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 think it's a good time to be cautiously optimistic about Chicago.
There's a strong recognition of corruption in Illinois and Chicago to the point where it's hard for politicians to ignore the popular pushback. The fiscal solvency of the city is in question these days, but the corruption that is now a popular target probably has a lot to do with why Chicago has been having a hard time and it's good that there's a renewed drive to root it out. The optimistic part of all this is is that recognition of the problems facing the city, which have been building up, now seem to be being tackled with reforms that may be unpopular but possibly necessary and for the better. Meanwhile:
- the crime in Chicago has been going down for decades and while the spike of murders this year is unsettling, overall crime has still been trending down and the homicides are nowhere near approaching previous highs
- the recognition that the public schools in Chicago need reform has spurred the city into (contentious) action and so there's an experiment of sort going on to see if the reforms will be beneficial
- the stagnant population growth has been hiding the fact that there has been an internal change within those numbers with the demographics changing towards a larger composition of the more affluent and educated which would be proportionate to an increasing tax base for the city to get through its rut and make improvements
- the massive depopulation of the city over the last five decades is overall terrible, but it does mean that the issues of gentrification and displacement might not be as severe as new transplants coming into the once-again growing economy and the communities from growing sources of immigration (China, especially) have a fairly straightaway path to continued growth and expansion through the city, i.e. why Chicago's traditional Chinatown is seeing large growth while chinatowns elsewhere in the US are being squeezed out
- the existing infrastructure of the current rapid transit and commuter rail lines are extensive and underutilized so future growth can continue and expand out to currently underutilized stops with fairly little work
- the torrent of corruption stories that hit the Metra commuter rail agency over the past few years has resulted in a massive shakeup of its board and this potentially has a silver lining in Metra being more serious about integration of its infrastructure with the rest of the transit network and to make better utilization of the already excellent, but severely underutilized infrastructure that has been already been built
- the two major Chicago research university institutions are still going strong and meanwhile the much younger public University of Illinois - Chicago has been improving steadily over the years and is becoming a major force (some of that is from its sheer size); improvements to the city means that there is a ready source of skilled alumni from these and the many other colleges and universities in the city that can be increasingly retained
- the Chicago tech scene has now produced, and retained, two unicorns and this is a good signifier to investors and entrepreneurs both within and outside of Chicago that it is possible to do these things in Chicago
- the last few years have seen major corporate headquarter relocations into Chicago, especially the city itself, and it seems to be continuing with ConAgra and Kraft Heinz (and Kraft Heinz subsidiary, Oscar Meyer) moving into downtown Chicago with those two trending (along with the move to Chicago by Archer Daniels Midland a couple year ago) towards a centralization of the massive US agricultural production/food processing industry within the city--which is interesting since Chicago is often brought up as a jack-of-all-trades, master of none, and meanwhile it looks like a major industry is coalescing into the city
- Chicago is once again seeing construction picking up post recession
- downtown has been seeing major population growth and is growing as a place to relocate businesses; some of that is inching southwards to the South Loop with the possibility of creeping further southwards into more derelict regions of the city which currently have the odd combination of ample space to redevelop AND a lot of infrastructure which were holdovers from boom years half a century ago
- federal spending on untangling the spaghetti of rail lines coming into Chicago is improving Chicago's position as a major node of the freight transportation network of the US and continues--meanwhile there has been some funding dedicated to also improving tracks for inter-city transportation to and from Chicago (though this would go a lot better if the current guy in Wisconsin gets voted out and replaced with someone sensible since Wisconsin is the pathway to the growing and healthy Twin Cities metro)
- the massive sewage infrastructure Chicago has embarked on is continuing still and has an eye on a future that will allow continued growth for quite a bit while improving the water quality for both the lake and river
- the short term has seen/is seeing major city projects such as the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, the Bloomingdale Trail that will make West Side neighborhoods more attractive, the upcoming Obama Presidential Library to be built on the south side, and the extension of the riverfront park/path downtown
- the extension of the riverfront park/path signals a public perception change that points to the riverfront being potentially valuable and attractive, and if that shift of perception can bring even an iota of the attraction and investment that the lakefront does, it'd be pretty great
- there are still some relatively low-hanging fruit that Chicago can reach for that have been inexplicably not been reached for such as improvements to the massively underperforming Port of Chicago
So yea, cautiously optimistic. Some of the above mentioned could amount to little to nothing or even go awry, but I think the combination of all these potentially point to a great path for Chicago.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-08-2015 at 11:11 AM..
- the stagnant population growth has been hiding the fact that there has been an internal change within those numbers with the demographics changing towards a larger composition of the more affluent and educated which would be proportionate to an increasing tax base for the city to get through its rut and make improvements
This is a meme that is continually advocated on C-D, without even a hint of evidence. It seems to be the stock excuse for why Chicago is a relative laggard. It's basically "yeah Chicago isn't growing, but the city is getting richer" claim. It's just completely wrong.
The stagnant population in Chicago does not mean that the city is getting more affluent/educated relative to other metros. Relative income growth and education growth in Chicago isn't higher than that of other metros. If anything, Chicago is somewhat of a laggard in terms of income growth. And this is true even as the share of immigrants headed to Chicago has declined. Immigrants tend to put downward pressure on regional income, yet Chicago is getting the double whammy of fewer immigrants and slower income growth.
