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.
Problem with Chicago is the natural amenities outside of Lake Michigan is the absolute pits. It’s still a great city but a lot of the younger professional class enjoy hiking and skiing and it’s really hard to do both in Chicago. I don’t think crime is the real answer as there are many places to live in Chicago not even counting the suburbs where your risks of being a victim of crime is incredibly low.
I don't think this has much to do with any perception of Chicago's decline. Yes, it's a plus if a city has an awesome natural setting -- I constantly note my hometown Cleveland is much underrated for this (and a lot of other things) and, yes, Lake Michigan is a huge one: no American world-class mega city has a pristine beach that extends to the fringes of its downtown... But people don't think of, or migrate to, big cities primarily for their natural resources. They do so because of the big city aspects a place has: a booming economy (lots of business and RE opportunities), a bustling exciting environment esp downtown and key accessible walkable neighborhoods, lots of arts & culture, activities (major sports esp), great shopping, ... for many, like me, quality transit and a great diversity of people, cultures, and ideas.
Chicago is the way it is -- a massive, exciting world city that, unusual for America, became that way OFF the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It's real spark: early planners in the mid-1800s strategically/geographically capitalized on the new-fangled mass transportation technology of the era: railroads and it has long nurtured an innovative-aggressive spirit toward image and growth... such that even the devastating 1871 fire that destroyed the place was turned into a growth tool: with a largely clean pallet to build on, Chicago's innovative spirit hopped on another new Industrial Era technology: the elevator such that the world's first skyscrapers were developed here.
Chicago has declined somewhat as all Midwest/North Central industrial powerhouses have -- yes, despite its amazing urban planning plus its more recent glitz & glam, Chicago IS still a post-industrial city -- with quite a bit of it still left. In America, as is reflected on CD, we've often come to view heavy industry as a bad thing despite some of the pollution it caused as well as in leaving large swaths of its labor force out to pasture during the country's de-industrialization as modern, lighter, cleaner, computer-driven decentralized methods have been adopted --> sadly much of this being politically, ethnically and racially driven.
Indianapolis is one of the few large Midwest cities that seems to have upgraded it's status as a city from where it was as a city in 1970, or the year Uni-Gov came about.
Atlanta is obviously growing and obviously important. But when I was a kid, the Braves won the World Series and Atlanta hosted the Olympics. I remember the Olympic torch passing through my town on its way to the games… So, while it has grown since the 1990s it’s not hard to see how it’s less important on a relative basis. Also, it’s less dominant than it used to be regionally.
I disagree. Atlanta isn't less important than it was in the 90s. This is beyond silly and people wonder why Atlantans are always defending their city. There's no way a city with the world's busiest airport, home to the most fast food HQs (U.S.), multiple media outlets, and one of the top cultural cities in the country is fading. It's also not losing any regional dominace because it don't have a true peer within several hours.
Problem with Chicago is the natural amenities outside of Lake Michigan is the absolute pits. It’s still a great city but a lot of the younger professional class enjoy hiking and skiing and it’s really hard to do both in Chicago. I don’t think crime is the real answer as there are many places to live in Chicago not even counting the suburbs where your risks of being a victim of crime is incredibly low.
Absolutely true for a certain demographic. Most anyone I know loves Chicago, but very few stayed/wanted to stay without family ties. The big city lights, the food, the drinking… Eventually, it gets old. And in Chicagoland, you have very few places to turn.
The fact that SW Michigan and Lake Geneva are the premier getaways, is truly an indictment on Chicago. It’s why we left, and will never go back.
Still one of my favorite cities, and weekend getaways.
Chicago is a great example of fading relevance. I was born in the 1990s and the Chicago of that era was far more nationally prominent as I understand it. You had the Bulls dynasty with one of the greatest runs in sports history, Michael Jordan at the forefront bringing enormous fanfare to the city. You also had Oprah Winfrey at the height of her career broadcasting from Chicago and bringing in a small media empire to the Midwest with Jerry Springer, Donahue, Judge Mathis. President Obama was born of this era.
But today it seems like Chicago’s rich cultural legacy has been overshadowed by its reputation as a violent, gang infested, decaying city, whether deserved or not. Nobody in my social circle has taken on the Windy City, instead favoring the Sunbelt or NYC/Boston to start their professional careers.
Unfortunately, I do agree.
