Will Chicago's population pass 3 million by the 2030 census? (Moline, East Moline: condos, new construction)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

Can a "who cares"? option be added to this poll? I don't understand some people's obsession with the size of cities on this forum.

Jacksonville has more people than Seattle. Ft. Worth has more people than Boston. Mobile has more people than Ft. Collins. Does that make them better cities or more desirable places to live somehow? Chicago could grow to 3.5 million or shrink to 2 million and it would still be Chicago for me.

Good point. It wasn't long ago that the cheerleaders were applauding the shrinking population, as they breathlessly interpreted that to mean that smaller more affluent households were replacing larger poor families, who they surmised were heading out to the suburbs. I guess now the losses are getting a bit more alarming though, and also being seen at the State level.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

Can a "who cares"? option be added to this poll? I don't understand some people's obsession with the size of cities on this forum.

Jacksonville has more people than Seattle. Ft. Worth has more people than Boston. Mobile has more people than Ft. Collins. Does that make them better cities or more desirable places to live somehow? Chicago could grow to 3.5 million or shrink to 2 million and it would still be Chicago for me.

Think of cities each as being a male and think how each might be concerned with the size of his...er...metal water pipes based on length from aqueduct to city terminal.....something like that.

You are such a novice, Skylark.....do you realize how long those far older and wiser than you have pondered that very question, never discovering an answer.

Meanwhile, I'm funding a move for the San Fernando Valley to reignite its secession movement, taking the harbor in San Pedro (I'm selling Free SFV! bumper stickers for those interested) with it and making our Second City the Second City again (as god intended it to be), the city of the angels vacating its spot as #2/we try harder.

If that works, I'll put you on the job of extracting Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx from NYC.

Hey, Chicago.....We're #1

(of course, you realize how meaningless city population is and only metro population is relevant. )

[smegmatite]

lot of looney tunes posting in this thread... yikes!

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by smegmatite

lot of looney tunes posting in this thread... yikes!

hey, don't be so insulting....we looney tunes make up the majority of C/D forumers....that majority perhaps being 100%.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

Can a "who cares"? option be added to this poll? I don't understand some people's obsession with the size of cities on this forum.

Jacksonville has more people than Seattle. Ft. Worth has more people than Boston. Mobile has more people than Ft. Collins. Does that make them better cities or more desirable places to live somehow? Chicago could grow to 3.5 million or shrink to 2 million and it would still be Chicago for me.

Sure, there are cities with different boundaries which means city to city population sizes are often meaningless.

I don't care if Houston technically has a larger population. However, I do like the idea of a healthy and growing Chicago. Some population growth in Chicago, given that population growth is projected for the country in general, is a proxy for other good things like decent economic trends. Recall that Chicago has the bones of a much larger city in a lot of ways and that part of its storied history is based on big plans and a bustling metropolis. I don't think a growth rate to 3.5 million by 2030 is probable or even desirable, but it would likely be a sign of good news if come 2030, the census was looking like the 3 million work were to be reached.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by smegmatite

lot of looney tunes posting in this thread... yikes!

Thank you for bringing levity and saneness to this thread.

[goofy328]

Probably not.

There was a point in time where, if Chicago could get back to 3 million, it would be back to number 2. This was back in 1984. Today, 3 million would not mean anything because Chicago already had the designation of being the only city in the Midwest with a population over 3 million. It would just have that designation again. Maybe it will share that designation along with Columbus and Indianapolis vying for the second largest city in the Midwest, or the first city with a population of more than one million in Indiana and Ohio.

Few cities are as urban as Chicago. But as far as raw numbers, 3 million is not as impressive as it used to be. Too many cities that go on forever catching up with Chicago these days. Arguably zoning and annexation has a lot to do with it.

[TBideon]

I doubt it. The weather, crime, corruptions, stigmas, and state-wide problems make those kind of population gains very unlikely.

[MassVt]

As far as "city-only" populations go, Houston will probably eventually pass Chicago; it might be another story if we're talking about metro areas, although Houston would probably just annex more of the suburbs to boost their totals. And even if they do, is this really that important, anyway?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by TBideon

I doubt it. The weather, crime, corruptions, stigmas, and state-wide problems make those kind of population gains very unlikely.

I don't think Chicago gives a rat's ass about those abadoning the city because of weather, crime, corruptions, stigmas, state-wide problems make those kind of population gains very unlikely or the unlikeliness of the Cubs winning another world championship for at least a century.

