Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year, (Buffalo, Detroit: eviction, income)

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Not true. The 2010 Census reported that Chicago had significant white flight, and had lost 6% of its white population since the previous Census.

There is zero reason to believe that Chicago has slow growth/no growth because only poor blacks are leaving. People are just saying this because they are making up excuses. There hasn't been a Chicago Census in over 80 years where the white population showed a population increase, and Chicago's income growth isn't different from that of other cities.

The only way you could believe that Chicago isn't growing because poor blacks are leaving is if you think the U.S. Census is fabricating data. Because in every other city, the same trends are occurring (gentrification, blacks leaving for suburbs, etc.) yet every other major city has significantly greater population growth than Chicago. In fact black flight from cities like SF and NYC is actually greater than that of Chicago, yet those cities have relatively rapid population growth. The story of black flight is true in virtually every city, yet Chicago clearly has something different going on, because no other major city has such slow growth.

I would guess (and I'm not sure, as we have to wait until 2020 until the official numbers come out) that Chicago's poor population numbers are largely a reflection of the bad leadership from the city and state. When your state is shrinking in population, it's tough to swim against the tide, even if there are some good things going on locally. Tough to grow when the overall region is shrinking.

I would also guess that Mexican flight is having an impact. Chicago's inner suburbs tend to be cheap, so I bet you lots of Mexicans (and even many direct immigrants) are headed for Chicagoland suburbs. Probably the more upwardly mobile Mexicans are leaving Little Village for the better schools and safer streets of the western suburbs.

That is the kind of comment I tend to stop responding to. 1) even if true, it is a hard number, not a relative one--a quick google search shows the Caucasian population stayed the same relatively, at 31 percent. 2) anyone who knows anything about cities--not just Chicago--knows the number would be dwarfed by proportional and real Caucasian loss from the 50s-90s.

Mod cut.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

That is the kind of comment I tend to stop responding to. 1) even if true, it is a hard number, not a relative one--a quick google search shows the Caucasian population stayed the same relatively, at 31 percent. 2) anyone who knows anything about cities--not just Chicago--knows the number would be dwarfed by proportional and real Caucasian loss from the 50s-90s.

I am not bored enough to look up the historical census data, but if you want to know why your argument fails in every level, feel free to -- but then you already knew that, didn't you?

Here are the age components of the white flight:

0-20 Years Old: +3,000
20-35 Years Old: +44,000
35-65 Years Old: (30,000)
65-75 Years Old: (23,000)
75+ Years Old: (34,000)

Whites aged 65 and lower were up by 17,000 and those who are senior citizens or elderly are down by 57,000.

Overall change in population of the city by age:

0-4: -14.94%
5-17: -19.50%
18-64: -2.25%
65+: -6.98%

Adult population is quite stable, child and elderly population dropping.

Change overall by race:

White: -5%
Black: -17%
Hispanic: +3%
Asian: +17%

[steeps]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

Here are the age components of the white flight:

0-20 Years Old: +3,000
20-35 Years Old: +44,000
35-65 Years Old: (30,000)
65-75 Years Old: (23,000)
75+ Years Old: (34,000)

Whites aged 65 and lower were up by 17,000 and those who are senior citizens or elderly are down by 57,000.

Overall change in population of the city by age:

0-4: -14.94%
5-17: -19.50%
18-64: -2.25%
65+: -6.98%

Adult population is quite stable, child and elderly population dropping.

Change overall by race:

White: -5%
Black: -17%
Hispanic: +3%
Asian: +17%

Yes this makes sense. As I noted the biggest white havens like the Northwest side has been aging fast and losing its original population since the 90s on. They were those of the original white flight back in a day. All my great-Aunts and Uncles , who lived there have passed. Not sure who all will continue to replace them in these areas. Sadly, some White flight is the result of those having school age children. Having no faith in the city's Public schools, decide to move to the suburbs for better schools.

But some of us noted Black flight also has occurred. Another argued no, and with claims on Mexican flight too happening.

Mod cut.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by steeps

Yes this makes sense. As I noted the biggest white havens like the Northwest side has been aging fast and losing its original population since the 90s on. They were those of the original white flight back in a day. All my great-Aunts and Uncles , who lived there have passed. Not sure who all will continue to replace them in these areas. Sadly, some White flight is the result of those having school age children. Having no faith in the city's Public schools, decide to move to the suburbs for better schools.

