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.
So you think Toronto is equal to Hong Kong,NYC and London ?And you think i have a flawed way of thinking??
I think you missed his point. There is a different between Alpha, Alpha+, Alpha++ etc.
Not all Alpha cities are the same. If you read his post correctly that's exactly what he says. At least that's what I got from it. He was responding to a post where someone said an Alpha is an Alpha which not true. There are different tiers. And I don't recall him saying Toronto or Hong Kong were on specific tiers either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Othello Is Here
Its called the SUNBELT!!Even NYC isint booming like those cities.And you keep repeating whats not even true Chicago has not had an annual decline in population.He already gave you the link to the Census.
Population is NOT the number one indicator.ECONOMY IS!!!You know but you just dont want to admit it.
Correct. NYC isn't booming at the same rate as those Sunbelt cities, but at the time it is not shrinking either.
That's what the discussion is about here. Decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UScityUrbanCores
You have some vendetta against Chicago to the extent it is TROLLING in any thread that Chicago and Toronto are in. It is over and over your aim to demean this Great city as a means to BOAST and somehow BOOST Toronto's status over it? What are you really gaining?
Others show stats on Chicago as even Great European cities had declines in population in some years. It has become baiting us to keep replying with stats you CAN'T REFUTE and attempt to keep population your only one?
I'd say if Toronto SURPASSED CHICAGO in all things. Please move on to a new city for Torontonians as yourself to keep demeaning. Your beating this population alone stat to death. and OMG. really, you know the Steve Harvey show in Toronto?
Other STATS you never comment on. Give some or them some feedback. Like ��
Apparently Chicago CAN LOOSE POPULATION and still GET SMARTER like increasing Patents and have a expanding economy.
Vendetta? How is posting factual statements and links that are widely known and available to the public "trolling"?
No one is boasting here. People are just posting what is true and known. Yes Chicago get 50 million people a year. Toronto gets 40 million. You don't see me or other posters crying, in denial or arguing when that is posted in this thread. It's a fact straight from each city's tourism website. But when one posts something where Toronto clearly outdoes Chicago (and there are many) and how Chicago has been in decline with links which indicate this, for some reason it's a problem. Why is that?
As for your info-graphic, it's nice to see slightly lower unemployment rates, and higher venture capital growth and the like. But you can't just focus on the positive and ignore the negatives. You gotta look at everything.
And for Chicago it looks like the negative outweigh the positive. If you don't mention the negative it looks Chicago is all roses which it isn't. Everything has to be mentioned to give the real perception of the city's direction. The same has to be said for Toronto and Montreal.
Over 1,000 more shooting this year Nearly 700 murders this year so far(More than NYC AND LA... COMBINED)
The decreasing population year by year
Corruption
Rahm increasing property taxes to a record high
Chicago's poor credit rating
Lack of funding for public transportation
Chicago Public Schools bond rating
Poor quality of life rankings
A major decline in Chicago public school enrollment
etc.
I can on go on but I'm not here for a 'vendetta' as you say. I'm to point out all that glitters and gold in Chicago as some you are making people think. I know you are defending your city, but you can't deny what is going on over there.
To sit here in denial and act like Chicago is not going through it is just wrong. The city is in decline. There is more to a health of a city than slight decreases in unemployment and GDP numbers.
Chicago Ranks in Top Cities with the Most New Construction
No. 1 New York No.
2 Dallas
No. 3 Houston
No. 4 Washington D.C.
No. 5 Chicago
No. 6 Boston
No. 7 Los Angeles
No. 8 Phoneix
No. 9 Seattle No.
10 Atlanta No.
11 San Francisco No.
12 Philadelphia No.
13 Denver
No. 14 Miami
No. 15 Minneapolis
No. 15 San Antonio (tie)
No. 16 Salt Lake City No. 16 New Orleans (tie) No. 17 Portland
Notice how many fast growing population cities are yet ranked behind Chicago
mrjun - what do you have to say to the fact that Chicago has near 10 year unemployment lows and about equal to that of 1999 and 2000? Does this mean a city is in decline?
That's nice.
What do you have to say about the fact that Chicago Public Schools is enrolling 50,000 students less than it did in 1999? Does this mean a city is not in decline?
Or the fact that Chicago has not seen more than 600 homicides in a year since 2003 and not more than 700 homicides since 1998 (which it's about to do). And other alarming crime rates such as shootings? Does this mean a city is not in decline?
