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.
I wonder how many people who left the city went to the burbs. Metro Chicagos southland pretty much blew up out of no where. So much new suburban sprawl in the past decade and tons of people commuting via rail and high way to further out communities. The expanded another highway out that way a while back, what the 355???
Bad decade ahead for Chicago with huge tax increases in Illinois (+66% for income tax, +45% for businesses) !!!
But I expect a wonderful decade in Dakotas, Indiana, Texas (obviously) and Virginia.
Maybe a renaissance in Wisconsin and Michigan, but let's wait !
Yeah but he said everything. I'll give you SOC and PG. But not everything. Also, the majority of Lancaster and Duncanville are not poverty stricken areas. C'mon now.
I have an uncle that lives in Lancaster and I've been there many times. Yes, it is poverty stricken. There are some nice parts, but most of it looks like an extension of South Dallas. Duncanville is a little better, but my point stays the same.
Bad decade ahead for Chicago with huge tax increases in Illinois (+66% for income tax, +45% for businesses) !!!
But I expect a wonderful decade in Dakotas, Indiana, Texas (obviously) and Virginia.
Maybe a renaissance in Wisconsin and Michigan, but let's wait !
Bad decade ahead for Chicago with huge tax increases in Illinois (+66% for income tax, +45% for businesses) !!!
But I expect a wonderful decade in Dakotas, Indiana, Texas (obviously) and Virginia.
Maybe a renaissance in Wisconsin and Michigan, but let's wait !
Chicago will still have lower or equal income taxes than the rest of the midwest, and roughly comparable corp. rates (even though something like 75% of businesses don't actually have to pay the tax).
I wonder how many people who left the city went to the burbs. Metro Chicagos southland pretty much blew up out of no where. So much new suburban sprawl in the past decade and tons of people commuting via rail and high way to further out communities. The expanded another highway out that way a while back, what the 355???
The city shrunk by 200,000, and the burbs expanded by around 560,000. I think a majority of the city shrinking just moved to the burbs.
Of course the huge talk is just the count itself. What with Chicago being down 200,000, Houston missing its estimates by over 150,000, Dallas growing by less than 10,000 people. It's all fishy.
Especially since Chicago has built 100,000 new residential units since 2000, the city been on much more solid footing (not withstanding the past 24 months), and there were absolutely awful response rates to the census in the areas that lost thousands of people.
Estimates are done by counting a lot of factors, housing units that receive mail, people moving, registering, etc. The census is just a headcount. When the headcount comes in 150,000 less than expected like in Chicago and Houston - they start to look for what's causing this.
Another possibility is that the new Census counts are actually more accurate, everyone became enamored with the estimates, so they became a truth and now a number based on more rigor shows a lower number and everyone says, that can't be.
Chicago to me may be what we will see in Philly, everyone also expecting growth. Both have had a lot of development in the core while areas more poverty stricken may have lost considerable population, tearing down projects etc.
On the whole it is likely moving in the right direction for both pf the cities and both feel more vital today then they did 10 years ago. Population isnt everything and Chicago at 2.7 or 2.9 doesnt change my personal view that city is continuing o get better.
I think these results are a bit of reality check honestly. Either way for Chicago, the city has gotten better and the metro continues to grow. For Houston and DFW the cities continue to grow EXTREMLY rapidly, the downward revisions to the estimates can't take that away, just maybe a little less irrational exuberance.
None of these results are really bad in any way, sans potential funding impacts but at the end of the day the numbers may very well be the most accurate...
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Another possibility is that the new Census counts are actually more accurate, everyone became enamored with the estimates, so they became a truth and now a number based on more rigor shows a lower number and everyone says, that can't be.
Chicago to me may be what we will see in Philly, everyone also expecting growth. Both have had a lot of development in the core while areas more poverty stricken may have lost considerable population, tearing down projects etc.
On the whole it is likely moving in the right direction for both pf the cities and both feel more vital today then they did 10 years ago. Population isnt everything and Chicago at 2.7 or 2.9 doesnt change my personal view that city is continuing o get better.
I think these results are a bit of reality check honestly. Either way for Chicago, the city has gotten better and the metro continues to grow. For Houston and DFW the cities continue to grow EXTREMLY rapidly, the downward revisions to the estimates can't take that away, just maybe a little less irrational exuberance.
None of these results are really bad in any way, sans potential funding impacts but at the end of the day the numbers may very well be the most accurate...
You know, this is most likely and really who can blame anyone. In most of America's biggest city propers, we had dealt with years of decline and population loss. The idea that people were moving in massive amounts back to the city is a romantic and quite frankly a hopeful sign given the estimates showed all major central cities (sans Baltimore) were moving in the right direction.
However, I remain ever hopeful that the projections will eventually match reality.
I spoke with my cousin who lives on the south side in Bridgeport near US Cellular (Comiskey), and he had a very simple yet interesting analysis of the Chicago's population drop. He said the city is basically gentrifying and becoming a "richer" city with more of the 1-2 person yuppie residences popping up in places that traditionally housed entire families. My cousin talked about how when he bought his 2 story row house, there was an entire family living there. My cousin and his wife have no children, and they rent the top floor to a single guy from Atlanta. That's 3 people in place of 6-7 previously living there. The other example he gave me is that the City has taken down over 120 public housing projects like Cabrini Green which were high rises that foster high population density. They've since been replaced with large lofty style condos & townhouses with garage parking, and patios. Therefore single yuppies and possibly couples, move into a space that previously housed 2 families of 5 or more.
I'd stop worrying about Chicago, it's changing and there is an overall "ethnic flight" heading out to the burbs. That's one thing comprehensive rail and lower COL in the burbs will do.
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.