But some of us noted Black flight also has occurred. Another argued no, and with claims on Mexican flight too happening.

[Snip.]

White flight in the NW side predates the 90s by at least two decades; Belmont Cragin was one of the last to switch due to the influx of Poles, but Hermosa, for one example, was already majority Hispanic by 1990, and I believe Logan Square was also majority Hispanic by the mid-80s.

It obviously fluctuates neighborhood to neighborhood but the Hispanic influx began long before the 90s; in some areas I think going back to the 60s.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

White flight in the NW side predates the 90s by at least two decades; Belmont Cragin was one of the last to switch due to the influx of Poles, but Hermosa, for one example, was already majority Hispanic by 1990, and I believe Logan Square was also majority Hispanic by the mid-80s.

It obviously fluctuates neighborhood to neighborhood but the Hispanic influx began long before the 90s; in some areas I think going back to the 60s.

Of course White flight began in the 50s but especially the early to mid-60s. My relatives left some part of the Southside then, for the Northwest Side. I lived in Chicago in the 80s. Meant Mainly Norwood Park or Belmont/Central areas north and west. I mentioned 90s for when those of the original White Flight movement. Reached retirement even in the 1980s and their numbers began passing since the 1990s. I did not mean white flight occurring in the 1990s. Sorry.

Hispanics mix better on the NORTHSIDE anyway it seems with others. Though being away a long time. My yearly visits and news surely do not give me all the facts today. My relatives and Myself, lived between Belmont/Central area, Norwood Park and surrounded by Chicago city of Norridge and area near Midway Airport on the Southside. Some of my relatives, all deceased now. Were very prejudice. Taking loses on homes they had in the changing neighborhoods. Was the fact of the era of drastic upheaval.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

That is the kind of comment I tend to stop responding to. 1) even if true, it is a hard number, not a relative one--a quick google search shows the Caucasian population stayed the same relatively, at 31 percent. 2) anyone who knows anything about cities--not just Chicago--knows the number would be dwarfed by proportional and real Caucasian loss from the 50s-90s.

Mod cut.

Of course you can't respond to the comment, because it's verified Census data, and it directly refutes all your previous claims.

There's nothing you can say to contradict the data, unless you think the Census is flat-out fabricating Chicago population numbers (and only Chicago population numbers). There is no plausible way one can argue that Chicago has poor population numbers primarily because of gentrification and black/poor flight, when cities with much greater gentrification and black/poor flight are growing very quickly. Obviously there's something else going on in Chicago.

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Not surprised, but I am more concerned with the economic data than pure population numbers. The estimates show that the number of households making a good salary in Chicago is growing at a good rate (surprisingly more than SF, Dallas, Austin, etc).

Where have you found these estimates?

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Of course you can't respond to the comment, because it's verified Census data, and it directly refutes all your previous claims.

There's nothing you can say to contradict the data, unless you think the Census is flat-out fabricating Chicago population numbers (and only Chicago population numbers). There is no plausible way one can argue that Chicago has poor population numbers primarily because of gentrification and black/poor flight, when cities with much greater gentrification and black/poor flight are growing very quickly. Obviously there's something else going on in Chicago.

I'm not sure what you are addressing. My point was that the Crain's data you posted covered 1970-2005 and that strong trends from 1970-2005 don't have much in common with what's been happening from 2005-2015.

As for the rest of your arguments, they don't interest me. All of the data is widely available; I think it was the Reader or WBEz who published a definitive map/chart piece on the changing face of Chicago several years ago; it's been posted on this forum many times. I can't find it now, but the story it tells is more or less intuitive and common sense to anyone familiar with the city.

If you want to believe that the middle class is fleeing Chicago knock yourself out. All you have to do is define a time period, define middle class, and post the data.

Then someone else will post data countering what you posted. But it won't be me because I don't care!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

Where have you found these estimates?

American FactFinder

[BIG CATS]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

The poor African American sections of Chicago have become stagnant traps of very limited opportunity, and we still have a significant white population that seems determined to keep them there.

I usually love your posts and agree with them, but that might be the most bizarre effing thing Ive read in quite some time. Cmon, man.