Why did Chicago start losing population so suddenly? (Atlanta, Detroit: insurance, high crime)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Bitey

So as long as it's the Negroes and those icky blue-collar types fleeing in droves, all's well!

Agreed that this is very disappointing. We've had a lot of "right flight" over the past 20 years, to the point where Hillary, who wasn't a good candidate, won 84% of the Chicago vote. And if we back out cop neighborhoods like Mt. Greenwood, it would have probably been around 99.5%.

https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life...lts-President/

There was a lot of virtue signaling around here, both then and now. Yet, despite the caring progressive bent of the City, no one seems to care too much about the lack of job opportunities in the blue collar sectors, or if "those" people leave the City, or about integrating neighborhoods which are solid minority and low income and helping raise their economic stature. Pretty baffling, IMO.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Bitey

So as long as it's the Negroes and those icky blue-collar types fleeing in droves, all's well!

Not at all. But the whole conversation is stupid as we know who is leaving and why. It is lower income african americans in racially segregated and high crime areas. So stop with the BS and focus on who is leaving and why. Reducing crime is probably the number one thing we can do to help the situation. No one is going move to or stay in some of these depressed areas until crime is under control. No one is going to invest in those areas until crime is under control. Homicide rates in some of these neighborhoods is 50+ per 100,000. While the vast majority of the city is generally at or below national averages.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Not at all. But the whole conversation is stupid as we know who is leaving and why. It is lower income african americans in racially segregated and high crime areas. So stop with the BS and focus on who is leaving and why. Reducing crime is probably the number one thing we can do to help the situation. No one is going move to or stay in some of these depressed areas until crime is under control. No one is going to invest in those areas until crime is under control.

Look at property values in East Garfield Park and North Lawndale and look at the crime rates. You may want to add "or there's a belief it may gentrify" to your last sentence.

Hard to address crime without creating blue collar job opportunities. Programs, money and services don't work if you're not hitting the underlying cause. It's just a band aid.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by frankrj

OTOH if you had to drive a car, like in L.A., the grind & desire to leave gets to you after 20-30 years in traffic whenever & wherever.

I imagine you are in the 20-35-ish age bracket. If so, I can agree with you about that. If not you should have a car already.

Many older folks making a comfortable living get tired of the city grind as they seen it & done it.
...
Public transpo? I don't know. If or when you have to deal with the occasional disrespectful kid, stench, no seat, pick pocketing, touchy feeling perves, drunk blabbering bums, sticky-gooey stuff on seats, noisy people, and wannabe gangsters. So yeah, .....that's not something to get all geeked up about. Maybe ride-sharing in a car is a better option.

I grew up in rural Oregon state,a place where cars are almost always required. Despite that, I grew up reading syndicated Mike Royko and being really curious about cities where you could survive, even thrive, without a car. But I still managed to primarily use public transit, plus a bicycle, to get to jobs in the summer, sometimes traveling over an hour into Portland in a time before they had lightrail.

And I went to college at a small, rural college in Indiana, where a car was also needed for anything off campus. But when I had a chance to intern in Chicago, I jumped at it, commuting from the far north neighborhood of Rogers Park to my internship in the then-Sears Tower and back. I loved it, and traveled all over the city, to the far South Side to watch "Hoop Dreams" in a theatre where I was the only white person, or watching Ewen MacGregor for the first time in Danny Boyle's "Shallow Grave." I got to be on the CBOT and CME trading floors when they were still mostly open outcry and took advantage of many ethnic restaurants and small, unique museums. All without a car.

I'm 46 now and live within walking distance of my job in the Loop and earn more than enough to own a car if I wanted to, but instead rent out my parking space to neighbors for a couple hundred dollars a month and use Zipcar when I need to go to the suburbs. I still love city life, it's convenient and interesting and let's my budget be flexible if I want it to be. I've loved living here when I earned about $28k/year and when I earned ten times that much. I'm not a fan of the winters but have learned to dress for them.

I know some people don't like cities, and that's fine. I don't like suburbs, which, to me, seem to combine the worst of cities with the worst of rural areas instead of the best of both. I like cities and I like the countryside, but not much in between. Judging by who is moving here, apparently people with the money to choose agree with me.

