Why isn't Chicago Metro growing.... (Lincoln, Manhattan: fit in, unemployment, bankruptcy)

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Zip codes: 60091.

Estimated median household income in 2013: $127,839 (it was $106,773 in 2000)
Wilmette: $127,839
IL: $56,210

Estimated per capita income in 2013: $67,298 (it was $55,611 in 2000)

Wilmette village income, earnings, and wages data

Estimated median house or condo value in 2013: $568,240 (it was $424,800 in 2000)
Wilmette: $568,240
IL: $169,600


Read more: //www.city-data.com/city/Wilmet...#ixzz3i3gDeU4x

Zip codes: 60523.

Estimated median household income in 2013: $134,476 (it was $146,537 in 2000)
Oak Brook: $134,476
IL: $56,210

Estimated per capita income in 2013: $77,303 (it was $76,668 in 2000)

Oak Brook village income, earnings, and wages data

Estimated median house or condo value in 2013: $715,520 (it was $588,200 in 2000)
Oak Brook: $715,520
IL: $169,600


Read more: //www.city-data.com/city/Oak-Br...#ixzz3i3gMY5So

None of this has anything to do with the conversation. The median home price is meaningless.

Wilmette is more expensive than Oak Brook apples to apples. I get you live somewhere around there, so are protective of local property values, but you get far more for your money in Oak Brook than Wilmette.

As I'm sure you're aware, Wilmette contains more multifamily, and far more small homes. But home prices apples to apples are far higher. They aren't even close. A 1 million home in Oak Brook would be at least 1.5 in Wilmette, probably more.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by edsg25

what do you get when you draw a ring around the core and the first group of concentric circles around? i would suggest: San Francisco. Or Boston. And I can throw in NY if Manhattan was to shed its outer boroughs and once again became a city of its own (it would be successful). Chicago's economy is more high end and, yes, you will see more and more people of lesser and lesser means move out, many of them people of color. and this is to our shame as it is to every first tier US city which have my is more high end and, yes, you will see more and more people of lesser and lesser means move out, many of them people of color. and this is to our shame as it is to every first tier US city which have become havens for those who have the bucks.

we talk of population decline here and it is somewhat absurd. Manhattan is probably 50% the population of its peak era when the island had some 2 million people, yet nobody talks about Manhattan in decline based on those numbers (nor should they obviously).

This makes no sense. Manhattan has been growing for 40 years; the equivalent area of Chicago has been declining for 60 years.

Core Chicago is much less populous than in the past; only the downtown core has been growing. Chicago generally isn't following the trends of cities like NYC, SF, Boston, which are growing cities.

Originally Posted by edsg25

so many areas in NYC would be outside the city in other metropolitan areas. the consolidation of Greater New York brought an unprecedented amount of land into the city with the addition of 4 outer boroughs. and lots of those areas in the eastern region of Queens and much of Staten Island remains suburban, literally villages in every respect other than lack of municipal status in much of that territory.

This makes no sense either. NYC, if anything, has much smaller municipal boundaries than Chicago and many other cities. Everything to the west of the city core is outside the city limits, and the metro area's urbanity extends far beyond city limits. NYC hasn't grown an inch since the 19th century, cities like Chicago and LA expanded greatly during the 20th century.

NYC despite being many times larger than Chicago is basically the same physical size minus Staten Island (which barely has any people minus a small part of the very dense North Shore).

If NYC had the "same" physical size as Chicago it would probably include millions of extra people in fully urban core counties like Hudson and Essex counties. NYC has far higher density than any other major U.S. city. Even Queens has higher density than the next most dense city.

And the fringes of NYC have zero to do with explaining growth in NYC. Staten Island is easily the slowest growing NYC borough.

[nei]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

This makes no sense either. NYC, if anything, has much smaller municipal boundaries than Chicago and many other cities. Everything to the west of the city core is outside the city limits, and the metro area's urbanity extends far beyond city limits. NYC hasn't grown an inch since the 19th century, cities like Chicago and LA expanded greatly during the 20th century.

NYC despite being many times larger than Chicago is basically the same physical size minus Staten Island (which barely has any people minus a small part of the very dense North Shore).

If NYC had the "same" physical size as Chicago it would probably include millions of extra people in fully urban core counties like Hudson and Essex counties. NYC has far higher density than any other major U.S. city. Even Queens has higher density than the next most dense city.

And the fringes of NYC have zero to do with explaining growth in NYC. Staten Island is easily the slowest growing NYC borough.

Except Chicago contains a smaller % of its metro area / urban: Chicago around 30%, NYC closer to 40%. Staten Island has only been the slowest growing borough in the last five years; last few decades of the 20th century it was by far the fastest growing, from 2000 to 2010 a bit faster than the city average. A NYC without Staten Island would still below below its population peak, though still less of a decline than Chicago.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by nei

EA NYC without Staten Island would still below below its population peak, though still less of a decline than Chicago.

This is wrong. NYC currently has ~8.4M people and Staten Island is ~ 470,000 population, so without Staten Island, NYC is ~8M; the previous peak population for NYC was 7,900,000 (which is a figure that includes Staten Island). So even without Staten Island, NYC is still at peak population.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

This is wrong. NYC currently has ~8.4M people and Staten Island is ~ 470,000 population, so without Staten Island, NYC is ~8M; the previous peak population for NYC was 7,900,000 (which is a figure that includes Staten Island). So even without Staten Island, NYC is still at peak population.

My guess is that the poster is going by the official 2010 Census, which in case they'd be correct. By the estimates, they're wrong.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by marothisu

My guess is that the poster is going by the official 2010 Census, which in case they'd be correct. By the estimates, they're wrong.

