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 wouldn't say its under-populated by any means. It's shrank over the past 10-20 years but a lot of major cities have, especially in the eastern half of the country.
Well, yeah, but I don't think anyone would argue that Detroit is not underpopulated. Obviously, the term is somewhat vague, and how someone would answer this question would have a lot to do with how they would define the term "underpopulated", and how they interpret things. Parts of the city are way less densely populated than they were in the middle of the last Century, but does that mean that there are too few people there? Should the whole city look like the Gold Coast, River North, Bucktown? It seems to work for most of Manhattan, but Houston and Phoenix are expanding rapidly, and most of their cities look like Schamburg.
The most traditional manner in which over and underpopulation is defined is related to survival. Are there too few or too many people for the area to survive?
We've already established that if there is "underpopulation" in Chicago, it is a subset of the city on the South/West sides. The question is, is the survival of these areas, in our competitive 21st century world, threatened by the population reduction that has occurred over the past 30 or so years?
1) The Metro area has added people in every census. This is good.
2) I haven't seen this census's figures for number of Households yet, but in every other census, the City of Chicago proper has added households even when population has declined. This is due to demographic changes in household size. This is good, too, although getting families to stay in the city would be a nice improvement. Better schools and lower crime in areas cheap enough to have an average-income family in are probably both necessary.
3) The core of Chicago is growing (albeit slowly) or stable. The periphery neighborhoods are really struggling due primarily to the collapse of manufacturing and steel-making industries. It's taken 20-30 years to see the full impact of that, but it's finally playing its full hand. Replacing that employment base is partly a national problem. However, even without that employment base the empty areas could become attractive to families with better schools and better crime control. Selling the positive aspects of the city for families is another strategy - many long-time suburbanites simply don't know what benefits there are for city kids - they only know the downsides.
Personally I think there are three things that the City and County should be doing:
1) Bring the police force up to full staffing.
2) Allow school choice for all parents.
3) Recognize that parts of the South and West sides are more suburban than urban, and build a new expressway connecting the Kennedy, the Ike, the Stevenson and the Dan Ryan. This will encourage the redevelopment of parts of the West and South sides better than additional transit capacity will.
There is a fourth collection of items that, in my opinion, must happen for the long-term viability of the CTA and Chicago's status as an actual urban center:
4) Remove the right of Aldermen to block dense development within 3/8 mile of any "L" station. Make it difficult for them to block dense development within 1/4 mile of a Metra station. Require a city-wide process for them to be able to block dense development on any site within 1/4 mile of three or more bus lines.
I agree with almost everything you have written, but would add that the City Council should also be at least cut in half and the powers of the alderman reduced reduced further.
Personally I think there are three things that the City and County should be doing:
1) Bring the police force up to full staffing.
2) Allow school choice for all parents.
3) Recognize that parts of the South and West sides are more suburban than urban, and build a new expressway connecting the Kennedy, the Ike, the Stevenson and the Dan Ryan. This will encourage the redevelopment of parts of the West and South sides better than additional transit capacity will.
1) Gotta find the money.
2) School choice exists for everyone anyway, doesn't it? I mean, you have a neighborhood school, and then you have magnet/special interest schools at all levels you can send your kids (within certain more broad geographic boundaries).
3) Will never happen in a millon years. They couldn't get the crosstown done when highway construction was popular. Any proposed route would go through a lot of fairly built/middle class suburban neighborhoods and the width required to support a 6-8 lane highway + easements would knock out 2 city blocks for miles. You could do it on exisiting rail ROWs, but it's still taking out buildings on either side of the ROW. A rail ring is a lot more feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
There is a fourth collection of items that, in my opinion, must happen for the long-term viability of the CTA and Chicago's status as an actual urban center:
4) Remove the right of Aldermen to block dense development within 3/8 mile of any "L" station. Make it difficult for them to block dense development within 1/4 mile of a Metra station. Require a city-wide process for them to be able to block dense development on any site within 1/4 mile of three or more bus lines.
This one I love, with one modification: define dense according to what is already built in the area (ignoring vacant lots) or adjacent areas in terms of built density (sq feet built / sq feet of land). Examples:
-any area adjacent to the Loop can support a built density that is x% as dense as the average Loop plot (maybe 60%). This eliminates some of the NIMBY stuff in the West Loop/S Loop.
-For reference, an area of 3 flats may have a built/land residential density of about 1.5. An area with a lot of single story homes in the city may have a residential density index of 0.5. Something that is 3x as dense on commercial streets should be permitted as should something that is 1.5 to 2x more dense within the residential portion of the neighborhood. Something immediately adjacent to the el/metra stop on a commercial street should be given even more leeway.
1) Gotta find the money.
2) School choice exists for everyone anyway, doesn't it? I mean, you have a neighborhood school, and then you have magnet/special interest schools at all levels you can send your kids (within certain more broad geographic boundaries).
