompass it, a bit too nouveau riche for my tastes, si vous plait. Look, I must admit, I'm a bit of an elitist here....you can call me snobby, even snooty, but support for the elites is fully justifiable. Blood lines count. Pedigrees matter. And, whether you like it or not, there are, my dear, the "right people"....and the rest. Good breeding is evident and essential, just by looking at those who have it.
So roots are essential, what really count. I mean, to me, if your bloodlines aren't the deepest and you can't trace your DNA back, further than any other group, back to the glorious trek across the old land bridge from Siberia to Alaska, you are not a "real" American. And you don't count. Those Americans came truly "Bering" gifts, the highest of culture the world has ever known bestowed to our welcoming shores.
Seems to me the biggest mistake we made was not stopping those first two sea-born "caravans".....the one headed to Jamestown, the other to Plymouth, back whence they came. It was those people, the wrong people, those definitive undocumented and inability to speak in the language of the five tribes, that started the curse to our nation. That was a demographic change that proved disastrous. People in black, buckled hats move in and there goes the neighborhood. Or worse still those welfare "gentlemen" in the tidewater, searching for gold and lounging on the James while others did the work for them, digging the earth to plant corn or wheat, until they discovered the true "brown gold" in the form of tobacco leaf.
Love ya, CSS, and with apologies to the Great Ali and to floating butterflies and stinging bees everywhere.....you, not MA, are the greatest.
It’s definitely not as good as a healthy economy driving people to stay and to move to Chicago to the likes of 3 million people by the 2030 census.
Yes, it could be a bad decade for the city, county, and state, but the reasoning behind why there are some good signs that may see Chicago gaining population I’ve outlined in the original post.
Pardon me if I subscribe to the (insane) notion that there is no endless supply for endless demand. And the idea that any nation that believes in infinite growth on a (quite frankly dying) finite planet is not going to be #1 in much anything.
So, imagining that Chicago doesn't (GASP) cross that 3 mill mark by 2030 and that NYC does end up having those one million (predicted) residents, I'd have to say....wow, Chicago sure got the better result on that deal.
Nothing we need more than more (cancerous) growth, more sucking up of resources, more destruction of planet and climate.
It's fun to predict the future. The beauty being, of course, no one can say you're wrong because we're not there (yet).
So if I were in the business of predicting, I would say (in utter seriouslyness), no matter what happens to Chicago's population, I don't see Houston's passing it up. Ever. Not with the type of humid inferno it is turning into. and if Houston did, in fact, pass up Chicago in size, who cares...Chicagoland would still far exceed metro Houston in population....and even that hardly seems worth fighting for. Who cares??????????
Further prediction: Of America's six (my list) greatest cities, five face the greatest danger to growth....those who would be definitely New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, with the fifth being a slight bit off course in the form of Washington. See except for (slightly) inland on the still part of the Atlantic basin Potomac River in our nation's capital are in areas along the coast that are trading the once "greatest location" to one down towards the bottom.....coastal location with intensified hurricanes and rising seas just aren't the place that you want to set your cities in this new reality.
But I said there were six, not five, truly great US cities....and the only one that is safe from the ravages from the sea is smack in the middle of the nation, that being....Chicago (let's forgot for a minute that the prediction by century's end is that Chicago will have the same number of 100+° days a year that are currently be enjoyed by Phoenix and Las Vegas. Some climate facts are fun to deny)
And talk about a city and metro area who population is really tending downward this 21st century, look at metro Miami, some 6,000,000 in the area, 500,000 in the city, both numbers dropping to the range of, say,....0. The estimated population many climate scientists think will be a fairly safe bet with South Florida being under water.
Am I being a sarcastic son-of-a-whatever? Damned right. It's just the absurdity that gets me. The great growth engine is in a state of collapse, and we still here on city data tout endless supply for endless demand for an endless eternity (forgive the redundancy).
Pardon me if I subscribe to the (insane) notion that there is no endless supply for endless demand. And the idea that any nation that believes in infinite growth on a (quite frankly dying) finite planet is not going to be #1 in much anything.
So, imagining that Chicago doesn't (GASP) cross that 3 mill mark by 2030 and that NYC does end up having those one million (predicted) residents, I'd have to say....wow, Chicago sure got the better result on that deal.
Nothing we need more than more (cancerous) growth, more sucking up of resources, more destruction of planet and climate.
It's fun to predict the future. The beauty being, of course, no one can say you're wrong because we're not there (yet).
So if I were in the business of predicting, I would say (in utter seriouslyness), no matter what happens to Chicago's population, I don't see Houston's passing it up. Ever. Not with the type of humid inferno it is turning into. and if Houston did, in fact, pass up Chicago in size, who cares...Chicagoland would still far exceed metro Houston in population....and even that hardly seems worth fighting for. Who cares??????????
