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.
n a personal note: I despise language that promotes words like "yall" or "droves". People can learn to speak proper American English, it would cater to their best interests if they do so. Slangs like "Yall" are not words nor should be treated as words.
Historically English had second person plural and singular forms.
You/your was plural, thou/thee/thine was singular.
At some point the old singular form faded, and you became the second person form, singular or plural.
Yet there is clearly a felt need for the distinction (which most other Indo european languages have) and thats expressed in casual usage - y'all, you guys, youse.
I see nothing wrong with using one of those forms as long as its not a formal setting. Casual words are also words (and of course its not slang - slang is short lived, and those forms have been around quite a long time, IIUC)
I didn't say that Chicagoland was undesirable, but a case can be made that the City of Chicago is somewhat less desirable now than in the past, since there is less demand to live there.
IMO it's a bit silly to say that all population decline is caused by the exact same factors, and therefore Detroit/Gary/East St. Louis = Paris/London/Manhattan. Some cities decline because they're too much in demand and other cities decline because they aren't enough in demand.
And there is no "massive nationwide trend" of population decline. Maybe 50 years ago, yes, but not now. Now some cities are growing, and other cities are declining. Among the 10 largest cities in the U.S., Chicago is the only one with population decline.
This is definitely false. The City of Chicago had the second worst population decline in the nation in the last Census. Only Detroit was worse.
I said nationwide trend, so Paris and London don't count. I didn't mention an uninterupted trend of population decline, I mentioned the trend of city population peaking in the 50s before declining in the following decades. I didn't write anything close to suggesting that it was the same factors that caused this from city to city (though some measure of 'white flight' was a contributing factor in most); you will see this same pattern in the census numbers of literally dozens of large US cities. Yes, it was nationwide, and yes, it was massive.
And yes, population decline in the city of Chicago stabilized in the 90s. There have been up years and down years since then, but the current population is under 2 percent less than it was in 1990. Population grew slightly from 2010 to 2011 according to estimates, and is expected to slowly continue as the metro nears 10 million. The population of Chicago is not currently declining.
Are you sure about this? There were 200,000 people living in housing projects, and they account for the population decline in Chicago?
I find this hard to believe (not saying it isn't true, but it sounds far-fetched) for three reasons.
First, you see population decline among whites too, and I don't think Chicago projects are filled with whites.
Second, you see population declines in certain neighborhoods that never had projects.
And third, I don't think CHA is even big enough to house 200,000 people. That would basically mean they destroyed like 100,000 units, which sounds like a crazy high number.
I can't find the link I read that stated 200,000 CHA residents, but regardless, nearly all of the housing projects in Chicago were destroyed. Additionally, 89% of the population loss in the 2010 census was African American. Virtually any North Side or Near West Side neighborhood that has lost any population during the last few decades is almost guaranteed to have lost population due to gentrification, all one has to do is visit these neighborhoods to see the changes going on. Are there troubled neighborhoods in Chicago? Of course, but they are almost exclusively very poor, gang infested areas.
It basically breaks down like this:
"Good areas of Chicago" continue to thrive with new construction, retail, high earners
"Bad areas of Chicago" continue to depopulate, and continue to be crime infested.
Fortunately, the majority of Chicago residents live "the good areas", but the media portrays "the bad areas".
Historically English had second person plural and singular forms.
You/your was plural, thou/thee/thine was singular.
At some point the old singular form faded, and you became the second person form, singular or plural.
Yet there is clearly a felt need for the distinction (which most other Indo european languages have) and thats expressed in casual usage - y'all, you guys, youse.
I see nothing wrong with using one of those forms as long as its not a formal setting. Casual words are also words (and of course its not slang - slang is short lived, and those forms have been around quite a long time, IIUC)
sure, french can be vous. most of the romantic languages are far more formulaic once you understand them.
Well you were right, and I stand corrected. The Census report does support your claim.
But I would argue that their methodology is flawed. They define downtown as "everything within 2 mile radius of a city hall".
The problem is that Miami City Hall isn't even downtown. NYC City Hall is in Lower Manhattan, while Midtown is the true "core" of the city, and further than two miles away. In contrast, much of Lower Manhattan is landmarked (SoHo, Tribeca, etc.) and you can't add large new buildings, for the most part.
And both Miami and NYC City Halls are practically next to waterways, so much of that "everything within 2 miles of city hall" isn't even land.
And then, when you look at Chicago City Hall, it's just a few blocks from vacant railyards that were filled in during the last decade (South Loop area).
So the Census is technically "correct", but it's a flawed methodology.
The population of Chicago is not currently declining.
The Chicago city proper is currently declining, per the Census. Maybe by 2020 there will be change, but the official 2010 Census showed population decline.
Or perhaps you're referring to Chicagoland, which had significant growth in the last Census? It is true that Chicagoland is growing.
While it will be 7 years before another full census, estimates by people who are paid to estimate has the city growing slightly in the last couple of years. The population fell sharply from 2000 to 2010- it also grew sharply from 1990 to 2000. You can certainly call it stagnant since 1990, but there's just no math to say its actively declining.
While it will be 7 years before another full census, estimates by people who are paid to estimate has the city growing slightly in the last couple of years. The population fell sharply from 2000 to 2010- it also grew sharply from 1990 to 2000. You can certainly call it stagnant since 1990, but there's just no math to say its actively declining.
Ok, so you're technically right that there's no word that the population is declining right now, in 2013, but there's also no word that the population is growing right now, either.
But the last official count shows population loss. Until we hear otherwise, I don't know why you would assume the opposite of the latest official count.
Yes, the last count showed population loss...and the second to last count showed population gain. Granted it was more than just a reversal- the loss was slightly bigger than the gain, but in the few years since that census its estimated that there has been slight growth. At any rate, this is an argument over fractions of a percentage point. Its most accurate to say that from the 90s to the present, despite substantial swings and major population shifts among geographic/demographic lines, the population of the city itself is stagnant.
Its not impossible that we will see an overall decline for this decade, making 1990-2000 look like a fluke, but it would be a hell of a surprise to me.
Last edited by lerner; 02-13-2013 at 02:33 PM..
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.
