Is Royal Oak changing? (Detroit, Ferndale: condos, theater, live in)

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Almont1

No, I simply rely on Census data, and not random opinions on the internet.


Sorry, don't need to. The Census did all the work for me.

Net loss of over 200,000 in a decade, and net loss of whites, blacks and Asians. Only Hispanics grew (slightly). Even college educated grew slower than the national average.

So if the Smartest People in the Midwest are all Hispanic, then maybe the article has a point. Otherwise, no.

And hilarious you would post a Chicago Magazine promotional article to refute Census data. Maybe next time a People Magazine article would be a better fit?

Yes... and net population is EVERYTHING.

Thus the beauty of places like Mexico City.

[Almont1]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

The print edition is complete with graphs showing Chicagoland's gain of population from 8 to 9.5 million since 1980, its gain of jobs from 4.1 million to 5.5 million and its productivity from $203 billion to $384 billion.

The article is called "Rust Proof" and was just published this week.

Regarding the gentrification of certain neighborhoods, you are downplaying what is, collectively, a massive change that is nearly universally acknowledged by anyone who is interested in it.

If your point is that Chicagoland metro is growing, you'll get no argument.

You're making a separate argument. You're claiming that the City of Chicago is growing, which is false.

Essentially, you're citing an article on metropolitan-area sprawl to make a claim for urban area infill. Weird. Like claiming Detroit is growing by citing Novi.

[Almont1]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Yes... and net population is EVERYTHING.

Thus the beauty of places like Mexico City.

Ah, now we change the subject.

Now growth is bad, because then we'll become Mexico City. Chicago's population decline is actually a good thing, right?

[scolls]

Metro Detroit also increased in population since 1980. I'm not sure the point.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Almont1

Ah, now we change the subject.

Now growth is bad, because then we'll become Mexico City. Chicago's population decline is actually a good thing, right?

You are latching onto one statistic, that the city has lost population. I've already acknowledged that's true. Everyone knows that and has known it for a long time.

If that is your single, sole metric, for determining if a city is in decline or however you want to phrase it, then you are welcome to think that.

It is absurd, but we are all entitled to our opinions.

[MS313]

Originally Posted by weteath

Ya, I'd agree peoples top choice would be NYC or LA. However, my friend from Michigan(now in San Fran), I asked him if he wanted to go on a trip to Chi while he was living here... he said no because Chicago is still the Midwest, mind you he had never been. Chicago isn't as Midwest as people assume. If he'd had went with me I know his opinion would have changed. Anyways, another reality is Chicago is much cheaper than LA or NYC, while having great transit, and being somewhat of a crossroads for people from the rest of the country and other countries. Of course it isn't to the scale of NYC but that doesn't mean it isn't present.

Also what do you mean by different?

The warmer weather all year around (way too hot half the year)

The big city experience. As exciting as it may be for many people that aren't used to it. Everyone can't handle living in a big city. Everyone can't handle Chicago, Detroit, LA, or ESPECIALLY New York. Many people aren't prepared for the rat race, cost of living, lack of privacy, ect. Or just how hard you have to work starting out living somewhere else on your own that your not used to. Many young people will think they have it all under control until things start adding up.

Florida may have palm trees, big ocean beaches, and lots of puerto rican women. People get all excited about it but once it goes away many people find themselves trying to move again. Vegas for another example. When I was down there last year a friend of mine who lived there summed it up. "Most people who live here avoid the Vegas Strip, it gets old pretty fast. And outside of having slot machines everywhere and the mountains in the background, Vegas is just a normal city. Outside of the strip there's nothing really special about it". Not only that, last time I checked Vegas had a higher unemployment rate than Detroit. So is the Vegas area really any better (for living) than the Detroit area? No (imo). You wouldn't convince most Michiganders of that though. These are just a FEW examples of how "different" doesn't necessarily mean "better". Some people like the difference until it gets old, some people will always like the difference, some will hate it. People in MI hold things in high regards like the ocean or palm trees ect. I've been to an ocean beach, damn near just like Lake Michigan (can't see the end of either one). Or the climate, people in MI will underestimate how hot it gets in some places. They go down there and find out quickly that they prefer 4 seasons. "Different" doesn't necessarily mean "better" and many people here don't realize it.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by scolls

Metro Detroit also increased in population since 1980. I'm not sure the point.

I'm not comparing it to Detroit. I don't think anyone is.

[Coldjensens]

I do not want to read all of this. What did you conclude? Is Chicago almost as good as Royal Oak? Are the people leaving Chicago in droves going to Detroit or to Royal Oak?

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by coldjensens

i do not want to read all of this. What did you conclude? Is chicago almost as good as royal oak? Are the people leaving chicago in droves going to detroit or to royal oak?

lol

[scolls]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

I'm not comparing it to Detroit. I don't think anyone is.

What you're talking about seems to change by post. Bottom line is it's an oxymoron to say people are flocking to Chicago when it's one of the fastest declining cities.