Chicago population now and the next 50 years (my opinion) (2014, apartment)

[NDO470SK]

So, census estimates say Chicago is just 2.6 million people. WHAT??? Chicago is much more than that. Just by the view and how the city actually is you know Chicago is close if not over the 3 million mark. Even though there's a pension crisis and the government is also in crisis, as well as the state of Illinois, Chicago and Cook County are doing fine with population. I think that Chicago's population will grow, and hopefully that would lead to greater economic growth. Young people like myself prefer the urban life, so Chicago will always continue to grow, or at least be preferable for people my age (22-30). This is what I actually think Chicago's population is and what it may be in the future. I think the census underestimates Chicago's population altogether, and then when the real census is done something happens that just as Chicago supposedly "grew", it fell back done. That's why the city has a reputation of growing and falling right back down. I think population will grow because there is space. Unlike NYC, I don't know where they'll be housing 1 million more people by 2025. Here in Chicago, it'll be awesome if the population reached 5 million by 2050, but that's HIGHLY unlikely
My guest under my numbers
2010: 3,005,000
2020: 3,075,000
2030: 3,140,000
2040: 3,200,000
2050: 3,300,000
2060: 3,400,000
2065: 3,465,000
**so growth would be about 460,000 people or 15.30%

Now if Chicago's population is really 2.6 million, this is what I think growth would be:

2010: 2,695,000
2020: 2,775,000
2030: 2,900,000
2040: 3,015,000
2050: 3,075,000
2060: 3,150,000
2065: 3,205,000
** so growth would be about 18.92% or 510,000 people.

The census says that Chicago's population topped 3.6 million in 1950, I think that future growth may be steady because of baby boomers and older people leaving.

I would like to hear your opinions.

[ShampooBanana]

While there has been growth upwards in certain areas of the city, there are also huge swaths have been essentially abandoned, specifically on the south and west sides. Population was certainly lost when almost all of the high rise public housing projects were torn down and replaced by lower density housing, as well. Also, in 1950 the first highways were just being built in the city. Those new interstates such as the Dan Ryan, Eisenhower, Stevenson, etc. required the leveling of thousand of homes and old apartment buildings. Finally, average household size has shrunk considerably over the decades. It's now just about 2/household whereas it used to be closer to 3. There are a lot more single people and people have fewer kids now. With Chicago being a city that has no room to grow though annexing new land, that means a natural population decrease just due to that factor.

I'd be willing to bet that the population of Chicago doesn't ever hit 3 million again, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[NDO470SK]

Yea that's one of the things I'm thinking. Do you think that the city's population will drop our do you think that it's lower than current estimates

[compactspace]

I'd be very surprised if the population was below census estimates. They tend to be conservative.

The question as to whether Chicago will grow or not has too many volatile variables to make a good estimate. Will the city sort out its finances? Its crime? Its schools? If it does then there's three outward 'push factors' gone.

Next is will it become the destination for a particular industry, in addition to keeping its robust economic diversity? If it does then there's an inbound 'pull factor'. My best guess for a candidate in this regard is food aggregation and processing. It's by no means glamorous but it's a very important sector, with a lot of secondary industries: insurance, futures, industrial chemistry, machinery and so on.

Third is urban environment and infrastructure. If the city expands and upgrades its metro transit, increases its density in a way that the built environment precipitates street life, if it removes terrible highway overpasses and so on -- there's another pull factor.

Finally, there's big picture stuff. The most important I can think of is climate change. It's too early to tell how the environmental future will play out, but Chicago's geography could be an advantage in the face of hurricanes, droughts and rising average temperatures. Or maybe not.

The next most important thing is politics. Right now, Chicago is a political talking point, thanks to the nation's current president. If the spotlight moves away then some of the negativity surrounding the city might be ameliorated.

The city certainly has the bones of a great metropolis. It has some of the world's finest cultural institutions (although the Joffrey Ballet is a bit of a weak link), beautiful architecture, a well-designed urban environment and a mindset that's largely pro-growth. With some exercise and nourishment, those bones could be nicely fleshed out, IMO.

But its future depends on too many 'maybes' to confidently predict anything.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by NDO470SK

So, census estimates say Chicago is just 2.6 million people. WHAT???

