Chicagoans Living Longer (Lincoln, Riverdale, Washington: neighborhoods, versus, statistics)

[marothisu]

Thought this was cool and good. It shows that people here are probably eating a good deal healthier, exercising more, etc versus 1990. I'm sure medical technology has something to do with it too and other stuff. According to a study, the life expectancy of the average Chicago rose 7.3 years between 1990 and 2010. It's now at 77.8 years, which is just under the US average of 78.7. The good news is that the rate of increase for Chicago is outpacing the national average, so Chicago should be above that number fairly soon. Among the races, Hispanics life on the longest on average at 84.7 years. Whites live on average to 79.2 while blacks live on average to 72.4. Blacks had the largest increase between 1990 and 2010 at 6.5 years. Unfortunately the male-female divide is strongest in blacks as females live until 76.6 while males live until 67.8 years.

Among the neighborhoods currently (well, 2010) that are above the national average are:

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content...m_medium=email

1. Near North Side - 85.2 years
2. Loop - 85 years
3. North Park - 84.4 years
4. Forest Glen - 83.4 years
5. Hyde Park - 82.3 years
6. South Lawndale and O'Hare - 82.2 years
8. Lake View and Armour Square - 81.9 years
10. North Center - 81.5 years
11. Lower West Side - 81.4 years
12. Lincoln Park - 81.3 years
13. Edison Park and West Elsdon - 81 years
15. Norwood Park - 80.9 years
16. Brighton Park - 80.8 years
17. Albany Park and Near South Side - 80.6 years
19. Lincoln Square, Kenwood, Hermosa, West Lawn, and Beverly - 80.5 years
24. McKinley Park - 80.4 years
25. West Ridge, Logan Square, and Portage Park - 80.3 years
28. Bridgeport - 80.2 years
29. Dunning, Avondale, Edgewater, and Garfield Ridge - 79.8 years
33. Jefferson Park - 79.7 years
34. Irving Park, Mount Greenwood and Montclare - 79.6 years
37. Belmont Cragin, Archer Heights, and West Town- 79.5 years
40. Gage Park - 79.2 years
41. Near West Side - 78.9 years


As far as biggest improvements outpacing the city itself:
1. Near South Side - +20.5 years
2. Grand Boulevard - +17 years
3. Near West Side - +15.2 years
4. Oakland - +13.4 years
5. Kenwood - +12.9 years
6. Uptown - +12 years
7. Woodlawn - +11.4 years
8. Loop - +11.3 years
9. Washington Park - +10.9 years
10. Near North Side - +10.4 years
11. East Garfield Park - +10.2 years
12. North Lawndale and Fuller Park - +10 years
14. Brighton Park - +9.6 years
15. South Lawndale - +9.5 years
16. Douglas - +9.3 years
17. West Town - +9 years
18. New City - +8.9 years
19. Logan Square - +8.7 years
20. Pullman and Riverdale - +8.6 years
22. Englewood - +8.3 years
23. North Center - +8.1 years
24. Lake View - +8 years
25. North Park and Lower West Side - +7.5 years
27. Lincoln Park - +7.4 years
28. Hyde Park and Bridgeport - +7.3 years


West Garfield Park, Fuller Park and Washington Park are the only areas that have a life expectancy under 70. In 1990, the number of community areas under 70 was 28..

[chet everett]

Maro, you are truly cut from the same kind of naive pattern that makes it so easy for Chicago polticians to tell bald faced lies and remain in office!
First page of the report:

True, the U.S. rate is still slightly higher

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Maro, you are truly cut from the same kind of naive pattern that makes it so easy for Chicago polticians to tell bald faced lies and remain in office!
First page of the report:

So you think it's not a good thing that the average life expectancy in the city increased by 7.3 years between 1990 and 2010, and that the rate of change is outpacing the national average average at such that Chicago will go above it soon if it holds on for just a few more years? I don't understand what you find so negative about this study. It's a very positive sign.

As usual, you conveniently left out the most important parts of the entire study and instead focused on the one thing that, at this rate, will not even be a truth within a few years (As the difference between Chicago and the national average is less than 1 year difference now and the difference in rates is not that subtle). I knew you'd respond to this in this way too, which is funny because the study itself is very good news.

[wickedripeplum]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Maro, you are truly cut from the same kind of naive pattern that makes it so easy for Chicago polticians to tell bald faced lies and remain in office!
First page of the report:

Were you too busy condescending to read marothisu's post all the way through? That's noted. Whatever the reason, this is good news. News that should be even better, but still good.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by wickedripeplum

Were you too busy condescending to read marothisu's post all the way through? That's noted. Whatever the reason, this is good news. News that should be even better, but still good.

It would be interesting to see how other cities fare considering Chicago is outpacing the national average's growth in the same time period. The growth for the national average was 3.3 years versus Chicago's 7.3 years.

By the way, if you take all the community areas that have an average life expectancy greater than the national average for 2010, the population of those areas is a combined 1,632,889 people, or about 60.6% of the population. There's another 64,123 that are within 0.6 years of the national average. If you compare that with 1990 when the national average was 75.4 years, the population that lived above that threshold for Chicago was 345,313 or 12.4% of the population. That is a pretty big increase from 1990 to 2010 - an increase of 1,287,576 people when the population of the city has actually declined by 88,128 people in the same time period.

On the flip side from above, the population that was living to 5 years below the national average and under in 1990 was 1,053,629 people, or about 37.8% of the population. In 2010 that was 499,160 people or 18.5% of the population. A nice sizable decrease there too.

[chet everett]

Folks, the fact remains the biggest "driving force" in Chicago's population dynamics remain the massive OUTFLOW of people from the south & west side -- the real number puts us somewhere between Detroit and post-Katrina New Orleans:


The Second-Rate City? by Aaron M. Renn, City Journal Spring 2012


The forces that drive "life expectancy" are well known:

Life Expectancy - What is Life Expectancy?

The murder rate is down, that "helps" equalize the shockingly low life span of those most likely to be the victim of inner city violence, but I really question if this is something to be "proud" of --

Years off Your Life? The Effects of Homicide on Life Expectancy by Neighborhood and Race/Ethnicity in Los Angeles County

NYC Health Department Finds Drop in Murder Rate Boosting Life Expectancy

Murder Rate Dropping In US, Average Life Expectancy Up - Health News - redOrbit

[Vlajos]

Lol @ this being bad news.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by chet everett

The murder rate is down, that "helps" equalize the shockingly low life span of those most likely to be the victim of inner city violence, but I really question if this is something to be "proud" of --

I'm confused. Are you saying that the decreased homicide rate is bad and something we should be ashamed of?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

I'm confused. Are you saying that the decreased homicide rate is bad and something we should be ashamed of?

Yes, that's what he said

[emathias]

I'd be curious to see what the average life expectancy would be if we normalized the data to a racial ratio identical to the national ratios. I'm also surprised that the Hispanic demographic has the longest life expectancy.

But mostly I'm glad I live on the Near North Side - I tell people I expect to live to about 85, so now I have data to back that up.