And the population issues in Chicago are not due to black flight, or poor flight, they are due to overall flight. The white population is shrinking too. The higher income population isn't growing relative to that of other metros. Chicago is just a slower growth metro, and it has zero to do with poor flight. Yeah, income and education levels rise over time, but that's true in every single metro area in the U.S. (and probably the world).
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
- Chicago is once again seeing construction picking up post recession
All cities are seeing construction picking up post recession. There is no metro where the construction is slowing down post recession. In any case, Chicago used to be among the national leaders in construction stats, and now is one of the biggest laggards. There is very little construction activity in Chicago compared to that of other metros.
All that said, Chicago is still bigger, richer and more powerful than Toronto, and it will take a few decades until Toronto is really in Chicago's league.
This is a meme that is continually advocated on C-D, without even a hint of evidence. It seems to be the stock excuse for why Chicago is a relative laggard. It's basically "yeah Chicago isn't growing, but the city is getting richer" claim. It's just completely wrong.
The stagnant population in Chicago does not mean that the city is getting more affluent/educated relative to other metros. Relative income growth and education growth in Chicago isn't higher than that of other metros. If anything, Chicago is somewhat of a laggard in terms of income growth. And this is true even as the share of immigrants headed to Chicago has declined. Immigrants tend to put downward pressure on regional income, yet Chicago is getting the double whammy of fewer immigrants and slower income growth.
And the population issues in Chicago are not due to black flight, or poor flight, they are due to overall flight. The white population is shrinking too. The higher income population isn't growing relative to that of other metros. Chicago is just a slower growth metro, and it has zero to do with poor flight. Yeah, income and education levels rise over time, but that's true in every single metro area in the U.S. (and probably the world).
All cities are seeing construction picking up post recession. There is no metro where the construction is slowing down post recession. In any case, Chicago used to be among the national leaders in construction stats, and now is one of the biggest laggards. There is very little construction activity in Chicago compared to that of other metros.
All that said, Chicago is still bigger, richer and more powerful than Toronto, and it will take a few decades until Toronto is really in Chicago's league.
Have you tried looking around for the various posts pointing to that? There seems to be a bunch of them with references.
Yes, it's true that all cities are picking up post recession, though since Chicago is a fairly decent-sized city, that picking up means high-rise construction. Though the greater overall point is, Chicago is growing in some respects, lagging or not, and it seems to have potential to grow a lot more/better.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-08-2015 at 11:46 AM..
Here's the actual residential construction data for 2015, by MSA, through September of this year. Note that Chicago is the 3rd largest MSA, so it should be around #3 in residential construction numbers.
What sort of spin can anyone give to these numbers? I think it's pretty clear Chicago is a relative laggard. It's 3rd in population but 15th in construction numbers, behind that of Charlotte, Austin, Tampa and Nashville. If you look back 10 or 20 years ago, Chicago was among the national leaders in new construction.
And this is MSA. CSA numbers would be much worse, and Chicago would fall further down the list.
MSA Housing Units Permitted, through September 2015
Chicago 11216
NYC 68119
Houston 44212
Dallas 40589
LA 26560
Atlanta 22016
Seattle 20138
Phoenix 17495
DC 17334
Miami 16072
Denver 15134
Charlotte 13820
Nashville 12516
Tampa 11936
Austin 16064
Wasn't it estimated that Chicago grew by only 80 people last year? While Toronto grew by 38,000 or something like that if I recall.
As far as the buildings and transit go.... in 5 years so, its likely that Toronto may tie or exceed the number of 200m buildings that Chicago has. 10 years ago. Toronto had only 6 which was probably one third of what Chicago had.
Its also estimated that Toronto will have the larger city rail network (mixture of heavy/light rail). This is excluding commuter rail.
Reading this thread, and other threads on City Data, it appears Americans and Canadians seem to have very different ideas of what "diversity" means in demographics.
Apparently in America diversity means a lack of white people. A city with only 2 major ethnicities is considered extremely diverse in so far as white people are a relatively smaller representation of the 2.
In Canada, diversity means a mix of many different ethnicites and cultures.
No, you need to learn to read better. A city like Chicago that is 32% White, 32% Black, 29% Hispanic and 5% Asian is incredibly diverse. Chicago is not just Black and White and hasn't been for decades now and nowhere did anyone say that Chicago is better because it has more Black people and fewer Whites.
Chicago is more diverse if you measure diversity by racial/ethnic diversity, but Toronto is more diverse if you measure diversity by immigrant totals. Depends on your worldview. To me, Chicago feels more diverse, but Toronto feels more international, if that makes sense.
Chicago is more diverse if you measure diversity by racial/ethnic diversity, but Toronto is more diverse if you measure diversity by immigrant totals. Depends on your worldview. To me, Chicago feels more diverse, but Toronto feels more international, if that makes sense.
Yes, I completely agree. But there's been a strain of forumers here who think racial diversity should not be factored in, merely because it favors Chicago.
Man Chicago is gonna win, it always beats Toronto on city data
See I predicted on page 1 Chicago was gonna win this thing, and I was right and I haven't even voted yet
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.
