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.
Actually Chicago has lost about a third of its population since 1950. It hasn't been a place people flock to for a very, very long time. The only thing keeping it from going the way of Detroit and St. Louis is the fact that many wealthier whites from the Great Lakes region still see Chicago as THE place to be and so urban neighborhoods are being gentrified in a way that they were not in less successful Midwestern cities. I don't see that changing, so while Chicago will continue to lose population it seems reasonable to think that (especially younger, single) wealthier whites will continue to move to Chicago from places like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, etc. I'm not sure that will necessarily improve the city, and clearly it will lose stature relative to other major metros, but Chicago's decline is less cataclysmic compared to so many other rust belt cities.
*About 1/4. Agreed on the rest - young wealthy transplants are gentrifying the neighborhoods, but the city needs more families to establish long-term roots.
*About 1/4. Agreed on the rest - young wealthy transplants are gentrifying the neighborhoods, but the city needs more families to establish long-term roots.
Well, for both of these cities there's also been hispanic and asian immigration to a pretty decent extent and that's usually pretty family-oriented.
Well, for both of these cities there's also been hispanic and asian immigration to a pretty decent extent and that's usually pretty family-oriented.
Chicago, like much of America, has seen a sharp decrease in Latin American immigration and the city is seeing an absolute implosion in its Hispanic population as people flee out of state or to the suburbs. But Indian immigration is definitely a strong source of new migrants (as in much of America). Plenty of Filipinos and Chinese, too.
Gentrifiers have no issue moving into Latino neighborhoods. Many times they chose the oldest blue-collar ones. Other cities it is less Hispanic former European enclaves.
One example of Asian influx is as Chinatown may be getting more gentrifiers. Holdout neighborhoods to stay more Irish as the neighborhood if former Mayors. That being Bridgeport to Chinatowns South. Increasing fast to Asian. Housing skyrocketed. The new emerging Chinatown perhaps.... I was pricing homes and those bought last year what Refin now values them at .
Then you have Pilson went Latino huge Mexican and now what like half gentrified infiltration?
True more Latinos moved to suburbs and less new coming in. Cicero very Latino niw and Bewyn more and more as pushed out by gentrifiers too and schools for their kids seen as better in suburbs.
Still decent Latino areas on the Northside's bungalow-belt gentrifiers stop at.
Chicago, like much of America, has seen a sharp decrease in Latin American immigration and the city is seeing an absolute implosion in its Hispanic population as people flee out of state or to the suburbs. But Indian immigration is definitely a strong source of new migrants (as in much of America). Plenty of Filipinos and Chinese, too.
No it hasn’t. The hispanic population grew a little bit between 2010-2020. Growth has definitely slowed but “imploding” is hardly how I’d describe Chicago’s hispanic population. Don’t know why this keeps getting repeated. Sure areas like Logan Square or Pilsen are getting really gentirified but outside of those few areas, just look at the far NW side and the South Side of Chicago, and you’ll see fast growing hispanic communities.
I wouldn’t be surprised if 2030 saw a decrease in its hispanic population but overall, right now 2022, it’s hardly imploding outside of a few select gentrifying neighborhoods and little village.
Actually Chicago has lost about a third of its population since 1950. It hasn't been a place people flock to for a very, very long time. The only thing keeping it from going the way of Detroit and St. Louis is the fact that many wealthier whites from the Great Lakes region still see Chicago as THE place to be and so urban neighborhoods are being gentrified in a way that they were not in less successful Midwestern cities. I don't see that changing, so while Chicago will continue to lose population it seems reasonable to think that (especially younger, single) wealthier whites will continue to move to Chicago from places like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, etc. I'm not sure that will necessarily improve the city, and clearly it will lose stature relative to other major metros, but Chicago's decline is less cataclysmic compared to so many other rust belt cities.
Swapping Philadelphia for Chicago in this explanation:
Philadelphia's population at the bottom of the population loss curve was only 25 percent below its 1950 levels. It had not experienced a significant influx of immigrants since roughly the 1929 crash, but that began to change in the 1980s when Hispanics from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and (to a much lesser extent) South America (particularly Brazil and Colombia) began moving into some neighborhoods in the Lower Northeast. I knew something was changing when the 1990 census showed two parts of the city gained population: Center City, which like Chicago's Gold Coast has never lost its cachet, and Juniata Park, where Kensington and the Northeast meet. The latter was the place where the Hispanics were settling. And at the time this happened, most people were still lamenting the city's ongoing population loss as though it were still a flood — even though the slope of the curve had flattened significantly from the decade of the 1970s.
Since then, the city has also seen waves of immigration from Russia, the French-speaking Caribbean (i.e., Haiti) and several Southeast Asian countries. These immigrants and a huge influx of Millennials in the two decades just concluded (the stats I've seen had Philadelphia gaining more Millennials, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the total population, than any of the other largest cities in the country since 2000) more than offset the continued net domestic migration out of the city (something all of the largest cities outside the Sunbelt still experience, and which LA is also beginning to).