They still wouldn't be correct:

1950 Population:
NYC - 7,891,000
Staten Island - 191,500
Non Staten Island NYC Total - 7,699,500

2010 Population:
NYC - 8,175,000
Staten Island - 468,000
Non Staten Island NYC Total - 7,707,000

the populations are almost exactly the same, if you disregard Staten Island

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

They still wouldn't be correct:

1950 Population:
NYC - 7,891,000
Staten Island - 191,500
Non Staten Island NYC Total - 7,699,500

2010 Population:
NYC - 8,175,000
Staten Island - 468,000
Non Staten Island NYC Total - 7,707,000

the populations are almost exactly the same, if you disregard Staten Island

I'm pretty sure they were saying if you disregard Staten Island from 2010 but not the peak but I could be wrong. Anyway - they're off by only 7500 people. Almost the same.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

This makes no sense. Manhattan has been growing for 40 years; the equivalent area of Chicago has been declining for 60 years.

Core Chicago is much less populous than in the past; only the downtown core has been growing. Chicago generally isn't following the trends of cities like NYC, SF, Boston, which are growing cities.

This makes no sense either. NYC, if anything, has much smaller municipal boundaries than Chicago and many other cities. Everything to the west of the city core is outside the city limits, and the metro area's urbanity extends far beyond city limits. NYC hasn't grown an inch since the 19th century, cities like Chicago and LA expanded greatly during the 20th century.

NYC despite being many times larger than Chicago is basically the same physical size minus Staten Island (which barely has any people minus a small part of the very dense North Shore).

If NYC had the "same" physical size as Chicago it would probably include millions of extra people in fully urban core counties like Hudson and Essex counties. NYC has far higher density than any other major U.S. city. Even Queens has higher density than the next most dense city.

And the fringes of NYC have zero to do with explaining growth in NYC. Staten Island is easily the slowest growing NYC borough.

Chicago AFTER The "Great Fire of 1871" that decimated the city. New Chicago city planners, chose NOT TO BUILD AS NYC. TENEMENT STYLE HOUSING would NOT BE BUILT. Row homes never would become the dominate housing next either.

But Chicago is still most Urban after NYC in the US. Even with swaths on the Southside removed from blight. As you ALWAYS POINT OUT ON THREADS..... THEY ARE DIFFERENT CITIES. We know which one you boast for.

No other city in the US will have the scale of Manhattan. But it is still down from a PEAK OF 2.3 million in 1910 its 1.6 million now. ALSO MANHATTAN LOST PEOPLE IN 5 OF THE LAST 10 DECADES....

THE MIDWEST IS NOT THE MAIN SOUGHT AFTER REGION OF THE NATION. THE COAST AND SUNBELT IS. BUT IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND OCEANS RISE? OR SEVERITY OF WATER SHORTAGES IN THE WEST GET WORST? THE MIDWEST WILL RISE AGAIN.

[wannawander]

Living in the suburbs most of my life I will add the reasons why the Chicagoland area is not doing too well.

1. The Weather. The last two winters were absolutely brutal. A lot of people hated going out in the cold to shovel massive amounts of snow. Heating bills went through the roof. I can't help but feel that people paid a lot in car related expenses (such as towing, as I noticed a lot of cars in ditches). Along with the brutal winter came terrible roads as well.

2. The Crime. Overall Crime isn't terrible, but the news from Chicago definitely makes it seem like a capital of violence. It seems like at least one person is killed a weekend. There are fears that this could spill over in some parts. To others, it makes Chicago a place to visit, but not live.

3. The Cost. Property taxes seem to keep going up. The threat of tax increases from the legislature. The sales tax increase in Cook County. The threat of retirement income being taxed. The massive pension hole that needs to be filled. The fact that the legislature still does not have a solid plan for tackling these massive costs. All in all, not the best situation for attracting new people and companies.

4. The Jobs. Most jobs, I have noticed, tend to be part-time or just low wage. Include this with the increasing cost of living, Chicago, does not come across as a great place to live.

I have a friend who will be leaving for North Carolina in a few months. Another friend who is hoping to move to Arizona by next year. A relative who will be moving to Washington for a better, higher paying job. My parents are looking to move out of state to escape the increased cost of living. I have known people who have moved to Colorado and even out of the country from Illinois. Frankly, something needs to be done to keep more people here, but I am not optimistic. I believe that most of the legislature and Chicago city council are so insulated from what the average person goes through that they do not know that their actions are aggravating the situation.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

This makes no sense. Manhattan has been growing for 40 years; the equivalent area of Chicago has been declining for 60 years.

ok, Nola, where did I say that Manhattan hasn't been growing for 40 years? I said that back in time (around the time of the consolidation of Greater New York, Manhattan had a population of 2,000,000. of course, for well off, wealthy enclaves like manhattan, population can actually go down as fewer people live in a unit (no that isn't happening in manhattan,but it could…sometimes lowering of population may bring success.

as far as Chicago's core and surrounding areas declining, the Trib, as I noted them noting, said the area received about a 37% boost in population and, in fact, is terribly undersupplied with residential units (the topic of the article was how Rahm wanted to see more intense residential development near CTA and Metra stations to increase the number of available units.

as for making no sense, you, NOLA, the master of negativity, take the cake: all you do is come here and ***** and troll about how much you hate chicago and how bad it is. if you dislike and disrespect chicago so much, why do you even bother to post here?

i'm go out on a ledge sticking off the sky deck of sears tower on this one and say that your credibility on this sub forum is somewhere in the range of, oh, perhaps….0%.