^ Most people who do not live in Chicago do not understand what is going on right now. The actual areas of growth have definitely extended beyond the north side/downtown not only with population but also for other things like income, education, etc - there are still some areas that aren't but every city has that. True the overall areas of growth might not be as much as other cities, but it's not as little as most people think. The areas of growth in the city in 4 years added either 75,000 or 100,000 people - I'll have to check my data soon to remember which one.
There's a lot of stuff happening and it's more than just the downtown area and on the north side. Hyde Park for example has something like 3 or 4 high rises U/C right now with numerous new restaurants, bars, shops, etc pop up in the last 3 years. Bronzeville and Kenwood have both had a number of new (and really nice) new construction pop up in the last 5 years - almost all over vacant lots. They've seen new restaurants pop up and continue to do so (a building that has been abandoned in Bronzeville for decades is going to become a new music venue). Bridgeport - same thing and that's gone into McKinley Park and a little into Brighton Park. Chinatown is booming right now too as is Morgan Park on the far south side. Some companies like Method and Whole Foods have built new warehouses and factories on the far south side of town too bringing in hundreds of new jobs down there. All of this is on the south side without even mentioning what's happening downtown and on the north side, or even areas like Logan Square which had a lot of depopulation for a few decades which in the last 3 years has been seeing an incredible amount of gentrification (such as the 2 high rises that were just built near the blue line over a lot that was vacant for many, many years and tons of new restaurants, bars, businesses, etc in that area popping up).
What do you have to say about the fact that Chicago Public Schools is enrolling 50,000 students less than it did in 1999? Does this mean a city is not in decline?
Or the fact that Chicago has not seen more than 600 homicides in a year since 2003 and not more than 700 homicides since 1998 (which it's about to do). And other alarming crime rates such as shootings? Does this mean a city is not in decline?
There are no doubt aspects of the city that are in decline - I would never dispute that, however as a whole the city is not actually in decline. The public school system is mismanaged - everyone knows that, but it doesn't mean that the city is in decline as a result. Most of the suburban school systems are not like this at all either and are actually quite good. There is a reason why tons of teachers in the suburbs at public schools make 6 figure salaries and many schools will not hire teachers unless they have at least a masters degree.
As far as homicides go and shootings go, that's unfortunate and as someone who knows a lot about the data and how isolated these are, it's unfortunate for those who live in it. However, let's not ignore the other crimes that are more important to daily life. Crimes like aggravated assaults, robberies, etc. Anybody who thinks these crimes aren't more of a daily reality to people all over the world are ridiculous. These make up the vast majority of crimes, but the crime rates for Chicago on these categories are actually lower than most people think. The aggravated assault rate so far this year is lower than that of San Francisco, NYC, Houston, etc. If you want to know where to get the data, I'll gladly show you considering I made a thread about it before using official government sources for every city. Almost every single crime category in the city is down from a decade ago and sometimes it's down big.
The fact of the matter is that Chicago has a big growth in the percentage of people living in it that are college educated, a big growth in both per capita income and median household income, the GDP has a faster growth rate than NYC and Philadelphia and about the same as Boston, unemployment is at near 10 year lows, companies who were HQ'd in the area are not leaving the city/area, and in fact they are MOVING to the area/city from other areas of the country. If a city and area was actually in decline, almost none of this would be happening.
Chicago Ranks in Top Cities with the Most New Construction
No. 1 New York No.
2 Dallas
No. 3 Houston
No. 4 Washington D.C.
No. 5 Chicago
No. 6 Boston
No. 7 Los Angeles
No. 8 Phoneix
No. 9 Seattle No.
10 Atlanta No.
11 San Francisco No.
12 Philadelphia No.
13 Denver
No. 14 Miami
No. 15 Minneapolis
No. 15 San Antonio (tie)
No. 16 Salt Lake City No. 16 New Orleans (tie) No. 17 Portland
Notice how many fast growing population cities are yet ranked behind Chicago
Your list is based on totals. Minneapolis (300,000 people?) is a much smaller than Chicago (2.7 million). Cleveland is smaller too.
There is not going to be $5 billion of development going on in city of 300,000 people unless these cities had large metro population figures (like Atlanta and Miami's 5+ million people) It's simple mathematics.
I think you missed his point. There is a different between Alpha, Alpha+, Alpha++ etc.