Put another way, while parts of the city clearly still show the scars of the decades of deindustrialization and population loss, and even though both you and enough Philadelphians to make a difference lump it in with Detroit, this city's decline hasn't been catastrophic — and in contrast to Chicago, where the ongoing s**tshow that is Illinois state government is also harming the fortunes of the Windy City, Philadelphia doesn't have anywhere near as bad a state government to contend with — there may be some corruption in Harrisburg, but the state on the whole has generally competently run by a series of alternating center-left Democratic and center-right Republican governors. I don't think its future is at all bleak, though like most of our older cities it won't show spectacular growth — just slow and steady, which according to the old fable "wins the race."
Philadelphia doesn't have anywhere near as bad a state government to contend with — there may be some corruption in Harrisburg, but the state on the whole has generally competently run by a series of alternating center-left Democratic and center-right Republican governors. I don't think its future is at all bleak, though like most of our older cities it won't show spectacular growth — just slow and steady, which according to the old fable "wins the race."
+1. Very well stated.
For all of its obvious challenges, Philadelphia (and Pennsylvania, for that matter) really don't get anywhere near the credit they deserve for their resilience that goes back literally to the founding of America.
And Philadelphia's strategic location in one of the most powerful population corridors in the world, very reasonable/high-value COL, urban bona fides, institutional strength, and highly diversified economy will make it a good bet for many years to come.
In the current days of unprecedented economic uncertainty, I'll also take slow-and-steady over boom-and-bust any day.
No it hasn’t. The hispanic population grew a little bit between 2010-2020. Growth has definitely slowed but “imploding” is hardly how I’d describe Chicago’s hispanic population. Don’t know why this keeps getting repeated. Sure areas like Logan Square or Pilsen are getting really gentirified but outside of those few areas, just look at the far NW side and the South Side of Chicago, and you’ll see fast growing hispanic communities.
I wouldn’t be surprised if 2030 saw a decrease in its hispanic population but overall, right now 2022, it’s hardly imploding outside of a few select gentrifying neighborhoods and little village.
Yup. The poster is factually wrong. Not surprising he didn't provide any statistics to back up his ridiculous claim!
Actually Chicago has lost about a third of its population since 1950. It hasn't been a place people flock to for a very, very long time. The only thing keeping it from going the way of Detroit and St. Louis is the fact that many wealthier whites from the Great Lakes region still see Chicago as THE place to be and so urban neighborhoods are being gentrified in a way that they were not in less successful Midwestern cities. I don't see that changing, so while Chicago will continue to lose population it seems reasonable to think that (especially younger, single) wealthier whites will continue to move to Chicago from places like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, etc. I'm not sure that will necessarily improve the city, and clearly it will lose stature relative to other major metros, but Chicago's decline is less cataclysmic compared to so many other rust belt cities.
Chicago isn't losing population. Per this recent census, it grew. And whites? They aren't even the fastest growing demographic in the city, not 2nd place either. The fastest growing demographic are asians and latinos second. The white population growth is growing, but slowly. Chicago is still one of the top cities for college grads to move to https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...81ZCigUNyeVL6m
Chicago has the most diverse economy in the country. It's the 7th richest city in the world just behind NY, Tokyo, LA, London, Paris, and Seoul, all world class cities. Illinois GDP will hit $1 trillion this year, joining CA, NY, TX, and FL as the only trillion dollar states a large part due to Chicago. Fulton Market is the fastest growing office market in the country. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...jntVrFsM9iyM8-
There's over $50 billion in private development in the city. There's cranes all across the city. Bronzeville, a black neighborhood that is still black, is one of the city's hottest neighborhoods and has billions in developments on the way. Same with other ethnic neighborhoods like Pilsen, Bridgeport, Mckinley Park, Woodlawn, etc.
What other cities will Chicago lose its stature to? Sure as hell not Houston. DC? That's if you include the Baltimore area. SF? That area has a whole other list of problems also.
Last edited by JulianMabowski; 04-16-2022 at 11:04 AM..
Chicago, like much of America, has seen a sharp decrease in Latin American immigration and the city is seeing an absolute implosion in its Hispanic population as people flee out of state or to the suburbs. But Indian immigration is definitely a strong source of new migrants (as in much of America). Plenty of Filipinos and Chinese, too.
Absolute implosion? latinos are now Chicago's second largest demographic, surpassing blacks
I guarantee Chicago will be majority latino by the next census.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Put another way, while parts of the city clearly still show the scars of the decades of deindustrialization and population loss, and even though both you and enough Philadelphians to make a difference lump it in with Detroit, this city's decline hasn't been catastrophic — and in contrast to Chicago, where the ongoing s**tshow that is Illinois state government is also harming the fortunes of the Windy City, Philadelphia doesn't have anywhere near as bad a state government to contend with — there may be some corruption in Harrisburg, but the state on the whole has generally competently run by a series of alternating center-left Democratic and center-right Republican governors. I don't think its future is at all bleak, though like most of our older cities it won't show spectacular growth — just slow and steady, which according to the old fable "wins the race."
Chicago has a brigther future than Philly imo. The former is way more iconic, cleaner, more safer, richer, etc. Pritzker is a good governer who is leading Illinois on the right path. There's nothing close to something like Kensington in Chicago. Philly is literally the poorest major city in the country https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...oQMSq_BfkuqPbH
It's attracting more companies and it has no competition in its region. Philly has to compete with New York, DC, and Boston
Last edited by JulianMabowski; 04-16-2022 at 11:08 AM..
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.
