Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year, (Springfield, Worth: city hall, rent)

[chicagobear]

Originally Posted by pete6032

I think we've already made it to a wealthy playland, just in certain parts of the city.

Given all the gentification in a lot of neighborhoods over the last 20 years, I call it San Francisco with bad weather and no hills.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by chicagobear

Given all the gentification in a lot of neighborhoods over the last 20 years, I call it San Francisco with bad weather and no hills.

Yeah it's happening a little bit - fortunately for Chicago, it's a lot bigger than SF so if you don't make over 6 figures, you can still live in the city and not be forced to the suburbs if you don't want.

[Runuova]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

So, we should rebuild the projects, then?

If not your neighborhood, where should the people who get Section 8 actually live?

Maybe the question to ask is, why aren't all neighborhoods sharing in section 8 equally? If I have a section 8 voucher, why am I limited to broke down apartments in broke down neighborhoods? Isn't the point of section 8 to stop the segregation of poverty?

There are people in Lincoln Park on section 8 as well as suburbs like Skokie. Some people just stay in familiar neighborhoods due to close family or familiarity.

[oakparkdude]

More population would definitely make paying off the pension obligations a lot easier.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

More population would definitely make paying off the pension obligations a lot easier.

The short answer is yes, but it's not the only answer. Let me ask you the same question I asked earlier. Would you rather have 2.6 million people with a median household income of $52K or would you rather have 2.7 million people with a median household income of $45K?

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The short answer is yes, but it's not the only answer. Let me ask you the same question I asked earlier. Would you rather have 2.6 million people with a median household income of $52K or would you rather have 2.7 million people with a median household income of $45K?

Well, ideally you'd want to keep increasing the numbers of high income households while at the same time still holding onto the middle and lower income households.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Well, ideally you'd want to keep increasing the numbers of high income households while at the same time still holding onto the middle and lower income households.

Go back a page or two and check out the numbers I posted.

[ChicagoMeO]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

So, we should rebuild the projects, then?

If not your neighborhood, where should the people who get Section 8 actually live?

Maybe the question to ask is, why aren't all neighborhoods sharing in section 8 equally? If I have a section 8 voucher, why am I limited to broke down apartments in broke down neighborhoods? Isn't the point of section 8 to stop the segregation of poverty?

Section 8 people have got a bad stigma attached. even though there might be some good Section 8'ers, the bad ones have messed up the reps of the good ones. Its reality, because of the bad ones, i dont think people want Section 8's in their neighborhood.

Where i am against it is in the areas where people are paying a lot for rent like in Streeterville, Section 8 is a bad use of funds to pay for an apartment there which may be $2,000 a month, if they require HUD to pay more just so someone can live in Streeterville, and then the other tenants are probably NOT happy that they are paying $2,000 a month while a section 8'er is paying $200 for the same thing.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The short answer is yes, but it's not the only answer. Let me ask you the same question I asked earlier. Would you rather have 2.6 million people with a median household income of $52K or would you rather have 2.7 million people with a median household income of $45K?

But that question is nonsensical, because, as previously shown in this thread, Chicago is losing middle class residents, not poor residents.

Obviously cities want more people and richer people. The population trends in Chicago don't favor greater wealth nor greater population.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yes, there's no proof even though the official US Census numbers say otherwise. Knock yourself out: American FactFinder

No, the problem is that you refuse to accept the Census data. In fact, we already posted the Census data showing that Chicago is losing middle class, and not losing rich or poor. You keep rationalizing the Chicago population trends by falsely claiming that Chicago is only losing poor people.

There is zero in the Census numbers that indicates that the poor are leaving Chicago. If that were true, then the median income in Chicago would be an outlier compared to other cities. But it isn't. Chicago doesn't have a richer city proper than other major U.S. cities, Chicago doesn't have better income growth than other major U.S. cities, and the proportion of poor Chicago neighborhoods has grown over time, without interruption, since 1970, and the trend continues to this day.

Your whole theory is nonsensical, because expensive cities that attract the rich do not lose the poor. Places like SF, NYC, LA, Boston and DC are all much more expensive than Chicago, yet the poor aren't leaving, so your theory that the poor are all fleeing Chicago because a few downtown neighborhoods are somewhat pricey is an odd one, to be sure. It makes no sense, as the poor don't live in market-rate housing, and you even posted the Census data that confirms Chicago isn't an outlier, yet you still argue the opposite.

Even Manhattan isn't losing the poor. The idea that Chicago, a city that is frankly pretty cheap compared to most major cities, is losing poor because the city is "too expensive", is kind of an ridiculous claim, easily disproven through a look at the Census numbers.