Not all Alpha cities are the same. If you read his post correctly that's exactly what he says. At least that's what I got from it. He was responding to a post where someone said an Alpha is an Alpha which not true. There are different tiers. And I don't recall him saying Toronto or Hong Kong were on specific tiers either.
Quote:
No I got his point.You both missed the point.He is being hypocritical.
Toronto is not in the same tiers as NYC and London either as they are Alpha++ cities
Yet you are trying to get me to see that although cities like Atlanta,are on a tier below as an Alpha-minus city,its not an Alpha which is ridiculous.They are all Alpha's in different Alpha tiers.Stop with the BS already,It make yall look desperate.
Correct. NYC isn't booming at the same rate as those Sunbelt cities, but at the time it is not shrinking either.
That's what the discussion is about here. Decline.
No.thats what YOU call decline but not one publication either one of you has posted said Chicago was in decline ACCEPT in population growth.When experts talk about "decline" it has to to with more than population.
Vendetta? How is posting factual statements and links that are widely known and available to the public "trolling"?
No one is boasting here. People are just posting what is true and known. Yes Chicago get 50 million people a year. Toronto gets 40 million. You don't see me or other posters crying, in denial or arguing when that is posted in this thread. It's a fact straight from each city's tourism website. But when one posts something where Toronto clearly outdoes Chicago (and there are many) and how Chicago has been in decline with links which indicate this, for some reason it's a problem. Why is that?
As for your info-graphic, it's nice to see slightly lower unemployment rates, and higher venture capital growth and the like. But you can't just focus on the positive and ignore the negatives. You gotta look at everything.
And for Chicago it looks like the negative outweigh the positive. If you don't mention the negative it looks Chicago is all roses which it isn't. Everything has to be mentioned to give the real perception of the city's direction. The same has to be said for Toronto and Montreal.
Over 1,000 more shooting this year Nearly 700 murders this year so far(More than NYC AND LA... COMBINED)
The decreasing population year by year
Corruption
Rahm increasing property taxes to a record high
Chicago's poor credit rating
Lack of funding for public transportation
Chicago Public Schools bond rating
Poor quality of life rankings
A major decline in Chicago public school enrollment
etc.
I can on go on but I'm not here for a 'vendetta' as you say. I'm to point out all that glitters and gold in Chicago as some you are making people think. I know you are defending your city, but you can't deny what is going on over there.
To sit here in denial and act like Chicago is not going through it is just wrong. The city is in decline. There is more to a health of a city than slight decreases in unemployment and GDP numbers.
When has CORRUPTION ever NOT been an issue in Chicago?LOL
Chicago has lost population and gained periodically throughout its history.
Several booming cities in the U.S. have poor schools sytems and terrible governents.Look at Birmingham Al.Its finally growing and signs are everywhere of its new found economic prosperity but givernment still bad and schools even worse than Chicago's.
Your list is based on totals. Minneapolis (300,000 people?) is a much smaller than Chicago (2.7 million). Cleveland is smaller too.
There is not going to be $5 billion of development going on in city of 300,000 people unless these cities had large metro population figures (like Atlanta and Miami's 5+ million people) It's simple mathematics.
A couple a years ago Miami was high on this same list.Atlanta is way smaller than SF.Houston is smaller in poulation also but because it has such huge bondaries,more people are in it.
Every city faces issue - even cities that are booming whether it's LA or NYC faces issues. Anybody who denies this is outright ridiculous. There's no such thing as a perfect city anywhere in the entire world. There will always be issues, unfortunately. Not knowing this is denying reality.
Your list is based on totals. Minneapolis (300,000 people?) is a much smaller than Chicago (2.7 million). Cleveland is smaller too.
There is not going to be $5 billion of development going on in city of 300,000 people unless these cities had large metro population figures (like Atlanta and Miami's 5+ million people) It's simple mathematics.
Perhaps you glossed over the fact that Los Angeles and Chicago have nearly the same amount on this list, even though the population of the LA area is 3+ million more than Chicago. Nobody would say that the LA area is in decline, yet here you are being shown data that shows LA and Chicago areas are nearly neck and neck but it doesn't mean anything.
Or perhaps you glossed over the percentages that show Chicago has the 2nd highest increase of any of those metro areas. Only NYC has a higher increase. Even if for next year Chicago's rate were cut in half from above and LA's stayed the same, they would both end up with the same amount, tied.
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.
