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.
None of this is true. Paris and Boston never had "huge population losses", ever. NYC had big population losses in one decade (the 1970's), and has had massive growth since.
Chicago is different from these cities in that there has been non-stop population loss for basically 60 years, and there are huge areas of abandonment. Most of the city is cheap and undesirable.
NOLA, you try too hard to diminish Chicago. I, for one, see through. AND, you will note, that I have not once tried to diminish San Diego....until some posters had to take cheap shots at Chicago, trying to make it sound shriveled and insignificant. Hardly. Just compare the two on a worldwide forum that rates importance, and see which city wins.
Look up Paris' demographics, it's on par in regards to years of population loss to chicago.
No, it isn't. Paris has relatively rapid population growth.
The fact that you would be comparing Paris (a city with a horrible housing shortage and incredible population density) to Chicago (where most neighborhoods have population loss and some degree of gradual depopulation) is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanCheetah
Also don't ignore the fact the Chicago actually saw a population increase of about 200k in 2000....
No, that never happened. You just made that up. The last time Chicago gained 200k residents was in the 1920's.
NOLA, you try too hard to diminish Chicago. I, for one, see through.
You're a homer, which is totally fine, but that's why it's difficult for you to understand why few share your views re. the relative cosmopolitan feel of various cities.
Chicago, compared to a NYC or Paris, is, objectively, essentially Indianapolis. That's, in part, why it's relatively cheap and low growth. It's a great city, but not one that's going to draw global elites, or massive numbers of immigrants, or huge international visitor counts.
You're a homer, which is totally fine, but that's why it's difficult for you to understand why few share your views re. the relative cosmopolitan feel of various cities.
Chicago, compared to a NYC or Paris, is, objectively, essentially Indianapolis. That's, in part, why it's relatively cheap and low growth.
No, it isn't. Paris has relatively rapid population growth.
The fact that you would be comparing Paris (a city with a horrible housing shortage and incredible population density) to Chicago (where most neighborhoods have population loss and some degree of gradual depopulation) is absurd.
No, that never happened. You just made that up. The last time Chicago gained 200k residents was in the 1920's.
From 1968 to 1982 Paris lost about 400k people. You are going to tell me that is because of just housing shortages? Get real. Many factors go into why cities lose populations like that, and the same case can be made for Chicago. Chicago and Paris' cases are different, but that is the whole point, making a broad statement that it's because people don't want to live there is not true. If anything I think that is a very minor factor for Chicago, and even less Paris. Based on your previous statement you said Chicago is losing people because no one wants to live there and is undesirable. But then when it's another city I am sure you would change your tune saying its gentrification (which is what Chicago is going through). The point is you really don't know why Chicago is losing population. No it's not as desirable as some of its peers, but that is definitely not the main factor for the population loss. It's the mass exodus of the poor, predominantly black, on the southside.
It's seems like when it's Paris, NYC or Boston talking about their population loss they make more reasonable claims, but when it's Chicago it's because no one wants to live there which couldn't be further from the truth. Chicago is not for everyone, and yeah it's not really growing, but there is a reason for that. Half of the city is seeing a mass exodus because they either can't afford to live there anymore (just like SF, NYC, Boston, DC experienced pushed out their poor).
Seeing as you are from New Orleans, esp after Hurricane Katrina, that many factors go into population losses....
Yup. It's all you can say, because we're dealing with actual, objective facts.
You don't like the facts, which is fine, but makes your comments essentially worthless, because you're refusing to accept reality. You can't argue objectively about Chicago population loss, or weak economic performance, or severe financial issues, or crime issues, or low market demand, or geographic issues, so it's just "LOL" as the only response. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled a "basher", regardless of facts.
It's even sillier because just yesterday on C-D I wrote I definitely preferred Chicago over Toronto, and someone claimed I was a Toronto basher and Chicago booster. So there you go. Can't please everyone. Some people just don't like to deal with facts.
Yup. It's all you can say, because we're dealing with actual, objective facts.
You don't like the facts, which is fine, but makes your comments essentially worthless, because you're refusing to accept reality. You can't argue objectively about Chicago population loss, or weak economic performance, or severe financial issues, or crime issues, or low market demand, or geographic issues, so it's just "LOL" as the only response. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled a "basher", regardless of facts.
It's even sillier because just yesterday on C-D I wrote I definitely preferred Chicago over Toronto, and someone claimed I was a Toronto basher and Chicago booster. So there you go. Can't please everyone. Some people just don't like to deal with facts.
I guess, even with a "weak economic performance", they're still rated pretty high on a worldwide basis. SO, there's that.
Yup. It's all you can say, because we're dealing with actual, objective facts.
You don't like the facts, which is fine, but makes your comments essentially worthless, because you're refusing to accept reality. You can't argue objectively about Chicago population loss, or weak economic performance, or severe financial issues, or crime issues, or low market demand, or geographic issues, so it's just "LOL" as the only response. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled a "basher", regardless of facts.
It's even sillier because just yesterday on C-D I wrote I definitely preferred Chicago over Toronto, and someone claimed I was a Toronto basher and Chicago booster. So there you go. Can't please everyone. Some people just don't like to deal with facts.
You don't seem to like facts either, completely dismissing Chicago's growth in 2000 and Paris' continuing population decline up until 2020. In the 1980s Paris declined so much it was smaller than what Chicago's population is now!
Weak economic preference? I would check your facts on that.
Severe financial issues? Yeah we certainly have that, but Chicago isn't the only one. Cities that are growing like Miami, or even states, like California that are in really deep trouble financially, are still growing in population, but they are still gaining people and doing alright.
Low market demand? Again Chicago is a tale of two cities. The northside is pretty damn expensive, on par with its peers with the exception of SF and NYC. The northside has about half the city's population. Demand is high there and expensive. The south side is the complete opposite very cheap and low demand. So when you combine both the northside and southsidethe average comes out lower than its peers for the city overall. But remember this, the northside is bigger in size and population than San Francisco, Boston or DC and it's definitely expensive to live in and there is a lot of demand. I know because I follow real estate trends in the city and I see it every day.
Crime? Again a tale of two cities. If Chicago was only the northside which it would be larger than SF or Boston, it would be one of the safest major cities in the US. Most of the terrible crime you hear of is confined to the southside. But yes Chicago still has a major crime problem that is hurting its image, that is for sure. It needs to get fixed. But my point is where most of the educated and professionals live that is not a problem at all, and they live far from it.
The best way to think of Chicago is that its like a San Francisco/Boston on one end, the entire half of the northside, and the other half is like Detroit/New Orleans, which is the southside. If anything it creates a very complex and interesting challenge for the city. A tale of two cities.
Last edited by UrbanCheetah; 11-04-2015 at 07:43 AM..
You don't seem to like facts either, completely dismissing Chicago's growth in 2000 and Paris' continuing population decline up until 2020. In the 1980s Paris declined so much it was smaller than what Chicago's population is now!
Boston definitely lost population, too. It's been steadily increasing lately (est. 655K), but it's still far below its peak population of ~800K set in 1950, and was at one point (1980s at ~562K) about 30% down from its peak population.
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.