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Not at all. But the whole conversation is stupid as we know who is leaving and why. It is lower income african americans in racially segregated and high crime areas. So stop with the BS and focus on who is leaving and why. Reducing crime is probably the number one thing we can do to help the situation. No one is going move to or stay in some of these depressed areas until crime is under control. No one is going to invest in those areas until crime is under control. Homicide rates in some of these neighborhoods is 50+ per 100,000. While the vast majority of the city is generally at or below national averages.

LOL @ "the vast majority of the city is generally at or below national averages." You have to live in a North Side bubble to believe that to be even remotely plausible. Heck, even most of the so-called "nice" neighborhoods have violent crime rates above the national average.

Let me guess, you have one of those cringe-y "Hate Has No Home Here" signs in front of your house which was occupied by a typical middle-class family for decades until they got priced out of the neighborhood.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Bitey

LOL @ "the vast majority of the city is generally at or below national averages." You have to live in a North Side bubble to believe that to be even remotely plausible. Heck, even most of the so-called "nice" neighborhoods have violent crime rates above the national average.

Let me guess, you have one of those cringe-y "Hate Has No Home Here" signs in front of your house which was occupied by a typical middle-class family for decades until they got priced out of the neighborhood.

Look it up.

What is the homicide rate for African Americans?


What is the homicide rate for hispanics?


What is the homicide rate for whites and asians?

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Look it up.

What is the homicide rate for African Americans?


What is the homicide rate for hispanics?


What is the homicide rate for whites and asians?

Even though you've moved the goalposts from violent crime rates to homicides, that still doesn't help your case much seeing how the vast majority of the city is populated by Blacks and Hispanics, both geographically and numerically.

But go on, tell us more about how much you care about the plight of the poor colored people while having not a clue about their basic demographic scope....

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Look at property values in East Garfield Park and North Lawndale and look at the crime rates. You may want to add "or there's a belief it may gentrify" to your last sentence.

Hard to address crime without creating blue collar job opportunities. Programs, money and services don't work if you're not hitting the underlying cause. It's just a band aid.

A few speculators around the edges are always going to happen. And I agree that "programs" aren't going to solve the problems of Roseland and West Garfield Park.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Look it up.

What is the homicide rate for African Americans?

What is the homicide rate for hispanics?

What is the homicide rate for whites and asians?

If we stop making excuses for the data through backdoor racism (I don't believe you're racist, Vlajos, but I have decided to stop parsing data by race because all races in Chicago deserve to be safe), then we look at per-neighborhood data, only 21 of the 77 community areas were at or below the national homicide rate in 2017. That's not a majority, much less a "vast majority."
http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-re...y-murder-rate/

And if you look at violent crime stats, the last time I looked at them, there was only one community area below the national average, with two more "close enough." So, at best, 3 of 77 community areas at or below the national violent crime average. Again, a far cry from a "vast majority."

If you compare them to other urban areas they do fare "better," but it would be nice to say that Chicago is safe by US standards, full stop. I'd love to say safe by any standards, but I won't argue comparing to Europe. Berlin has advantages we don't. New York really doesn't.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by emathias

If we stop making excuses for the data through backdoor racism (I don't believe you're racist, Vlajos, but I have decided to stop parsing data by race because all races in Chicago deserve to be safe), then we look at per-neighborhood data, only 21 of the 77 community areas were at or below the national homicide rate in 2017. That's not a majority, much less a "vast majority."
Chicago's Safest And Most Dangerous Neighborhoods By Murder Rate

And if you look at violent crime stats, the last time I looked at them, there was only one community area below the national average, with two more "close enough." So, at best, 3 of 77 community areas at or below the national violent crime average. Again, a far cry from a "vast majority."

If you compare them to other urban areas they do fare "better," but it would be nice to say that Chicago is safe by US standards, full stop. I'd love to say safe by any standards, but I won't argue comparing to Europe. Berlin has advantages we don't. New York really doesn't.

Good points for sure. But this conversation is about why people are leaving. The only population in Chicago that is declining is lower income African Americans. Whites, Hispanics and Asians are increasing. Why do you think that is the population that is leaving? I think it's due to crime and legacy racism. Looking at a map and the population statistics lead me to believe that is the cause. Not sure what else it could be. And how can one ignore that over 80% of homicide victims are black? The city of Chicago is less than 30% African American.

2017 was an outlier. It had one of the highest homicide rates in decades, though 2016 was worse. Homicide rates have fallen significantly since then.