It’s still well known, and well traveled. People love it. But the Chicago “brand” is nowhere near what it once was.
I could see an argument for Atlanta peaking around 2010. I don't feel that it has declined at all (trust me, the metro is still booming with zero signs of slowing down), however I only arrived a few years ago. Some lifelong residents have expressed to me that the city is becoming more corporate and losing its identity, which was arguably the foremost influencer of American pop culture in the 2000s. That being said, a growing corporate presence could be one measure of relevance so I'm not sure it's less "relevant" in any way.
Solid take. I have felt Rochester was always below Buffalo in relevance (due to name recognition and sports), but the corporate giants kept the city afloat as an oasis in the Rust Belt for many years. When I was younger people talked about Rochester with more reverence, there was a sense of importance and "big city" vision. These days I go back and people talk down on the city or act like it's a small town. Even the leadership seems to have a provincial mindset/outlook. Rochester actually blew a unique opportunity to reinvent itself in the mid-2000s to early-2010s when the economy was the 2nd largest in New York State and metro population was growing fastest in Upstate New York, but Buffalo has leapfrogged that progress and regained it's ground as the #2 while offering better urban amenities and lower crime.
Las Vegas is a great pick for growing relevance. The expansion team boom is highly impressive. What was once a vacation destination in the desert has now become a major city in its own right.
Rochester also was very close to getting an MLS team around 2000. (After the Rhinos won the US Open Cup in 99) But everything kind of fell apart as Kodak and Xerox entered a steep decline in the early aughts.
I’d this just not a population graph? Trends really haven’t changed in 70 years. Except young people might leave LA off the list since it’s rude has screeched to a halt over the last 20 years.
Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, Charlotte up
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh down
Oakland has seen a pretty dramatic population increase since the 1980's.
They've also lost NFL, about to lose MLB, NBA moved out, and the city is being increasingly obscured by smaller Bay Area cities for name recognition.
The cities that have, according to this thread, grown in relevance, have done so on the back of suburbanization, and vice versa for the supposedly declining cities.
I really don't think any city has had that dramatic of a rise/fall arc in our lives. The rust belt metro areas even grew, in some cases.
Think about Chicago going from the fire to the World's Fair in the 1890's, or Los Angeles gaining more residents (all to core city, not suburbs) from 1920-1930 than Austin has from 1980-2023 capped off with the historic 1932 Olympics.
We're just not seeing anything close to that these days.
Cities have added suburbanites, picked up a few corporate jobs, and maybe added a pro expansion team. That's about it.
The cities that "declined" still have all the stuff that the big up and coming cities are never getting.
Declined- Detroit, Philly, Chicago, New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis, Oakland, Baltimore
I think places like Seattle and Atlanta have matured, so while perhaps not the hot IT city like they were in the 90s, the definitely aren’t viewed by me as declining.
I really don't think any city has had that dramatic of a rise/fall arc in our lives. The rust belt metro areas even grew, in some cases.
Think about Chicago going from the fire to the World's Fair in the 1890's, or Los Angeles gaining more residents (all to core city, not suburbs) from 1920-1930 than Austin has from 1980-2023 capped off with the historic 1932 Olympics.
We're just not seeing anything close to that these days.
Cities have added suburbanites, picked up a few corporate jobs, and maybe added a pro expansion team. That's about it.
The cities that "declined" still have all the stuff that the big up and coming cities are never getting.
Yeah, it's kind of a bummer. I mean, unchecked population growth could not have continued forever --- but it's a bit disheartening that, increasingly, the cities that can maintain (modest) growth will be doing so by sapping residents from other cities, not through immigration or natural increase. And even internal migration will be happening less than it used to, because jobs are increasingly mobile and cities are increasingly interchangeable. That, and for a whole host of reasons it's a lot harder for cities to build cool stuff than it used to be.
One trend that's gonna be interesting to watch is what happens when anemic population growth and rampant suburbanization lead to suburbs' tax revenues running dry, right when their massive infrastructure bills are coming due. Will we be seeing more 10-story apartment complexes along 6-lane roads in suburban Boise and Charlotte? Will those roads only have 2 or 4 lanes being maintained? Will counties pressure people to move out of the farthest-out suburbs through higher taxes? Will we see migration to safe but boring outer-ring city neighborhoods?
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.