Further prediction: Of America's six (my list) greatest cities, five face the greatest danger to growth....those who would be definitely New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, with the fifth being a slight bit off course in the form of Washington. See except for (slightly) inland on the still part of the Atlantic basin Potomac River in our nation's capital are in areas along the coast that are trading the once "greatest location" to one down towards the bottom.....coastal location with intensified hurricanes and rising seas just aren't the place that you want to set your cities in this new reality.
But I said there were six, not five, truly great US cities....and the only one that is safe from the ravages from the sea is smack in the middle of the nation, that being....Chicago (let's forgot for a minute that the prediction by century's end is that Chicago will have the same number of 100+° days a year that are currently be enjoyed by Phoenix and Las Vegas. Some climate facts are fun to deny)
And talk about a city and metro area who population is really tending downward this 21st century, look at metro Miami, some 6,000,000 in the area, 500,000 in the city, both numbers dropping to the range of, say,....0. The estimated population many climate scientists think will be a fairly safe bet with South Florida being under water.
Am I being a sarcastic son-of-a-whatever? Damned right. It's just the absurdity that gets me. The great growth engine is in a state of collapse, and we still here on city data tout endless supply for endless demand for an endless eternity (forgive the redundancy).
Chicago was built for far more people than it has now and there are a lot of desolate neighborhoods within the city. I'm not saying cram everyone into just the Loop and Wicker Park or something--I'm saying a Chicago where there aren't half-abandoned blocks would be great and having those neighborhoods not be half-abandoned but just at a regular fill would probably hit the city at 3 million. I'm not going for endless growth--I'd rather the suburbs in most places shrink if anything and given over to greenspace.
The number of people exiting the state of Illinois due to its severe taxation and potential bankruptcy issues, is enough to cause Chicago to lose population from now until 2030.
The real questions should unfortunately be "Will Chicago city population remain above 2.6 million by 2030?" and "Will Chicago fall to 4th in US city population rankings before 2030?" (Houston most likely will push to 3rd)
Houston won't continue to have high growth rates forever. Eventually that city will start slowing down in population growth and Chicago will pass it again. Houston has horrible infrastructure and uncontrollable zoning that will hurt the city long term. Also who cares if Houston moves ahead of Chicago in city population. Chicagoland will reach over 10 million people in less than 20 years. Houston feels more like a giant suburb than a real city. Chicago has a strong influence all across the Midwest while Houston isn't even the most relevant city in its own state.
Chicago is like the beautiful model at a night club stressing and worrying about if she can compete against mediocre to below average looking women trying to get male attention.
Chicago was built for far more people than it has now and there are a lot of desolate neighborhoods within the city. I'm not saying cram everyone into just the Loop and Wicker Park or something--I'm saying a Chicago where there aren't half-abandoned blocks would be great and having those neighborhoods not be half-abandoned but just at a regular fill would probably hit the city at 3 million. I'm not going for endless growth--I'd rather the suburbs in most places shrink if anything and given over to greenspace.
the stuff I said prior, the utter insanity of our endless-supply-for-endless-demand, the notion of cancerous growth, and most certainly the coming collapse of this unsustainable and quite toxic neoliberal society is happening.....no matter how tongue and cheek I put it, I was serious.
Do I believe we live in some sort of parallel universe here on City-Data that bears little relationship to the real one? Yes. Here in our world, we live where no outside forces can affect our narrative, where the US is the center of the universe, where climate has no bearing on the growth of our cities or our economy because we are unaffected by the notion of resource exhaustion, by the notion of habitat is something required to live. Where the monopoly board is built for a few to grow (growth being good) and others to crumble and die and throw in their little tin bicycle marker (decline being bad....and we keep score....here where city size really does mean city rank and population dips are for losers)
In Bizarro City/Data world, Phoenix is destined, by mid-century, to be one of our very largest cities, growing nicely under the warming rays of a benevolent Arizona sun. And where Wall Street stays safe and dry, it being a place that is "never under water" because its institutions are constantly being propped up by the powers that be (or should I say B in DC?) so the street never gets its feet wet despite having its entire length no more than a half mile from the rising global sea level of which the Hudson, the East, and the bay are very much a part)
But, let's say for the purpose of argument, I accept the rules of Bizarro World here and we address your quite legitimate issues:
So let's go back to those "half abandoned blocks" of which you speak, that crumbling world of much of South and West Side Chicago, those very violent and dystopian areas that are literally falling apart. And....voila.....right there in the ruins that seem to be created here in real time, you get your answer to why said neighborhoods can't be livable, stable, and....most importantly...growing and thriving because, quite frankly....
they can and they will.
