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.
Ouch. That does not spell good things if your metro is losing population. It's job growth is mediocre as well. Is Chicago following the same route as it's other midwestern peers? I feel like it's too large though to go under what St. Louis, Cincinnati, and a few other midwestern cities have gone through.
Illinois has the worst population loss in the nation. Even laggard states like Michigan and Ohio are doing much better.
And most of Illinois is in Chicago metro, so it's likely that Chicago is stagnant or slightly declining. I would wager Metro Detroit will show more growth than Metro Chicago in the next metro area estimates. All that said, I still think it has a big enough gap on Toronto that it would take decades of such trends to really call it even.
I heard Toronto is an amazing city but I am bias to US Cities so I will say Chicago is a way better city in every aspect of life... but I could be wrong also if I had to choose a place to live between these two cities it would be Chicago.
Illinois has the worst population loss in the nation. Even laggard states like Michigan and Ohio are doing much better.
And most of Illinois is in Chicago metro, so it's likely that Chicago is stagnant or slightly declining. I would wager Metro Detroit will show more growth than Metro Chicago in the next metro area estimates. All that said, I still think it has a big enough gap on Toronto that it would take decades of such trends to really call it even.
Yeah that's my feeling too. Greater Detroit showed that it stabilized a year ago and by all early indications, it appears to have grown from that stabilization too. Greater Chicago on the other-hand has embraced mediocrity fully, when it comes to growth.
This will be the first decade since 1890 that an area not named Greater Chicago finishes as the fastest grower in the Midwest by raw population growth (the Twin Cities Area). That's if things stay like they are right now.
I do see Toronto booming, and Chicago is frankly a laggard, but Chicago still has a significant head start, so the same trends would have to continue for decades for me to think they've drawn even. And in some respects (architecture, high culture, infrastructure, wealth, sense of place) I don't see Toronto matching Chicago in a very long time; probably not ever in our lifetimes.
I think if you take the boom of the last decade and apply even 75 percent of the scraper growth that has gone on in the area around T.O's core over the next decade, its core will be absolutely massive.. I've noticed a big difference in just 5 years.. In terms of height I think you are right it would take a good 5 Supertalls to bridge the height difference but it ain't all just about Supertalls- in terms of just density of the core if Toronto's growth continues and Chicago continues to lag I think in sheer terms of highrise density in the core - the gap isn't all that big now. The next wave of growth in Toronto are going to be a bunch of Supertalls. Now if we are speaking to classical skyscraper architecture and even architecture in general - yeah you're never going to get the same breadth in T.O over Chicago but in terms of sheer number of vertical buildings and size of DT core - I don't think the gap is as big as what you are portraying.
When was the last time you were in Toronto.. Any more than 2 years ago and you'd be in for a big surprise. In one city block for example there are 5 skyscraper U/C over 200 m a piece. Anyway, this is just about scrapers and highrise verticality - there is more to any city than those things.
Illinois state population declined from July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014 and that can only translate to both Chicago and Chicagoland at-large but we will find out for sure within 10 days when the data for metropolitan areas is released
Illinois has about 12.9 million people, and about 8.7 million of them live in the Illinois portion of Chicagoland. That leaves 4.2 million people in Illinois that that population loss of a whopping 10,000 people could have easily come from.
Considering the previous estimates for the city and the metro had Chicago growing, albeit at a snail's pace, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the loss came from people leaving rural areas and cities like Rockford and Decatur, which have been losing population.
Speaking of growth at a snail's pace, Illinois' overall population is still higher than it was in the 2010 Census.
Illinois has about 12.9 million people, and about 8.7 million of them live in the Illinois portion of Chicagoland. That leaves 4.2 million people in Illinois that that population loss of a whopping 10,000 people could have easily come from.
Considering the previous estimates for the city and the metro had Chicago growing, albeit at a snail's pace, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the loss came from people leaving rural areas and cities like Rockford and Decatur, which have been losing population.
Speaking of growth at a snail's pace, Illinois' overall population is still higher than it was in the 2010 Census.
We'll just have to wait and find out within 10 days, I suppose.
I think the grey area for margin or error is particularly slim when it comes to Chicago and Chicagoland. Like you mentioned, it makes up such a huge amount of Illinois' population that if the entire state is declining it can only spell concerns for how Chicago is doing. 1) If the decline is in rural areas then why is the decline so great that the growth in the metropolitan area cannot offset it? I mean, the entire state just declined in the last year, that's not exactly something you hear about everyday like it naturally happens everywhere. It's troubling. 2) With the lion's share of the state's population living in Chicagoland, it is entirely possible that the decline is attributed to the area more so than rural areas. 3) Chicagoland has shown a deceleration in growth each passing year since 2010 and the deceleration is directly proportionate to how Illinois as a whole has performed the last couple of year too. That is not good news.
Though, I can just wait 10 days and see the numbers then.
I think if you take the boom of the last decade and apply even 75 percent of the scraper growth that has gone on in the area around T.O's core over the next decade, its core will be absolutely massive.. I've noticed a big difference in just 5 years.. In terms of height I think you are right it would take a good 5 Supertalls to bridge the height difference but it ain't all just about Supertalls- in terms of just density of the core if Toronto's growth continues and Chicago continues to lag I think in sheer terms of highrise density in the core - the gap isn't all that big now. The next wave of growth in Toronto are going to be a bunch of Supertalls. Now if we are speaking to classical skyscraper architecture and even architecture in general - yeah you're never going to get the same breadth in T.O over Chicago but in terms of sheer number of vertical buildings and size of DT core - I don't think the gap is as big as what you are portraying.
When was the last time you were in Toronto.. Any more than 2 years ago and you'd be in for a big surprise. In one city block for example there are 5 skyscraper U/C over 200 m a piece. Anyway, this is just about scrapers and highrise verticality - there is more to any city than those things.
Another supertall announced this past week - The One on Bloor. 1045 ft, 80 Floors, Norman Foster designed.
I don't see Toronto as having caught up, at all. I think it's closed some of the gap, but in terms of size, wealth, importance, etc. it's still a Houston-Dallas-Boston-Philly type city, so a bit behind Chicago (and a bit behind SF and DC too). Toronto is important but probably a level or half-level below that of Chicago, SF and DC (IMO).
I do see Toronto booming, and Chicago is frankly a laggard, but Chicago still has a significant head start, so the same trends would have to continue for decades for me to think they've drawn even. And in some respects (architecture, high culture, infrastructure, wealth, sense of place) I don't see Toronto matching Chicago in a very long time; probably not ever in our lifetimes.
Toronto has a massive, but sprawling skyscraper core...it's like 3 main nodes that are linked, but sprawl at the same time. Chicago is really just one main node. Both are large, however Toronto's is probably larger in area because of how sprawly it is.
In that picture in the foreground, that could be a downtown area, then in the background is where the real CBD is and then you have the condo buildings off to the right. Impressive.
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.