No - The official 2010 Census was 2.695. The 2014 ACS estimate puts it at 2.722 million. Also - what happened to using your rounding skills? Anyway - 50 years is a long time to predict anything at all, much less population. Hell, 20 years is too far. The city and area certainly has potential, but predicting that far out in advance? Impossible to do for pretty much anywhere.

[LeotheOrangeCat]

Between 2000 and 2010 Chicago lost 19% of its African American population. Has that continued since 2010? If it has, the growing population downtown, will not be able to overcome this loss.

[IrishIllini]

I'd love to be optimistic, but my opinion is the city will see a minimal gain or loss. Probably not more than 50-60,000 people in either direction. I don't think Chicago will be on a sustained growth pathway until 2020 and beyond.

[BRU67]

The X factor is economic development. If Chicago booms economically, then what's likely to happen is singles, DINKs and other professionals will move into certain areas (South Lawndale/Little Village might be an example) and drive up property values, which will displace working class families into the near suburbs. That would cause a population decrease in those area. Conversely, they might move into some areas which have been largely abandoned (East Garfield Park might be an example), which will cause a population increase in those areas. Both cases are the result of economic strength, even though population is lost in some areas.

The bottom line is that census numbers alone are irrelevant. The focus should be on median income and job growth.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by BRU67

The X factor is economic development. If Chicago booms economically, then what's likely to happen is singles, DINKs and other professionals will move into certain areas (South Lawndale/Little Village might be an example) and drive up property values, which will displace working class families into the near suburbs. That would cause a population decrease in those area. Conversely, they might move into some areas which have been largely abandoned (East Garfield Park might be an example), which will cause a population increase in those areas. Both cases are the result of economic strength, even though population is lost in some areas.

The bottom line is that census numbers alone are irrelevant. The focus should be on median income and job growth.

While elements of this are true, it'd be a mistake to focus exclusively on higher income households while hemorrhaging lower income ones. To be successful in the long run, Chicago needs to provide housing and jobs for people from all walks of life, not just the top 20-30 percent (just a number I pulled from my arse, not at all a proven statement).

The 2020 Census will likely retell the story the 2010 Census did. Blacks are leaving the city for other communities both in and out of state. Downtown and the usual north, near west, and near south communities are growing and the far south and far west sides are declining. I don't know if the growth on the north side/near south and west sides will be enough to offset the population decline on the south and west sides, but I'll hope until we see the numbers...

I don't doubt Chicago will rebound sooner rather than later, I'm just not sure if 2010-2020 is the decade. I'm feeling more confident about 2020-2030 TBH.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

While elements of this are true, it'd be a mistake to focus exclusively on higher income households while hemorrhaging lower income ones. To be successful in the long run, Chicago needs to provide housing and jobs for people from all walks of life, not just the top 20-30 percent (just a number I pulled from my arse, not at all a proven statement).

The 2020 Census will likely retell the story the 2010 Census did. Blacks are leaving the city for other communities both in and out of state. Downtown and the usual north, near west, and near south communities are growing and the far south and far west sides are declining. I don't know if the growth on the north side/near south and west sides will be enough to offset the population decline on the south and west sides, but I'll hope until we see the numbers...

I don't doubt Chicago will rebound sooner rather than later, I'm just not sure if 2010-2020 is the decade. I'm feeling more confident about 2020-2030 TBH.

Oh, I agree. Chicago needs to build up sectors other than those which will expand the Emerald City. That includes manufacturing, agricultural processing, etc. That would provide a much needed boost to the economic health of the south and west sides, and entire region for that matter. I was merely predicting the direction the Emerald City will grow, and how that might impact the overall population numbers of the City.

For example, if Chicago gains high paying manufacturing/processing jobs on the west side, but the working class families who rely on them decide to live in the suburbs for better schools, and the single and DINK professional classes chose to live in urban areas in Chicago proper and revitalize currently run down or abandoned neighborhoods, this would still be a good thing for the region as a whole (though Chicago should, of course, strive to become more family-friendly than it is now). Population numbers don't tell the whole story, that's all I'm saying.