San Francisco vs. Chicago vs. New York (living, best, cost)
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.
The jump isn't as bad as you think. They're saying that the increase in home prices over this year was the highest one year increase since 1988. The actual price of a home in Chicago is now on par with what it was in February of 2003. A condo is now where it was in late 2002 and August of 2010. They're also expecting the increase in 2014 to only be half of what happened this year as well.
As for unemployment, it's come back down since it increased earlier this year, but we'll have to wait and see how the employees of Dominick's losing their jobs will play out in coming months. As for the closed stores themselves, everyone is hoping that other chains are merely waiting for Dominick's corpse to be cold before swooping in and buying the closed stores, but, again, we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, this is going to cause a greater food desert problem in parts of the South Side
Well I certainly don't think it's something to panic about, just saying it's not a good current trend with unemployment still kind of high and the latest news, that's all. The Dominick's thing is kind of a big deal though.
as downtown Chicago was the fastest growing downtown in the country between 2000 and 2010 according to the census.
The Census doesn't track downtowns. There is no such thing as "fastest growing downtown according to Census".
If they did track such a thing, I would guess Miami would have had the largest population increase among major U.S. metros in a commonly accepted downtown boundary from 2000-2010. But that's hardly an endorsement for Miami; it just means there was almost nothing there before.
The Census doesn't track downtowns. There is no such thing as "fastest growing downtown according to Census".
If they did track such a thing, I would guess Miami would have had the largest population increase among major U.S. metros in a commonly accepted downtown boundary from 2000-2010. But that's hardly an endorsement for Miami; it just means there was almost nothing there before.
River North/South Loop/West Loop/Near East Side and Millenium park look completely different from 10 years ago. Definitely big face lift, way more people living there, but also way higher rents for those that use to live there. River North came first in early 2000s, then West Loop prices jumped around 2004-2006, then South Loop prices jumped 2007-current. In the early and mid 2000s you could still rent right around the loop for about 1000 for a 1br, they are 1500+ now. Prices at bars/restaurants in the areas also went up. You could also get a 2br in bucktown/uk village back then for under 1000... ahh, cheap days. Now you have to go way out to Albany Park or Rogers Park to find comparable rents like that, and would be lucky to find them.
What you are referring to is their one-off studies, which take tract-level data, and then use it to report on current topics.
If you actually read what you referenced, it isn't a Census classification of downtown. They just took a radius around city halls and then tracked population growth from 2000-2010. That chosen radius is being defined as "downtown" for this release.
But, again, there is no such Census classification of downtown, and no way to measure downtown growth using any existing Census metric.
And now I think I get why Miami didn't have the fastest growth during that decade. Miami's City Hall is nowhere near downtown, and this is really a list detailing residential growth in proximity to City Halls. Miami would fall quite low on this list using the methodology for the press release.
What you are referring to is their one-off studies, which take tract-level data, and then use it to report on current topics.
If you actually read what you referenced, it isn't a Census classification of downtown. They just took a radius around city halls and then tracked population growth from 2000-2010. That chosen radius is being defined as "downtown" for this release.
But, again, there is no such Census classification of downtown, and no way to measure downtown growth using any existing Census metric.
And now I think I get why Miami didn't have the fastest growth during that decade. Miami's City Hall is nowhere near downtown, and this is really a list detailing residential growth in proximity to City Halls. Miami would fall quite low on this list using the methodology for the press release.
A report released by the Census Bureau using official census data. I fail to see what difference it makes if the Census typically tracks downtown growth, or if they decide to do a study using their own data here and there. Either way, it's still coming from the official source and not some third party.
As for Miami, most large cities have their city hall in the middle of what is considered to be downtown. If they don't, then they're most likely an outlier.
Is it leading to any interesting economic or cultural developments? I would think the ability to get relatively reasonable living expenses in a big, historic city would be good at nurturing new ideas.
The Census doesn't track downtowns. There is no such thing as "fastest growing downtown according to Census".
According to census data based on individual tract growth, it is relatively easy to determine which downtown areas grew the fastest, hence the countless articles that came out about the resurgence in urban populations of inner cities across the country just after the 2010 census was released.
We can intentionally thick headed about it if we like, but this is no different from crime stats by the FBI turned into 'most dangerous' or 'safest' rankings by outside organizations, or median income data being turned into 'the richest metro areas' etc.
According to census data based on individual tract growth, it is relatively easy to determine which downtown areas grew the fastest, hence the countless articles that came out about the resurgence in urban populations of inner cities across the country just after the 2010 census was released.
We can intentionally thick headed about it if we like, but this is no different from crime stats by the FBI turned into 'most dangerous' or 'safest' rankings by outside organizations, or median income data being turned into 'the richest metro areas' etc.
No, you are arguing apples and oranges. I don't even think you're understanding my point.
The point is that there is no such thing as "downtown" per the Census. No such thing exists. In contrast, there is such a thing as a city a "metro" (MSA, CSA), a state and the like. There is no method for assembling tract-level data when there is no metric for determining which tracts should be included.
It's very easy to assemble data on cities, metros and the like, since we already have official boundaries used by the Census and everyone else. In contrast, it's impossible to assemble data on downtowns, because there is no criteria for what constitutes a downtown. It's garbage in, garbage out.
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.
