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.
Yes, Chicago is very much a part of the so called "Rust Belt" of Americas midwest. You often don't hear many speaking about it, but Chicago is also losing a decent percentage
of it's mammoth population ...
I pointed this out in another thread, and some of the Chicago forumers got mad. It´s like they want to keep Chicago´s dramatic population loss a secret.
The fact is that Chicago has been steadily losing population for the last half-century, just like the rest of the Rust Belt. In fact, Chicago has greater numeric population decline than any other city in the country since 2000.
Now the suburbs have been growing, but that´s also true of cities like Detroit. The City of Chicago has lost roughly one million residents (as much or more than any other city in the country) since the 1950´s.
I pointed this out in another thread, and some of the Chicago forumers got mad. It´s like they want to keep Chicago´s dramatic population loss a secret.
Here we go again..whoa whoa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio248
The fact is that Chicago has been steadily losing population for the last half-century, just like the rest of the Rust Belt. In fact, Chicago has greater numeric population decline than any other city in the country since 2000.
-1.5% since 2000, and the city has gained population every year since 2005. Where's your explanation for this? It's great how you're super careful with your wording so that you can make a situation look as horrendous as possible...I bet you spend 30+ minutes on a post. Kudos to you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio248
Now the suburbs have been growing, but that´s also true of cities like Detroit. The City of Chicago has lost roughly one million residents (as much or more than any other city in the country) since the 1950´s.
1950 Census
1. New York City - 7,891,857
2. Chicago - 3,620,962
3. Philadelphia - 2,071,605
4. L.A - 1,970,358
5. Detroit - 1,849,568
6. Baltimore - 949,708
7. Cleveland - 914,808
8. St. Louis - 856,796
9. Washington D.C - 802,178
10. Boston - 801,444
2009 Estimates [Excluding New York and L.A]
Chicago - 2,851,268
Philadelphia - 1,547,901
Detroit - 910,920
Baltimore - 637,418
Cleveland - 431,639
St. Louis - 356,587
Washington D.C - 599,657
Boston - 645,169
Percentage Lost Since 1950
Chicago - 21%
Philadelphia - 26%
Detroit - 51%
Baltimore - 33%
Cleveland - 53%
St. Louis - 58%
Washington D.C - 25%
Boston - 20%
In what way has Chicago lost more or just as much as other cities? The only city to have done better is Boston (by 1%). The next closest contender to Chicago is Washington D.C with 25% of its population lost since 1950. Also, Detroit is shrinking, I don't know where you found "facts" (LOL) to show otherwise
You're wrong...again. Why don't you cry me a river, build me a bridge, and live under it.
This is what I mean. If you say anything less than positive about Chicago, even if it´s just what the Census reports, a few Chicago forumers go crazy.
It´s like we need to keep the dramatic population decline a big secret. I guess a few Chicago forumers don´t want folks to know that Chicago is losing more folks than even Detroit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr
-1.5% since 2000, and the city has gained population every year since 2005. Where's your explanation for this? It's great how you're super careful with your wording so that you can make a situation look as horrendous as possible...I bet you spend 30+ minutes on a post. Kudos to you
I´m pleasantly surprised you actually admitted Chicago is losing population, while all the other cities are gaining.
And yes, Chicago has lost more residents than any other U.S. city since 2000. More than Detroit. More than Cleveland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr
1950 Census
1. New York City - 7,891,857
2. Chicago - 3,620,962
3. Philadelphia - 2,071,605
4. L.A - 1,970,358
5. Detroit - 1,849,568
6. Baltimore - 949,708
7. Cleveland - 914,808
8. St. Louis - 856,796
9. Washington D.C - 802,178
10. Boston - 801,444
2009 Estimates [Excluding New York and L.A]
Chicago - 2,851,268
Philadelphia - 1,547,901
Detroit - 910,920
Baltimore - 637,418
Cleveland - 431,639
St. Louis - 356,587
Washington D.C - 599,657
Boston - 645,169
Percentage Lost Since 1950
Chicago - 21%
Philadelphia - 26%
Detroit - 51%
Baltimore - 33%
Cleveland - 53%
St. Louis - 58%
Washington D.C - 25%
Boston - 20%
This is fine and all, and basically proves my point. Chicago has been losing population like crazy.
Compare to NYC or LA, where the populations have been booming. Four of the five biggest cities in the U.S. have been growing, and one (Chicago) is declining non-stop since the 1940´s.
Of course, you manipulated the statistics by making errors in your rounding, to make other cities look worse, and Chicago look better.
You also chose 1950, which wasn´t Chicago´s historic population peak. Another trick to make the population loss look somewhat less dramatic.