There is more than a touch of irony here. These neighborhoods are unraveling at a time and rate that can only be described as warped speed. Of course they are dying.....in a truly global city like Chicago, there is no place for the poor because they simply cannot make a living here. There is no place for minorities because, let's face it, in racist USA, we don't make it very welcoming to those who aren't white (especially to those whose ancestors were brought here in chains).
The spin to total implosion, to the violent world of the South and West sides literally burning itself to death is real. And Chicago gets to play New York or San Francisco as this very burn-out, these ending of violence by violence, gives Chicago what apparently it would love to have: a wiped clean slate on large chunks of its south and west flanks, the very clean slate that will give you one (or many) of those Wicker Parks on land where there is no fear of redevelopment. NY and SF found a path to success: just squeeze out the poor and the people of color and you have yourself one safe, upscale city. Chicago apparently can do the same. And in the warped world of Chicago South Sider, the world where black is right and white is wrong, he is blind to see that this very hell-on-earth that the elitist and toxic whiteness created in this most racist and inequitous of global societies bears down on all, very much on the vast majority of white America (a good portion of which mercifully doesn't give a rat's ass about the shade of its skin....or anybody elses, CSS.... or views itself based on that meaningless skin color). Yes, blacks were decimated by the very elite of the white power structure, and yes more so than others and with a far, far bigger price because their very skin color identifies so as to keep them "in place". (and, yes, you can't understand the very train wreck that is the USA without understanding race because, quite frankly, that's always what we've been about and what has been slowly...a bit more speedily now.....killing us. But that elite white (male) power system is managing to keep everyone else, very much the bulk of white, opiate downing to suicide America, in place, too.....and the rumblings of disadvantages whites that is so indicative of our modern scene, stems from the fact that their very "white privilege" has been pulled out from under them by that old, white male power system that has done the same to pretty much everybody else too.
"Rumblings"....a good description of the chicken scratching I'm aimlessly and incoherently doing here at 2:45 in the f'ing AM when I should have just gone back to bed after that leak. But that doesn't mean I don't believe my own BS. Emerald City, the one that CSS deplores and quite frankly one he should, will blossom out to the south and the west in glorious growth and redevelopment because it is being ethnically cleansed to do just that. You know, the Emerald City cares little that "they" are killing "themselves" off in place where guns grow on trees. the Emerald City just cares that it seems to be happening so publicly, so much "in your face" in media everywhere that it seems to give our city a "black eye" (pun intended). Reality may not be real, but public relations is....and that black eye of ours is very public, making us very trigger unhappy that others have to look at us under such negative light.
oh, yes, I almost forgot. the answer to your question:
we're going to get those lovely South Wicker Park and West Wicker Park to go along with the most desirable North Wicker Park we already have. It'll happen in real time. As soon as that delightfully empty stretch of incredibly valuable real estate (hey, think of green and red line access) becomes ready for final bull dozing. That's all we need to know: the rest of my gibberish above is merely commentary. forget about it.
I’d like to optimistically think yes (including a scenario in which the entire state of Illinois picks up growth), but I think more realistically the answer is no.
If there is to be growth in Illinois, it will likely happen only in Chicagoland. The rest of the state will probably continue to hemorrhage , although maybe Champaign-Urbana will hold its own because of the state university..
If there is to be growth in Illinois, it will likely happen only in Chicagoland. The rest of the state will probably continue to hemorrhage , although maybe Champaign-Urbana will hold its own because of the state university..
Places like Champaign and Bloomington will probably continue to outpace Chicagoland in percentage growth, as they have done for the past couple of decades; places like Peoria and Rockford will probably continue to decline, which is a shame as Peoria in particular has so much potential. In general, it would be good to adopt policies that foster economic growth not just in Chicagoland but across the state. There are few scenarios in which bad economic growth for Illinois is good for Chicago or its suburbs.
If there is to be growth in Illinois, it will likely happen only in Chicagoland. The rest of the state will probably continue to hemorrhage , although maybe Champaign-Urbana will hold its own because of the state university..
or maybe Champaign doesn't
and, who knows what tomorrow may bring, maybe the state's flagship public university will be centered around the intersection of Hasted and Harrison instead of Green and Wright.
The original University of Nevada (Reno) plays second fiddle to its spawn, UNLV, the more prominent of the two institutions.
And Cal may more prestigious than any public university in 49 of our states, but is considered second by many to UCLA in its own state.
Stranger things have happened. UIC is (easily) #2 statewide, enough ahead of ISU and NIU for them to not really be competition (this despite the fact that UIC is far younger than any of them). Who says it can't have U of I in his sights....somewhere out there in the future?
Whose is to say that blue and red may not end up as an exceedingly more attractive color pair than blue and orange.
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.
