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 was referring to within the city limits, not the metro area. Almost everywhere has exploded with sprawl since WWII.
Nobody would make the argument Chicago was better off around WWII than today. Population means very little in the grand scheme of things (manhattan has nearly 800k less residents from its peak). Hundreds of thousands of residents living in projects left Chicago in the last decade, despite the population loss the city is better off. Additionally chicagos economy is more relevant today than any point in its history.
Nobody would make the argument Chicago was better off around WWII than today. Population means very little in the grand scheme of things (manhattan has nearly 800k less residents from its peak). Hundreds of thousands of residents living in projects left Chicago in the last decade, despite the population loss the city is better off. Additionally chicagos economy is more relevant today than any point in its history.
I wouldn't agree with this, at all.
Manhattan's population has been growing, for many decades. Chicago's population has been falling, also for many decades.
And the main reason Manhattan has fewer people than in 1940 is becuase it's no longer filled with poor immigrants with 10 kids. In Chicago, the population loss is due to massive decline and depopulation of the South and West Sides.
Essentially, Manhattan has less population than in 1940 because it's too desirable, while Chicago has less population than in 1940 because it isn't desirable enough.
Manhattan's population has been growing, for many decades. Chicago's population has been falling, also for many decades.
And the main reason Manhattan has fewer people than in 1940 is becuase it's no longer filled with poor immigrants with 10 kids. In Chicago, the population loss is due to massive decline and depopulation of the South and West Sides.
Essentially, Manhattan has less population than in 1940 because it's too desirable, while Chicago has less population than in 1940 because it isn't desirable enough.
Take a look at the Neighborhoods that have lost population in Chicago; poor African American neighborhoods on the South and West Sides of the city; over 200,000 people were displaced with the housing projects that were destroyed over the last decade. Typically those residents cost the city money, there is little tax revenue generated from people living in housing projects.
Manhattan's population has been growing, for many decades. Chicago's population has been falling, also for many decades.
And the main reason Manhattan has fewer people than in 1940 is becuase it's no longer filled with poor immigrants with 10 kids. In Chicago, the population loss is due to massive decline and depopulation of the South and West Sides.
Essentially, Manhattan has less population than in 1940 because it's too desirable, while Chicago has less population than in 1940 because it isn't desirable enough.
Like most major urban centers in the US, the actual population of the city has declined from its peak in the 50s. To interpret this as a phenomenon representing a lack of desirability for Chicago rather than part of a massive nationwide trend would be an error. The Chicago metro has, by far, the largest population in its history. In a few years it will hit 10 million.
Also, the population decline of the city itself stabilized in the 90s, and hasn't resumed since.
Like most major urban centers in the US, the actual population of the city has declined from its peak in the 50s. To interpret this as a phenomenon representing a lack of desirability for Chicago rather than part of a massive nationwide trend would be an error. The Chicago metro has, by far, the largest population in its history. In a few years it will hit 10 million.
I didn't say that Chicagoland was undesirable, but a case can be made that the City of Chicago is somewhat less desirable now than in the past, since there is less demand to live there.
IMO it's a bit silly to say that all population decline is caused by the exact same factors, and therefore Detroit/Gary/East St. Louis = Paris/London/Manhattan. Some cities decline because they're too much in demand and other cities decline because they aren't enough in demand.
And there is no "massive nationwide trend" of population decline. Maybe 50 years ago, yes, but not now. Now some cities are growing, and other cities are declining. Among the 10 largest cities in the U.S., Chicago is the only one with population decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lerner
Also, the population decline of the city itself stabilized in the 90s, and hasn't resumed since.
This is definitely false. The City of Chicago had the second worst population decline in the nation in the last Census. Only Detroit was worse.
Take a look at the Neighborhoods that have lost population in Chicago; poor African American neighborhoods on the South and West Sides of the city; over 200,000 people were displaced with the housing projects that were destroyed over the last decade. Typically those residents cost the city money, there is little tax revenue generated from people living in housing projects.
Are you sure about this? There were 200,000 people living in housing projects, and they account for the population decline in Chicago?
I find this hard to believe (not saying it isn't true, but it sounds far-fetched) for three reasons.
First, you see population decline among whites too, and I don't think Chicago projects are filled with whites.
Second, you see population declines in certain neighborhoods that never had projects.
And third, I don't think CHA is even big enough to house 200,000 people. That would basically mean they destroyed like 100,000 units, which sounds like a crazy high number.
So you're telling me that they demolished net 100,000 units between 2000-2010? On an annualized basis, Chicago demolished nearly the equivalent of the entire current CHA system? I find this difficult to believe.
Chicago also added more people in its core than any other city in absolute numbers. Cities have different dynamics
I would like to see a source for this too. Chicago added more people in its core than all the core areas of NYC?
Or what about Miami, with that crazy condo explosion?
But, in any case, we're comparing cities, not downtowns.
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.