And then, of course, you are talking about percentages, not raw numbers. I stated that no city has had more population loss than Chicago, which is an undeniable fact.
Now, yes, a few cities have had a somewhat higher percentage loss (Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and a few more of Chicago´s Rust Belt bretheren) but no city has had a greater numeric population loss than Chicago.
And the percentage loss is much bigger than claimed. Chicago has lost about 30% of its peak population, and continues to lose population, while the other major cities all gain, year after year. And Chicago annexed large swaths of land around OHare in the postwar era, so the population loss would be even worse if not for Chicago annexing suburbs.
This is what I mean. If you say anything less than positive about Chicago, even if it´s just what the Census reports, a few Chicago forumers go crazy.
It´s like we need to keep the dramatic population decline a big secret. I guess a few Chicago forumers don´t want folks to know that Chicago is losing more folks than even Detroit.
I´m pleasantly surprised you actually admitted Chicago is losing population, while all the other cities are gaining.
And yes, Chicago has lost more residents than any other U.S. city since 2000. More than Detroit. More than Cleveland.
This is fine and all, and basically proves my point. Chicago has been losing population like crazy.
Compare to NYC or LA, where the populations have been booming. Four of the five biggest cities in the U.S. have been growing, and one (Chicago) is declining non-stop since the 1940´s.
Of course, you manipulated the statistics by making errors in your rounding, to make other cities look worse, and Chicago look better.
You also chose 1950, which wasn´t Chicago´s historic population peak. Another trick to make the population loss look somewhat less dramatic.
And then, of course, you are talking about percentages, not raw numbers. I stated that no city has had more population loss than Chicago, which is an undeniable fact.
Now, yes, a few cities have had a somewhat higher percentage loss (Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and a few more of Chicago´s Rust Belt bretheren) but no city has had a greater numeric population loss than Chicago.
And the percentage loss is much bigger than claimed. Chicago has lost about 30% of its peak population, and continues to lose population, while the other major cities all gain, year after year. And Chicago annexed large swaths of land around OHare in the postwar era, so the population loss would be even worse if not for Chicago annexing suburbs.
My post is completely on-topic. You just don´t like to hear about the dramatic population loss.
The fact is that Chicago is the capital of the Rust Belt. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
And the factors that have transformed the Rustbelt (deindustrialization, population loss, abandonment, etc.) over the last few decades are every bit as prevalent in Chicago as in Detroit or Cleveland.
Now is Chicago somewhat economically healthier than these cities? Arguably yes. It´s somewhat bigger and more diversified.
But Chicago is still very, very similar to these cities, and has almost the exact same challenges.
And the percentage loss is much bigger than claimed. Chicago has lost about 30% of its peak population, and continues to lose population, while the other major cities all gain, year after year. And Chicago annexed large swaths of land around OHare in the postwar era, so the population loss would be even worse if not for Chicago annexing suburbs.
In the year 2007, Anchorage gained 3,000,000 residents, passing Chicago as the third largest city in the U.S
Since 1950, Chicago has lost 4,000,000 jobs daily and will soon become an abandoned wasteland inhabitable only by those who have adapted to withstand the heavily polluted air.
Trollologist estimate that by the year 2011, the entire world will be thrust into an era of economic prosperity. Chicago is the only city that will not enter this period because well...it's Chicago
The average person in Chicago is 600 pounds overweight, which is leading to alarming death rates due to obesity related issues. This high death rate will contribute to Chicago's already drastic population loss. Did you know that two million people flee that city DAILY
Oprah is leaving Chicago because she was shot at as she entered her studio by the millions of gangs that live throughout the entire city. Did you know that the cemeteries are so crowded that the city has resorted to dumping bodies in Lake Michigan, the Chicago River, and piling them on the many abandoned street corners?!?!
Did you know that the horror of Chicago isn't even real? It's just a story that parents tell their children to keep them from making terrible choices. They tell them, "If you're bad, you'll go to Chicago," and when they get mad at people, they don't say "go to hell," they say, "go to Chicago!"
My post is completely on-topic. You just don´t like to hear about the dramatic population loss.
The fact is that Chicago is the capital of the Rust Belt. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
And the factors that have transformed the Rustbelt (deindustrialization, population loss, abandonment, etc.) over the last few decades are every bit as prevalent in Chicago as in Detroit or Cleveland.
Now is Chicago somewhat economically healthier than these cities? Arguably yes. It´s somewhat bigger and more diversified.
But Chicago is still very, very similar to these cities, and has almost the exact same challenges.
"Somewhat bigger?" You're biased and predictable. Maybe a hobby other than bashing Chicago is in order.
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.
