Honestly, when will the Phoenix real estate market bottom out? (Scottsdale: foreclosure, receptions)

[Ponderosa]

Population of Chicago by Decades
1830-2000

The following table shows the population of Chicago between 1830 and 2000. The 1830 figures are approximated. The figures for 1840 to 2000 are from the U.S. Census of Population taken every ten years. Figures for intervening years are not given because only estimates are available. The City of Chicago is challenging the 2000 figures.

Year Population



1830 100
1840 4,470
1850 29,963
1860 112,172
1870 298,977
1880 503,185
1890 1,099,850
1900 1,698,575
1910 2,185.283
1920 2,701,705
1930 3,376,438
1940 3,396,808
1950 3,620,962
1960 3,550,404
1970 3,369,357
1980 3,005,072
1990 2,783,726
2000 2,896,016


Look to me like it peaked in 1950. There was very tiny increase last decade, but overall the trend is down. Chicago's time has come and gone. What did Phoenix do since 1950, since 2000? There is simply no comparison. You can dream up scenarios to your heart's content of millions fleeing back to the rust belt. Who knows maybe you're right. I wouldn't bet on it. Go west (or south), young man. Anyway, that's it for me on the OT.

[ArizonaBear]

Face it: steve22 loooves the Chicago area------why he keeps trumpeting here in an Arizona forum is beyond me.

I certainly do not go 'trolling' (on a continuous basis) in a '4 season' state extolling the virtues of here and slamming the local area.

[artvandelay]

The population drop from 1950 to 2000 of course is due to suburban migration. I'd be interested in the same numbers for other major cities: NY, SF, LA, and Boston.

"Chicagoland", as it's called, is still growing last I heard, around 6-7 MM.

[steve22]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Population of Chicago by Decades
1830-2000

The following table shows the population of Chicago between 1830 and 2000. The 1830 figures are approximated. The figures for 1840 to 2000 are from the U.S. Census of Population taken every ten years. Figures for intervening years are not given because only estimates are available. The City of Chicago is challenging the 2000 figures.

Year Population



1830 100
1840 4,470
1850 29,963
1860 112,172
1870 298,977
1880 503,185
1890 1,099,850
1900 1,698,575
1910 2,185.283
1920 2,701,705
1930 3,376,438
1940 3,396,808
1950 3,620,962
1960 3,550,404
1970 3,369,357
1980 3,005,072
1990 2,783,726
2000 2,896,016


Look to me like it peaked in 1950. There was very tiny increase last decade, but overall the trend is down. Chicago's time has come and gone. What did Phoenix do since 1950, since 2000? There is simply no comparison. You can dream up scenarios to your heart's content of millions fleeing back to the rust belt. Who knows maybe you're right. I wouldn't bet on it. Go west (or south), young man. Anyway, that's it for me on the OT.

Your data only shows the population figures for the population of the city of Chicago itself- not the complete metro area. Before the 50's, everyone who lived in Chicago basically lived in the city itself. With the growth of suburbs, the city boundaries came inward and the population expanded outward. In the 70's, 80's, and 90's, the suburbs grew rapidly; if you were to count the entire Chicago metro area, you would see a net gain, not loss.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by steve22

Your data only shows the population figures for the population of the city of Chicago itself- not the complete metro area. Before the 50's, everyone who lived in Chicago basically lived in the city itself. With the growth of suburbs, the city boundaries came inward and the population expanded outward. In the 70's, 80's, and 90's, the suburbs grew rapidly; if you were to count the entire Chicago metro area, you would see a net gain, not loss.

That's what I said in my first post - that some of the population went to the suburbs of those cities. I recall you were making the argument that the cities you named had established urban cores with employment opportunities and amenities that made them attractive to new residents. To which I said "baloney" and backed it, in the case of Chicago, with numbers showing people are fleeing an urban core you claim is so appealing.

I think that the vast majority of people all over the world do not want to live in a horse-and-buggy era urban core. The "LA model" is the one of choice for most. For what it's worth, the burbs of Chicago where the growth is happening are the same as here - tract homes by the same builders and malls with the same stores at every major intersection. The south and west add sunshine and job growth to the mix making them the magnet they are. We can disagree about the merits of the seasons or the landscape, but there is little evidence that the majority of people find much attractive about living in urban cores.

[artvandelay]

Ponderosa,

You need an "urban" for "suburban" and Chicago and many other cities have that. To live in an urban core has its appeal. To live in the suburbs does also. To live in the suburbs, and have access to the urban core you left, is what many find more appealing than a spread-out cookie-cutter environment.

Mass transit doesn't exist here because there is no central locale for the masses to go.

[azsundevil]

but there is little evidence that the majority of people find much attractive about living in urban cores.[/quote]

I find that hard to believe. Look at San Francisco and NY. Why do people pay so much to live there if they do not want to live in an urban core? The revitalization of the Phoenix urban core is proof too that there are some people out there who like the urban living model. I have lived downtown for ten years and have seen many wonderful changes. As gas gets more expensive and all the global warming issues, people are not going to deisire the far flung neighbrohoods.

[Ponderosa]

I find that hard to believe. Look at San Francisco and NY. Why do people pay so much to live there if they do not want to live in an urban core? The revitalization of the Phoenix urban core is proof too that there are some people out there who like the urban living model. I have lived downtown for ten years and have seen many wonderful changes. As gas gets more expensive and all the global warming issues, people are not going to deisire the far flung neighbrohoods.

I agree with you that some do, maybe even many do. But most don't. There is not a city in this country that doesn't have some downtown revitilization or downtown development plan going on. And all these plans and developments, probably without exception are being subsidized by public funds, tax incentives and give-aways. If everyone were clamoring for a flat in a downtown mid-rise, these projects would need no subsidies and supermarkets and services would be fighting for a chance to build there instead of haggling for a sales tax break.

[azsundevil]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

And all these plans and developments, probably without exception are being subsidized by public funds, tax incentives and give-aways. If everyone were clamoring for a flat in a downtown mid-rise, these projects would need no subsidies and supermarkets and services would be fighting for a chance to build there instead of haggling for a sales tax break.

All the new areas receive many public subsidies also. Tempe Marketplace and Chandler Fashion Mall are two new developments that received over $40 million in public subsidies. Suprise offered $240 million to Westcor to build their new mall. I could go on and on. AZ is notorious for giving handouts in order to fuel their growth. It is not just limited to the downtown area as you make it sound!

[sheena]

Originally Posted by azsundevil

but there is little evidence that the majority of people find much attractive about living in urban cores.

I find that hard to believe. Look at San Francisco and NY. Why do people pay so much to live there if they do not want to live in an urban core? The revitalization of the Phoenix urban core is proof too that there are some people out there who like the urban living model. I have lived downtown for ten years and have seen many wonderful changes. As gas gets more expensive and all the global warming issues, people are not going to deisire the far flung neighbrohoods.[/quote]


If they value their life and the lives of their children they might still desire those neighborhoods far away.