Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the income gap in this country continues to increase, itll continue pushing out middle class folks out of NYC as well. Most people going to the city are wealthy white folk and immigrants, before of course, they move either Upstate or to Jersey or elsewhere altogether.
Agreed. Chicago is experiencing what cities like Boston and San Francisco did and is slowly becoming that. Chicago has people moving there all the time but they are single which has less of an impact on population growth, while poorer families look for more affordable opitions in the burbs and elsewhere which brings down the rate. There is a reason that 2.6 million people live here.
So why are NYC and Chicago even be compared as well if they are so different in their size as well? Paris and London are always compared to NYC, but they are so different in size. So we can't compare Chicago now to it?
Population in Chicago is dropping because many POOR people are leaving. The topic of AA was brought up because it's been many poor African Americans leaving for the burbs. A lot where kicked out as almost all the major housing projects have been destroyed. So the population loss = Chicago is less of a city and no one wants to live there doesn't stick just as it doesn't for Paris.
As many of you said, population loss is population loss. Every city has different circumstances as to why that happens, but it's a fact that both Paris and Chicago have loss huge populations, regardless of the reason. So people try to explain Chicago's loss and it's argues against, but then Paris is an exception? That's not being rational, fair or realistic. Let's not sugarcoat one because it's Paris, France. Population doesn't make or break a city, Paris is a case in point.
Im not sure I follow your logic. Manhattan has lost roughly 700,000 people since 1910. Chicago is loosing population for different reasons than Manhattan or Paris, Chicago population loss is because poor neighborhoods that are under populated to begin with continue to loose population, Manhattan and Paris lost population because they were over populated to begin with. Some would argue they are still over populated. I dont think anybody would say any portion of Chicago is over populated.
Ha, ha ha. Do you realize that even now Paris has over 20,000 people / sq mille and when it was bigger density was higher as well? 20,000 people per square mile and not that many high-rises.
Paris is so dense that it is sometime unbearable, especially in the summer with the influx of tourists. Anyways, when Chicago get to 20,000 people per square mile then it can start losing population and still stay an incredible urban experience. ROTFL
No. Besides some catastrophic events there is usually just one reason for population loss: people don't like to live in one location and move to another, more attractive location.
Hypocritical? Bud, between 1970 and 2010 Chicago lost 1 million residents or 25% of population. That's like losing Philadelphia. Of course such a population loss does not bode well for the city's future nor it is a reason to celebrate. Pretending that Chicago is not in a deep population crisis and still trying to portray it as a success city is hilarious.
man, totally done with you continue trolling. Not gonna respond to you anymore.
Im not sure I follow your logic. Manhattan has lost roughly 700,000 people since 1910. Chicago is loosing population for different reasons than Manhattan or Paris, Chicago population loss is because poor neighborhoods that are under populated to begin with continue to loose population, Manhattan and Paris lost population because they were over populated to begin with. Some would argue they are still over populated. I dont think anybody would say any portion of Chicago is over populated.
You are missing my point. I have said several times cities will have different reasons for population loss. The point I am trying to make is that population loss does not equal people not wanting to live there. Just like Paris had it's reasons for it's population loss so does Chicago. But for neither city it is a case of "Chicago sucks I am moving" or "Paris sucks I am moving". I am arguing against the point that people are leaving Chicago because it offers nothing and that it is a inferior/declining city.
Chicago has more quality than NYC? You're a bit early for April Fools, no?
NYC museums, NYC art, NYC restaurants, NYC shopping, NYC nightlife, NYC culture, high paying NYC jobs. Just not up to par with Chicago's world class offerings? Those ignorant world-billioniares, celebrities, and tourists who flock to NYC don't know what they're missing by flying over gold ol' Chicago, right? LOL, lay off of the pipe.
PS, 13% spread on a poll is usually considered a landslide victory.
April Fools? Thats hilarious there.
Its all subjective. What if someone likes Chicago museums over NYCs? Does NYC have an Adler Planetarium? Id argue thats more interesting. NYC restaurants, again, subjective. What if I like Chicago food better? for half the cost? Chicagos more of a bar culture, NYCs more of a club culture, although NYC does have a ton of bars as well, its about overall. Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver and Portland id consider better beer cities than NYC. What if someone prefers that instead? Shopping? Is there a store that NYC has that Chicago doesnt? and is anyone breaking their balls over it? You can just about get anything online anyway. High paying jobs? Again, its all relative to the COL. Why do you assume that NYC is everyones idea of what city living is? I believe there are hundreds of other cities all over the world that know.
Who the **** bases where they live on billionaires, tourists and celebrities? That wasnt serious, was it?
and for **** sake, a 13% spread is not a landslide. This is a landslide.
You are missing my point. I have said several times cities will have different reasons for population loss. The point I am trying to make is that population loss does not equal people not wanting to live there. Just like Paris had it's reasons for it's population loss so does Chicago. But for neither city it is a case of "Chicago sucks I am moving" or "Paris sucks I am moving". I am arguing against the point that people are leaving Chicago because it offers nothing and that it is a inferior/declining city.
Oh, I would agree with you. My premise was never "Chicago lost a lot of people so it must suck."
Chicago is a great city, and I have enjoyed the past 8 months I have lived here. Do I prefer NYC? Absolutely, but I have said this before, Chicago is, after NYC the most "complete" city in the US. It may not have the best of everything, or the most cultured of everything, but it does have something to offer everyone.
New York City, London, Paris are the greatest cities in the world in my opinion, and comparing them to Chicago isn't fair, but Chicago is still a hell of a city.
Agreed. Chicago is experiencing what cities like Boston and San Francisco did and is slowly becoming that. Chicago has people moving there all the time but they are single which has less of an impact on population growth, while poorer families look for more affordable opitions in the burbs and elsewhere which brings down the rate. There is a reason that 2.6 million people live here.
NYC is bought and sold, and becoming gentrified.
Over the next 30 years itll just become a place for the wealthy as more and more people get squeezed out.
Does NYC have an Adler Planetarium? Id argue thats more interesting. NYC restaurants, again, subjective. What if I like Chicago food better? for half the cost? Chicagos more of a bar culture, NYCs more of a club culture, although NYC does have a ton of bars as well, its about overall. Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver and Portland id consider better beer cities than NYC. What if someone prefers that instead? Shopping? Is there a store that NYC has that Chicago doesnt? and is anyone breaking their balls over it? You can just about get anything online anyway. High paying jobs? Again, its all relative to the COL. Why do you assume that NYC is everyones idea of what city living is? I believe there are hundreds of other cities all over the world that know.
NYC has a Planetarium, I went once as a kid I think. Why would food cost half in Chicago? Also, I dont agree that NYC is more of a Club culture, I am a bit of a beer snob, and I would say the two are pretty equal, I can find any craft beer I am looking for in either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
man, totally done with you continue trolling. Not gonna respond to you anymore.