Chicago's Comeback (Lincoln, Manhattan, Irving: apartments, rent, lawyer)

[jwaiter]

Originally Posted by emathias

it's a great size for a ruler ...

And a vinyl recording.

[tonyurban]

Originally Posted by edsg25

and here's an interesting thought in the way, way, (did I say "way") overpopulated globe of the 21st century: what on earth makes anyone think a larger population is in and of itself a good thing? and couldn't it prove to be very bad? I don't know about anyone else, but if you were to offer me a Chicago with 12,000,000 people in a Chicagoland of 30,000,000 in a decade or two, it would send shivers down my spine. not the good time.

12,000,000 is not a great size for a city, just as 12 inches isn't a good size for.....well.....whatever.

Thank you for pointing that out. Here in Phoenix AZ, the population is swelling, however jobs, quality of life, etc isn't catching up. Just when it looks like Phoenix might diversify its jobs, culture, transportation, and education, the population jumps up 20, 30, 40 percent within a decade. I like to look at it like this. NYC and D.C. are two very interesting and fun cities. D.C. is a very urban, walkable, and fun city just like NYC. Just because D.C. is much much smaller in population doesn't automatically make it inferior to the bigger cities. D.C. holds its own very well up against NYC.

So with Chicago in question, lets just say if Houston does surpass Chicago in population. Houston will NEVER have the amenities, infrastructure, culture, walkablility, and diverse economy as Chicago. Just my humble opinion.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Davis Street

Gentrification is occuring in the neighborhoods which are growing. Gentrification is correlated 100% with growth.

Gentrification refers to changing socioeconomic demographics of a neighborhood, not to population growth. Look at the map again. There are many gentrifying neighborhoods that are losing population. Only the neighborhoods that added high rise residential buildings are gaining population.

Or, if you don't want to look at the map, just think about this: What happens to the population of a block when housing units that used to each contain an average of, say, 3.8 working class people now contain an average of, say, 2.3 middle class people? Population of the block falls. I'm making up those numbers for illustrative purposes, but there's no doubt that the people gentrifying places like Logan Square and Pilsen are living less densely on average than the former inhabitants, which means fewer people living in those neighborhoods. Those are two of many gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago that showed a population loss from 2000-2010.

Or conversely, imagine that a mansion sitting on a yard of several acres is torn down and replaced with a housing project or a trailer park. Population of that piece of land would skyrocket! That would not be gentrification. There is far from being a 100% correlation between gentrification and population growth.

[edsg25]

Would somebody (ANYBODY!!!!) please please please tell me what exactly is supposed to be the attraction in Houston, what the city is offering that would possibly draw 500,000+ new residents in the next ten years or so? I mean, do any of you have some inside information that vast new oil fields have been discovered smack under Texas soil that is going to resurrect the dying fossil fuel economy of the capital of the post-peak world of oil? Or am I assume that energy conscious Houston will suddenly take over the field of wind and solar power, thus maintaining its dominance?

Also: Houston is a sprawling southwestern metropolis, not heavily reliant on public transit, still wedded to its cars. So if those 500,000+ magically do show up there (to do what? flip hamburgers at McDonalds's? the city is notorious for low paying jobs in a state where taxes are notorious low and thus services are barely existent), how will Houston benefit from this growth of (needless) population? Seems to me that the only thing Houston will get out of it will be freeways that stand in gridlock.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Davis Street

This isn't true. In fact, the opposite is true.

Gentrification is occuring in the neighborhoods which are growing. Gentrification is correlated 100% with growth.

The declining neighborhoods (Englewood, Wild 100's, etc.) have no gentrification.

While it is true that, by definition, a declining neighborhood is not undergoing gentrification, that "truism" partly depends on how you define "declining."

In that context, it would mean a neighborhood with reduced investment, reduced shopping receipts, reduced home sales, reduced new construction, and, in some cases, a reduced number of households.

In no way is "gentrification" related to absolute population growth. In fact, gentrification is often (usually, in fact) accompanied by a population decline for the reasons Plzeň outlined. Upper-middle-class families nearly always have fewer children than working-class families. Poor single people are more likely to have a roommate and/or to rent a smaller place which accommodates higher density. Working class families are more likely to have an aged parent living with them instead of in a care facility. All of these factors aggregate into a decline in population during gentrification. Now, sometimes *after* gentrification you will see a return to population growth *if* a city has zoning that accommodates larger buildings being built and higher density than the end of gentrification culminates in.

A gentrified area often will have more businesses and look way better - and still have quite a few less people than it did pre-gentrification.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by emathias

A gentrified area often will have more businesses and look way better - and still have quite a few less people than it did pre-gentrification.

any doubts about that, head to San Francisco where you will not find kids in many of the best parts of town and often a residence is occupied by one person.

of course, those exceedingly small households are often loaded with cash.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by edsg25

any doubts about that, head to San Francisco where you will not find kids in many of the best parts of town and often a residence is occupied by one person.

Sometimes I wonder if San Francisco is going to turn from an organic city (I mean where people are born, grow up and then live as adults) into a kind of urban theme park for high income adults.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Sometimes I wonder if San Francisco is going to turn from an organic city (I mean where people are born, grow up and then live as adults) into a kind of urban theme park for high income adults.

I think it has.

[55degrees]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Would somebody (ANYBODY!!!!) please please please tell me what exactly is supposed to be the attraction in Houston, what the city is offering that would possibly draw 500,000+ new residents in the next ten years or so?

Jobs. Cheaper housing. And if you look at all the whining about "cold weather" on C-D, it is not hard to believe that there are people who will move to Houston so that they can avoid even a single day of winter weather. Some people just like to be able to buy a big new house for $250,000. Houston's not a bad place, so with the above, it is able to attract new people. I personally do not think Houston is anywhere near the level of Chicago (even if the population of Houston doubles!), but it has its appeal to people who need $ and hate temps below 80 degrees (hahha).

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Sometimes I wonder if San Francisco is going to turn from an organic city (I mean where people are born, grow up and then live as adults) into a kind of urban theme park for high income adults.

Going to? It seems to me like it's already been that for at least a couple of decades. I love visiting, but I don't know how people who aren't trust funders or successful entrepreneurs can afford to live there.