It is meaningless. Cities grow and contract....then grow and contract again....everyone of them. Nothing linear about it. And the "success" that so many (wet) dream about through populations that grow and grow really can lead to smaller cities with fewer people. And only in the warped world of City Data do we worship the very notion of all growth, no decline....on a finite planet.

You know, like the original NYC, the island of Manhattan, today a mere fraction of its greatest size. Oh, sure, when Greater New York was created at the turn of the century (arguably because some city in the west.....no, I don't think it was Los Angeles....was as the "world's fastest growing city in the 19th century" about to threaten NYC's vaunted position as the nation's largest city and move that honor to the heart (and soul) of the Great Lakes), much of Manhattan's population bled out into the brand new and so called "outer boroughs".

But that doesn't tell the whole tale: Manhattan's population loss was in good part based on Manhattan's success. Cities as great and powerful as New York are places where precious few can live. And they are not built for families: so the typical Manhattan residency today consists of one (single) person or two (married or otherwise co-habitating in a different way).

What's the most barren stretch of real estate in the US? I don't know, but I'm willing to give the honors to some 10 sq mi plot of real estate in some godforsaken part of the Nevada basin. Second place goes to a similarly sized section of the 4 corners region where aridity, canyons, gulches, mesas, and sagebrush gives you a virtually empty peace of land...yet remarkably has four states within it.

Third place. The honors here go to West 57th Street from Broadway to 5th Avenue, a virtually unsettled stretch of land where every residential unit has .2 people living in it (representing the the one fifth of a year time the owner is actually home in his cozy tax sheltered haven......of course, some live in help may count for a little more....maybe 3/5 of a human being, give or take a tad more or tad less than that number....based on some sort of compromise). Billionaires Row. Until it needs to be renamed Trillionaires Row for obvious reasons (totally irrelevant to this discussion, I realize, but by way of a side bar..... why did the Quad Cities stay the Quad Cities when Bettendorf was included in the mix of four and give QC status. Did East Moline really lose its QC status...or did they not want to change the name. Quint Cities is what it should be. Live with it.)

Downtown Chicago explodes with new residential construction in a way comparable to only NY...no one else comes close. Do I expect that translates into a growing population? Not necessarily as likely only one or two people will be living in those 5000 sf units.

So, sorry, Bideon, Chicago ain't going anywhere. It's way too important to fail. Its failure is the US's. In place is a transportation system that thrives on Chicago's centrality, business and financial and exchanges that the nation is highly dependent on. The very fact that here in a nation a remarkable 3000 miles across from east to west coast is the only real city that lies lies 150 miles or more from a coast line.....nothing comes close....from Dallas to Denver to Atlanta, etc...nobody is in Chicago's league and the success of such a global city is imperative for the USA. Yes, facts-on-the-ground matter and we do fact-ci-ness about as good as anyone. maybe better. And, who knows, rising sea level may turn Chicago into the only great American city with little more than the top of a torch on the Atlantic and two two strips of international orange poking out on the Pacific left of our great coastal cities. Go climate change! You rock, baby.

Thus, Bideon, be aware that it's ok for you to move down to Arizona, right next door to Uncle Charlie, and enjoy your bask in the balmy temp's of 120° in your Phoenix October. Or move to Washington, DC, home of the ultimate RICO operation in the world, the US government where you get to enjoy the crime that comes in fully safe white collar format. Maybe Mississippi sounds good. It, like all red states, you know, the ones who hate the federal government and wish to be left alone. Here you will benefit from the inflow of tax dollars in a state where you may expect $1.20 back for every $1 you give Uncle Sam while blue states (like the very blue glow that Chicago gives IL) gets your pockets picked.....blue state economic success means we get about $.80 back for every dollar we give Uncle Sam. The price of success.

And all that.......'cause it just doesn't matter. You want to know what does matter. Go to the heart of the Loop. State and Madison. Look straight up skyward. What you will see is a power cord coming from the middle of that famed intersection, reaching skyward to be plugged into the Global-Network-of-Power-Cities powerstrip, an interconnectivity of the world's truly great metropolises, the ones that call the shots and make the system work (well, work until it all collapses...but that's a story for another day). that form of connection makes any action of your or Uncle Charlie's part meaning. Chicago matters. To the world. That's what counts.

So take out your cell phone and take that photo of the sky straight above State and Madison and put it in your Carsons shopping bag for safe keeping. This toddling' town will go right on toddling without either you or Uncle Charlie.