Do you think Chicago will ever surpass LA in population?

[Spreadofknowledge]

Hell No. Just put it like this:

Los Angeles will surpass 4 million this year if it hasnt already. By 2020 census, it would likely be around 4.2 million.

Chicago will probably be around 2.6 - 2.8 million for acouple decades.

Houston will pass Chicago within the next 10 years. And many other western and southern cities will follow suit. Other midwest cities like Columbus & Minneapolis will grow at faster rates. And other previously declining Industrial cities like Philly will also grow at a faster rate. Chicago is gone, and Detroit is a even bigger disaster. Midwest is full of em.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by Spreadofknowledge

Hell No. Just put it like this:

Los Angeles will surpass 4 million this year if it hasnt already. By 2020 census, it would likely be around 4.2 million.

Chicago will probably be around 2.6 - 2.8 million for acouple decades.

Houston will pass Chicago within the next 10 years. And many other western and southern cities will follow suit. Other midwest cities like Columbus & Minneapolis will grow at faster rates. And other previously declining Industrial cities like Philly will also grow at a faster rate. Chicago is gone, and Detroit is a even bigger disaster. Midwest is full of em.

No one knows what circumstances will change in the US in coming decades. The sunbelt may not stay Corporate America's favorite region to expand in by lowest or no corporate taxation as they get more expensive.
Chicago with winters that get no love in any of the upper Midwest. But as a city with a GREAT CORE and neighborhoods and street layouts that made good choices with a standard grid, alleyways and generalized lot sizes? I say.... the city WILL AGAIN have a GREAT FUTURE. The city does stand alone... on its own. It has no larger nearby cities to draw on or gain its excess from.

East Coast cities boast proximity to another city. Chicago really can't. Not to overlook Milwaukee. But proximity to major big cities Chicago is a bit more isolated.

Chicago ALWAYS had aspects in its history to overcome... yet it did despite as ALL large Northern city's did. The fading of its manufacturing base and having drastic racial change. It had to deal with its Al Capone era days to gangland thugs of today that so far is the cities biggest scourge. If that gets nipped in the butt.... its West and Southside? Will be RIPE for renewal. Worst blight and failed housing projects ..... already gone. But some great older housing still there.

I differ with those who KEEP Chicago on a LOWER projectory continuing in the future. When I visit the city. Each time I see a city looking better and impressive things happening. Many much better then other cities..... especially in its core. Attention to details and finer things that add a persona of Class and Grandeur. Other cities fail to realize.

Just in greens and flowers the city adds.... stand out as you notice not nearly as prevalent when you visit many other cities. Not seeing these extra trimmings added to their street-scape. Some cities have little even going on along their core streets. Yet BOOOMING cities overall, as they continue in much suburban sprawl.

Though Chicago can win polls on C-D vs other key Big cities today. There are a FEW POSTERS that overall..... lessen the Midwest and its primary city in every post it is possibly relevant to the topic or in being mentioned.

If only Chicago with its lakefront... was in a warmer temporal climate? East or west coast or even Gulf coast? It would be in a Super-Booming growth state in desirability. Even with its current issues. But especially if it was in a - No corporate tax state.

THEN WE COULD CONCIEVABLY SEE A CHICAGO SURPASSING LA. NO DOUBT. But currently a boom of that scale is unlikely. But a even Brighter future??? I surely see that happening and a resurgence in population that has growth in its core as today. Diminished by losses in especially its gangland neighborhoods.

Never say never if the BIG ONE hit California then LA might be hurt greatly. But at this time. No growth of a Chicago to overtake a LA. No weather as LA to alone.... draw everyone from homeless to the wealthiest.

[brodie734]

Originally Posted by Spreadofknowledge

Hell No. Just put it like this:

Los Angeles will surpass 4 million this year if it hasnt already. By 2020 census, it would likely be around 4.2 million.

Chicago will probably be around 2.6 - 2.8 million for acouple decades.

Houston will pass Chicago within the next 10 years. And many other western and southern cities will follow suit. Other midwest cities like Columbus & Minneapolis will grow at faster rates. And other previously declining Industrial cities like Philly will also grow at a faster rate. Chicago is gone, and Detroit is a even bigger disaster. Midwest is full of em.

Meh, a couple of those things may be true but there is no reason to suspect Minneapolis and Columbus will ever get anywhere near 2 million people. Chicago's status within the Midwest is pretty secure, the concern is the center of population moving ever westward and southward. If anything, I could also see Chicago becoming NYC lite in terms of pushing all of the poverty and blight to the extreme margins and just gentrifying over the south and west sides until most of the city becomes Disneyland, that would lead to growth instead of stagnation.

[oobanks]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

Just curious as to what people think. I think it's possible, but then again, LA is starting to transiiton to more urban living. If LA can have this high density with just single family homes, imagine what it would be like if our downtown expanded and many single family homes were replaced with low to mid rise apartments and condos. But then again, Chicago has already made the transition to urban living and it is much better to live in Downtown Chicago than Downtown LA which means more people can fit in one area which means Chicago may become larger. Chicago also has no barriers around its suburbs so they can just expand and expand while in LA, we have mountains blocking us.

I believe Chicago may one day pass LA at the rate LA is moving, but not any time soon. By the time Chicago has enough people to surpass LA, LA will have made a better transition to urban living which means we can fit more people into our small space.

