U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 10-16-2007, 05:36 PM
 
26 posts, read 114,107 times
Reputation: 20

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTownNative View Post
I think Chicago is fine at around 3,000,000 people.The metro area still has around 10,000,000 people,so its still very populated.
Yep, don't tell me that there are fewer people here now. It just ain't so!

The joke about Chicago proper losing population is "because undocumented immigrants don't answer the door when the census taker knocks!"
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2007, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,265 posts, read 8,292,125 times
Reputation: 3329
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTownNative View Post
I think Chicago is fine at around 3,000,000 people.The metro area still has around 10,000,000 people,so its still very populated.
Also, once Milwaukee becomes part of the greater Chicago metro area, maybe ten to twenty years from now, we'll add another 3 million or so people.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Chicago
36,643 posts, read 58,043,789 times
Reputation: 25710
Milwaukee will always be its own metro area just as Baltimore and Washington are separate. The metro areas are already contiguous, but the Chicago metro keeps eating into the Milwaukee metro. Kenosha has already been absorbed into Chicago's orbit; Racine is next.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 10:23 PM
 
1 posts, read 3,333 times
Reputation: 10
Take it from a native Detroiter who went to college and lived in New York City for seven years, Chicago is a gem. The reason New York's population is increasing is that there is absolutely no other place for people to live, other than another borough of that city. NYC's suburbs are more expensive than the city so, that is not an option for people to move there. If you really saw the real NYC other than Manhattan south of 98th street, you would see several million people living in housing considered as middle class that, in other cities, would be considered, poor living condition subject to emplosion and replacement. I love NYC, it was the home of my grandparents and as a kid, I spent a lot of time there and enjoyed it emensely but; no my friends, Chicago is a beautiful city that is definately headed in the right direction for terriffic 21th century living and I am happy to be part of it's reconfiguration.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 11:13 PM
 
10,706 posts, read 18,318,665 times
Reputation: 3598
To the Texan who still thinks Chicago as a whole is losing population, read again. THE CHICAGO AREA ISN'T LOSING POPULATION! It's just the city itself, and it's mostly limited to working class and poor sections of the city. "Chicagoland" is growing, even though the Sun Belt is growing at a more rapid pace. And the weather has little to do with it. It's all about jobs.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 12:39 AM
 
40 posts, read 180,448 times
Reputation: 20
hello
i would say the same for LA

Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneBKLYN View Post
I'm starting to think that Chicago is a city where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Is that the case over there?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 08:57 AM
 
10,706 posts, read 18,318,665 times
Reputation: 3598
I don't think the estimate about metro Chicacgo losing population is anywhere near correct. I saw some numbers recently that estimated the metro population has increased by 250,000 residents since 2000. I guess we won't know for sure until the next census, but there hasn't been a census yet that has shown the Chicago metropolitain area losing population--just the city, typically. And the 2000 census showed the city gaining population for the first time in 30 years, even though the "estimates" by the census bureau had predicted a drop.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 10:56 PM
 
9,184 posts, read 13,705,378 times
Reputation: 7438
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
It's not just the city of Chicago, the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet metro area is losing more people than it is gaining (like many Midwestern cities) by about 60 - 70,000/year since 1997. There is population growth, but it has slowed from the 90's and is mainly due to more births than deaths:

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change
(far right column, "net domestic migration")

I'm guessing it is hitting most Midwestern cities because of baby-boomers starting to move South for retirement (or people fed up with cold weather). Retirees don't really care that much about job growth, as long as they are getting a good investment.
Well that's not really the whole story. Yes, more domestic people moved away from Chicago, but that is what happens in a majority of metros really. You have to look at the 140,000 people who either moved to Chicago from another country, or from natural increase.

The Chicago metro hasnt' been dropping by 70,000 per year, it's gained about 500,000 people since 2000.

Also from 1990 to 2000 the city was projected to lose around 120,000 people. Instead when the numbers came out it had GAINED 112,000 people. Don't trust those numbers they give as estimates.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 11:24 PM
 
37 posts, read 61,224 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout Kid View Post
To the Texan who still thinks Chicago as a whole is losing population, read again. THE CHICAGO AREA ISN'T LOSING POPULATION! It's just the city itself, and it's mostly limited to working class and poor sections of the city. "Chicagoland" is growing, even though the Sun Belt is growing at a more rapid pace. And the weather has little to do with it. It's all about jobs.
Forgive me, I thought Chicago WAS a city....This is the TEXAN who you are referring to...I am not responsible for that stats...do your research or just simply do as I did and read SKYLINE887 & NYRULES, I simply agreed with both. I have worked there and commuted to that area for years but I live in Dallas.(my home town), When the 2200 people in my co. were offered the golden opportunity to leave ILL., they couldn't pack fast enough. 99% said and I quote "I hate the winters here". I can confirm the decline of that area and the influx into the Southern states. Unfortunately, I have lived with the transplants for years and they themselves site weather as the main reason for moving here. (many financial institutions, Texas Universities and City planners conduct their polls and have sited this to be true) Of course big business is a factor, but the "Texas Lifestyle" still seems to be the draw.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2007, 11:52 PM
 
6,448 posts, read 8,979,403 times
Reputation: 2724
Quote:
Originally Posted by lategreattex View Post
Forgive me, I thought Chicago WAS a city....This is the TEXAN who you are referring to...I am not responsible for that stats...do your research or just simply do as I did and read SKYLINE887 & NYRULES, I simply agreed with both. I have worked there and commuted to that area for years but I live in Dallas.(my home town), When the 2200 people in my co. were offered the golden opportunity to leave ILL., they couldn't pack fast enough. 99% said and I quote "I hate the winters here". I can confirm the decline of that area and the influx into the Southern states. Unfortunately, I have lived with the transplants for years and they themselves site weather as the main reason for moving here. (many financial institutions, Texas Universities and City planners conduct their polls and have sited this to be true) Of course big business is a factor, but the "Texas Lifestyle" still seems to be the draw.
Hey there, Tex. Good of you to join us. Chicago IS a city. I am not exactly sure what you're trying to prove, but as someone who LEFT the sunny, lovely, warm, gentle South and came TO the nasty, gritty wintry mess you seem to think Chicago is, I can honestly say that everyone has different preferences, and it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Thanks for expressing your opinions.

Mine? After spending a fair amount of time in Dallas, I can honestly say that it is in no way for everyone. It isn't for me. It isn't for a lot of people. The weather may be part of the draw. Various opportunities may be part of it. Still, Chicagoland is going strong. Between 8 and 10 million folks here. The city? Maybe down a bit, but pretty stable. Up from the 80s and 90s. I know many, many people from the Carolinas, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona, California, Tennessee, and every other place who are here in the city now and loving it.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top