U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2012, 09:26 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,562,047 times
Reputation: 5662

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
They do a census once every 10 years. This year to year data is often inaccurate. The city of Chicago's population dropped in the last 10 years, but its metro continued to expand. Facts are facts. Now wait till 2020.
Chicago in it's singular form refers to the city, not the metro area. Sure the metro grew, but it isn't exactly a good thing to have the city population dropping. A city who's population was once 3.6 million with 20+ less square miles. NYC has long passed it's population loss days and is above it's all time high population. Sure, it is the bad areas that people are leaving from, but that means the areas must be seriously bad for them also not to be replaced by another group.
When good growth happens, you have "okay" neighborhoods with people moving out of them into more affluent areas, yet they are replaced by the next immigrant / low income group. That just isn't the case. I don't see this trend stopping either considering the murder rate has been escalating and unemployment rate remains high.
It isn't good for property values to have a bunch of vacant homes, nor to stop improving the neighborhoods. I'm not sure how the metro growing helps Chicago (the city) either, as they can't collect tax dollars from the people or businesses there. I suppose you could say Cook County would work to expand Chicago a bit to it's inner ring suburbs, but Cook County also lost around 200,000 people in the last census.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2012, 09:30 AM
 
8 posts, read 7,213 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyooooo View Post
No, it's true. Chicago is losing population. I'm pretty sure it's second worst population loss in the nation.

The definititive source is the 2010 Census. The annual estimates are only that, estimates based on very small sampling, and aren't supposed to be used to detect population changes (they're from ACS, which uses the annual sample for estimated counts of things, NOT year-over-year trends).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Location: NY
778 posts, read 827,418 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Chicago in it's singular form refers to the city, not the metro area. Sure the metro grew, but it isn't exactly a good thing to have the city population dropping. A city who's population was once 3.6 million with 20+ less square miles. NYC has long passed it's population loss days and is above it's all time high population. Sure, it is the bad areas that people are leaving from, but that means the areas must be seriously bad for them also not to be replaced by another group.
When good growth happens, you have "okay" neighborhoods with people moving out of them into more affluent areas, yet they are replaced by the next immigrant / low income group. That just isn't the case. I don't see this trend stopping either considering the murder rate has been escalating and unemployment rate remains high.
It isn't good for property values to have a bunch of vacant homes, nor to stop improving the neighborhoods. I'm not sure how the metro growing helps Chicago (the city) either, as they can't collect tax dollars from the people or businesses there. I suppose you could say Cook County would work to expand Chicago a bit to it's inner ring suburbs, but Cook County also lost around 200,000 people in the last census.
NYC has that coastal/port of entry for immigrants advantage over Chicago though.

I think we all know that plays and has played a crucial role in which city gets and has gotten more immigrants.

Do the two best foreign born populations of LA and Miami surprise anyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 03:46 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,562,047 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyooooo View Post
NYC has that coastal/port of entry for immigrants advantage over Chicago though.

I think we all know that plays and has played a crucial role in which city gets and has gotten more immigrants.

Do the two best foreign born populations of LA and Miami surprise anyone?
Not sure if that is the case for NYC anymore as there hasn't been much Euro immigration for awhile. Most of the immigration is Chinese, so why do they skip over the entire country coming from China to get to NYC? Ellis Island closed a long time ago.

I see why LA is getting huge population, almost 1/2 mexican. Miami is getting it from latin america b/c it's the closest city.

But that doesn't explain why NYC continues to gain.

How does a city like Minneapolis attract Hmong population? How does Atlanta attract Chinese or Mexicans?

More to it these days when airports are the primary port of entry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 03:49 PM
 
Location: NY
778 posts, read 827,418 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Not sure if that is the case for NYC anymore as there hasn't been much Euro immigration for awhile. Most of the immigration is Chinese, so why do they skip over the entire country coming from China to get to NYC? Ellis Island closed a long time ago.

I see why LA is getting huge population, almost 1/2 mexican. Miami is getting it from latin america b/c it's the closest city.

But that doesn't explain why NYC continues to gain.

How does a city like Minneapolis attract Hmong population? How does Atlanta attract Chinese or Mexicans?

More to it these days when airports are the primary port of entry.
How does Utica, NY attract Burmese?

Most legal immigration is through NY. Its still a major immigration gateway. Its got the historic leg up on the entire country. Most illegal is through CA, TX and FL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,675,073 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
SF population hasn't exactly been a draw, it's only about 70k people since 1950... I wouldn't call that growing so much... Chicago metro continues to grow. Chicago added more people around their downtown than any other city in the last decade.
I don't see Oakland or Richmond making these best cities lists, if SF extended it's borders another 175 square miles to include these areas, it might not either.
NIMBYism has everything to do with San Francisco's stalled growth rate. The Penninsula could easily double in density with the proper housing units, but residents would rather die than let that happen. It's an inanely desirable city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Glendale, CA
1,298 posts, read 2,111,408 times
Reputation: 1374
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
It's an inanely desirable city.
Freudian slip?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 06:01 PM
 
Location: NY
778 posts, read 827,418 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
NIMBYism has everything to do with San Francisco's stalled growth rate. The Penninsula could easily double in density with the proper housing units, but residents would rather die than let that happen. It's an inanely desirable city.

To reference a post by you in another thread, "facts dont lie", right?

grapico is right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 07:52 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,562,047 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
NIMBYism has everything to do with San Francisco's stalled growth rate. The Penninsula could easily double in density with the proper housing units, but residents would rather die than let that happen. It's an inanely desirable city.
Yes, it *could* build more but it isn't. Same with Chicago could do a better job with it's cities. They are both problems really I think they both could stand to go higher density. Not saying they need to reach Manhattan density but they still aren't even close to that.

Maybe Oakland could start building loads of high rises?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 02:44 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,675,073 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoLA View Post
Freudian slip?
The price I pay for not proofreading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top