According to Wiki, Chicago has higher density, but LA is mostly all suburbs, so if we become more urban, i don't think Chicago has a chance.

I doubt it, but for some reason I can never wrap my mind around LA being on a City level as Say New York or Chicago no matter how dense they claim it to be. LA is Sprawl King but they say its dense and it's getting more and more dense over the years. LA sprawling from the Mountains to the Ocean and then back to the desert gives it a Ton of its Population, makes it #2 and as many have said, LA is just a Magnet for population. I respect LA as a City, but as a different type of City that holds #2 in America. America is a Diverse Country of Many types of every thing, in different shapes, sizes, and colors including people... What more can we ask for.. You can have gritty, rust belt, new, shinny and sunbelt all in one Beautiful Nation.

[Jandrew5]

Yes.

If LA decentralizes. If downtown, Hollywood, Koreatown, the Valley, South LA, Brentwood, and Venice all incorporate, then maybe.

Otherwise, no, barring some major catastrophe where people leave in an exodus.

[waviking24]

I've been to both and would pick LA 9 times out of 10. Not surprising that Chicago's population growth has stagnated.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by waviking24

I've been to both and would pick LA 9 times out of 10. Not surprising that Chicago's population growth has stagnated.

This thread resurrected after a couple years in a coma for some of theses comments. Chicago's Core is booming. There is no reason the Midwest will not grow more and sunbelt areas slow in coming decades.

The US Conference of Mayors released results on current and future trends. Chicagoland was given a higher % of growth then NYC and Philly metro's in the East.

https://atlanta.curbed.com/2017/6/6/...gest-city-2046

Their 30-yr proposed results I found in the above link. You can download the study results with jobs to population proposals in that link and for the below list.
So a PDF does not need to be opened (unless you choose in the link) listing projected Top metros and populations in 2046.

Population Growth in the Next 30 Years (US conference of Mayors study)

METRO............................................. ..... 2016 millions.....2046 # Chg...... % change
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA -------- 20,181 ----- 20,705 ------------ 2.6
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA ----------- 13,347 ------14,863 ----------- 11.4
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX. ------------------- 7,246 ------11,383 ----------- 57.1
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX ---------- 6,803 ------10,628 ----------- 56.2
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI ----------------- 9,517 ------10,280 ----------- 8.0
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA -----------------5,804 ------- 8,629 ----------- 48.7
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL ------ 6,090 ------- 8,101 ----------- 33.0
Washington-Arlington-Alex, DC-VA-MD-WV --------6,147 ------- 7,851 ----------- 27.7
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ ----------------------- 4,678 ------- 7,847 ----------- 67.8
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA --------------4,518 --------7,155 ----------- 58.4
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD -- 6,071 ------- 6,309 ----------- 3.9
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA --------------- 4,692 ------- 5,602 ----------- 19.4
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH ----------------- 4,799 ------- 5,328 ----------- 11.0
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA ----------------------- 3,804 ------- 4,928 ------------29.5
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI ---------- 3,556 -------4,264 ------------19.9

Taking a broader look, population will grow by over 25% in 127 metro areas, over 50% in 36, and over 70% in 8 over the next 30 years. By 2046, 72 metros will have a population exceeding 1 million, compared to 2016 where only 53 achieved this feat. And by 2046, five metros will have over 10 million people – whereas just 2 were that large 30 years prior.

So those who want to LESSEN Chicago can GLOTE, BOAST and MOCK a Chicago and Midwest. But LA GROWTH IS STILL FAR LESS THEN OTHERS BY % IN EXPECTATIONS. Chicago given a higher one then today and besting mighty NYC metro.

For a Sunbelt city this suggested population % growth ----> for LA is MOST LIKELY THE LOWEST OF ALL THE MAJOR SUNBELT CITIES AND WHOLW WEST COAST.

[savvysearch]

LA has already won this war solidly for #2 city. Chicago is experiencing epidemic levels of gun violence. Not to mention the huge budgetary problems with the state as a whole. And I don’t see them fixing it any times soon as long as they keep hiring cronies to run that place. Chicago isn’t even stagnant. It’s losing population. Chicago needs to first stem it’s population loss, much less even think about surpassing anyone. LA is being awarded the 2028 Olympics. By that time, we’ll likely see Houston surpass Chicago as #3 city.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by DavePa

So those who want to LESSEN Chicago can GLOTE, BOAST and MOCK a Chicago and Midwest. But LA GROWTH IS STILL FAR LESS THEN OTHERS BY % IN EXPECTATIONS. Chicago given a higher one then today and besting mighty NYC metro. If you use the CSA, which is a much more arcurate definition of the metro for LA, it's about 30% growth.

For a Sunbelt city this suggested population % growth ----> for LA is MOST LIKELY THE LOWEST OF ALL THE MAJOR SUNBELT CITIES AND WHOLW WEST COAST.

In all fairness, LA and Orange County are built out from the mountains to the ocean. As a result of that and arbitrary MSA definitions, most of ther growth that is happening in the LA metro is counted towards Riverside-San Bernardino 'metro,' which isn't a real separate metro, but is instead just the LA suburbs that are known as the IE. If you look at the CSA, which is a much more accurate definition for the LA metro, it's about 30% growth.