Why isn't Chicago Metro growing.... (Oregon: sales, crime rates, job market)

[westburbsil]

First and foremost, this is I think one of my few times I have posted in this category. This is not meant to be a troll thread, but informative one.

I live in the burbs of Chicago and absolutely love it. Grew up in city and have lived in area my whole life.

Have seen a lot of change, mainly Chicago changing from a more blue collar city to a now more white collar World City.

I have visited most every city in the U.S. and they all have unique things about them that make them spectacular. But they also, like Chicago south and west sides, have bad areas as well. They all just do for the most part.

So my question, Chicago downtown has never been cleaner, more beautiful, skyline prettier, roads in better condition, more upscale restaraunts, better shopping, parks never better,riverwalk, lakefront path, Midway much better an obviously Ohare, 606, etc. etc. etc. Also cost of Living much cheaper than coasts.

The burbs have an excellent quality of life with transit into the city, again much more afordable housing than the coasts, great school, park districts, etc.

That said the population has grown very slowly and not as fast as other cities and the same goes for the Metro area.

So my question is why? Do you see a decline or stability for a long time or do you see a rise.

Here are my reasons, please feel free to add on other factors or elaborate more:

-Weather - Yes its cold in winter always has, but so is northeast cities.
-State of IL - Financing bad, income tax not too bad like California, property taxes and sales tax high
-Jobs - Dont know exactly how jobs add up to other cities

Love to hear on why the slow growth and what people see for the future.

Thank you.

[58rhodes]

I dont know but the City is the 2nd most impressive in the nation. What more do you want?

try being Portland Oregon

[floridanative10]

I love chicago. The food is amazing, I love second city, steppenwolf and the whole arts environment in chicago, great sports town and beautiful architecture, alot of european influence with all those architects moving over and the commodities market makes it a major financial hub. I love the architecture tour you can take in chicago, great little boat ride and tour

I would have to say the bad press with all the shootings and some atrocious polar vortex weather last few years is all people see. I think chicago should take more media companies from new york and create more new media companies to promote this cool town and improve its contemporary image. Saturday night live from new york would be absolutely nothing without second city chicago and second city canada , pretty good indication of why chicago needs new media companies

media is everything in this age

[pnwguy2]

A couple of things here...

First the crime stories have certainly not helped Chicago, although we all realize this is focused on one part of the city.

But, secondly, and this was hit on earlier, but Illinois in general has bad government. Way too much corruption among leaders, and way too high taxes. This is the real problem.

[Count David]

I don't know, I don't care, but it is on my "SHTF escape from Denver" list.

[NOLA101]

Because the economy stinks (comparatively), the city and state are virtually bankrupt, taxes are high and getting higher, and the Great Lakes/Rustbelt area isn't really growing overall.

All the things you posted "the riverwalk looks nice, there are shiny towers downtown, skyline looks pretty to me, etc." has nothing to do with whether a metro area is healthy and growing. Generally speaking, metro areas grow because of strong job markets or certain unique draws. Chicago does have appeal, but there are many negatives currently weighing down the region. Illinois has the worst population numbers in the entire country.

I don't think crime rates have anything to do with it. Chicagoland doesn't have particularly high crime rates, and the bad areas generally aren't close to the good areas.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

I'm pretty sure the metro area as a whole is growing...(Chicagoland)

[ToriaT]

I agree with everything the OP said. Except...I don't know if its growing or not. I suspect the reason why many do not move or stay here is the press attention to crime, which is concentrated in small areas mostly of the city, the high taxes and cost of living (the coasts are more expensive but some areas much cheaper), the economy is not booming, and the reputation we have horrible weather which really is only a factor for about three months out of the year in my book. I don't think the weather from April through November is that terrible and much of it is quite nice.

[jdiddy]

For one, many areas with demand for growth have muted numbers due to the decrease or tepid growth of housing units. You can't grow if you don't allow it. The weather sucks, but its worse in Minneapolis, and they are growing at a much faster rate.

I'm sure the poor governance plays some part, its a push factor for current residents with means and a drawback for potential residents.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

I'm pretty sure the metro area as a whole is growing...(Chicagoland)

Historically it's grown at a steady rate, albeit slower than the national rate of growth. Recently, though, estimates have shown the rate of growth having slowed to be barely positive. Of course, some areas of Chicagoland are growing robustly but, so far, the growth in those areas has not been enough to offset losses in less robust areas. They may eventually do so, but so far they have not.

I ran a couple calculations just for the City of Chicago itself:

If the census trends between 2000 and 2010 continued, as far as the % change per community area in Chicago is concerned, if the areas that lost more than -1% per year between 2000 and 2010 continue to lose at that rate, and the areas that gained over 1% per year continued to gain at that rate, and the areas in between continued to plod along at their rates, the city would lose population until 2052, where it would bottom out at a population of 2,335,295. And then it would grow. In about 100 years from today, Chicago would match its historical population high and by 2139 it would surpass 5 million people.

Of course you can't take one census and extrapolate out 100 years with anything even close to accuracy. My extrapolation predicting a Chicago with 5 million people is just as absurd as declaring the end of Chicago due to one poorly-performing census period.

This silly exercise I did just based on gain-loss percentages with no regard to why different areas gained or lost. If I have time I may actually go through and predict which areas are losing population with no hope of ever growing again due to entrenched crime, and which are losing due to the shakeup of public housing, which are losing due to early gentrification, which are losing due to demographic family size shifts, etc. Doing that could yield some very interesting numbers. A significant number of the loss between 2000 and 2010 was fed by the decimation of public housing in Chicago in those years, so some of the 200,000 loss in that decade is due to a one-time event. Most of the areas that gained, on the other hand, gained as part of a sustained trend. As Chicago's economy improves (and it is), I think we'll see the city regain grown a lot sooner than 2052. I don't think I can predict a 5,000,000 resident City of Chicago, but I think it's possible I'll see a 3,000,000 resident Chicago again in my lifetime.