3) Will never happen in a millon years. They couldn't get the crosstown done when highway construction was popular. Any proposed route would go through a lot of fairly built/middle class suburban neighborhoods and the width required to support a 6-8 lane highway + easements would knock out 2 city blocks for miles. You could do it on exisiting rail ROWs, but it's still taking out buildings on either side of the ROW. A rail ring is a lot more feasible.
...
1) Agreed. If it were easy, it'd already be done, but if it were really the priority it would already be done, too. It needs to become a priority.
2) No, it doesn't. Magnet schools aren't a true choice, because they have to select you, and there's aren't nearly enough of them to meet demand. Magnet schools are also mostly for high-achieving students. When I say school choice for all students, it needs to also be a system that works for students who are average. The magnet system doesn't work for average students who end up stuck in whatever their local school is.
3) Feasible and effective are not the same thing. I love mass transit rail. But a rail route that does not have downtown as a destination and runs mostly through areas with very low jobs densities and residential densities below 20,000 people per square mile will NEVER be cost effective. If you think I'm wrong, show me a single rail line, anywhere in the world, that contradicts that. Additionally, there is a huge rail belt where people talk about putting a Crosstown transitway, and it's just not pedestrian-friendly. There are plenty of pedestrian-friendly parts of the City, but we can either pretend it's possible to make the entire city pedestrian-oriented and continue to drive the manufacturing type jobs into the car-oriented suburbs, or we can allow the parts of the city that are already car-oriented to better serve that demand in the city instead of in the far suburbs.
At some point, we have to face facts if we want to actually rehabilitate the parts of the city that have been abandoned by even working-class people. And one fact is that highways are a marvelous and popular means of transportation in low-to-mid density areas.
Tokyo, Shanghai, Seoul and other major cities have elevated expressways through the core that greatly help the areas they serve. What we know about highway design now compared to when the Ike and Dan Ryan and Kennedy were built, is vastly different. It is possible now to build a highway with far less disruption of the urban fabric. Just because it's currently popular to tear down certain highways around the nation doesn't discount the fact that highways are indispensable in the big picture nor that there are still areas where additional highways would add more benefit than they would detract.
An elevated highway running next (or even over) the existing rail lines on the Crosstown corridor would require much less disruption of existing areas, would isolate cross-town car traffic from local roads, would make it faster and easier for smaller manufacturers to locate in areas not currently near an expressway, and would dramatically reduce the number of traffic accidents in the areas served by the expressway. I'm talking about working to induce new use of areas that are already depopulated below the density of many close-in suburbs.
2) No, it doesn't. Magnet schools aren't a true choice, because they have to select you, and there's aren't nearly enough of them to meet demand. Magnet schools are also mostly for high-achieving students. When I say school choice for all students, it needs to also be a system that works for students who are average. The magnet system doesn't work for average students who end up stuck in whatever their local school is.
Indeed. What the city needs is for the ordinary neighborhood schools to do a good job so that people can simply move into a neighborhood with the assurance their kids will get a good education in the school down the street.
You know, like in 1950. I think such an improvement would do much to bring the prosperous working class, both white and blue collar, back to the city from places like Tinley and Downers and such. People who would like to live in the city and aren't looking for the trendy North Side "right this, right that" thing.
the trendy North Side "right this, right that" thing.
Dare I ask what that is supposed to mean? Anyway, there are young families here right alongside the young singles. Strollers are not a rare sight. There hasn't yet been a critical mass in terms of the school system, but that day may come.
Dare I ask what that is supposed to mean? Anyway, there are young families here right alongside the young singles. Strollers are not a rare sight. There hasn't yet been a critical mass in terms of the school system, but that day may come.
Correct, take a stroll down Southport or Clark in Andersonville or Lincoln in Lincoln Square, Roscoe Street, etc. etc..
Dare I ask what that is supposed to mean? Anyway, there are young families here right alongside the young singles. Strollers are not a rare sight. There hasn't yet been a critical mass in terms of the school system, but that day may come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos
Correct, take a stroll down Southport or Clark in Andersonville or Lincoln in Lincoln Square, Roscoe Street, etc. etc..
Strollers may not be a rare sight in these neighborhoods, but that's not really the issue. Track those stroller-wielding families for 10 years and see if they're still around long after the kid doesn't fit in a stroller any more. Which do you think is more likely: that they still live in their trendy and stroller-friendly little North Side enclaves, or that they have beat a retreat back to the suburbs?
Strollers may not be a rare sight in these neighborhoods, but that's not really the issue. Track those stroller-wielding families for 10 years and see if they're still around long after the kid doesn't fit in a stroller any more. Which do you think is more likely: that they still live in their trendy and stroller-friendly little North Side enclave, or that they have beat a retreat back to the suburbs?
Depends on $$$. There are some nice private schools for city people to use in the meantime.
Strollers may not be a rare sight in these neighborhoods, but that's not really the issue. Track those stroller-wielding families for 10 years and see if they're still around long after the kid doesn't fit in a stroller any more. Which do you think is more likely: that they still live in their trendy and stroller-friendly little North Side enclaves, or that they have beat a retreat back to the suburbs?
I should also note that an awful lot can change in five or ten years, so it might be perfect timing.
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.
