So I just got finished replying to Qwerty's little sellout peacemaking crap on the LA forum, and something came to mind:

Chicago has gone from about 3.6 million people in 1950 to roughly 2.9 million now. Sure, it's a population loss. But I propose that Chicago's tax base has actually increased, and the city actually has more money to work with than it used to.

Think about it--in 1950, most of Chicago consisted of reasonably large families, with wives who mostly didn't work and had lots of children. Wives and children had no income and thus paid no taxes.

Now, at 2.9 million, a very large proportion of these people are tax-paying adults. Come to think of it, one could really argue that Chicago's tax base actually increased, right? Whaddya guys think?

(Note to Qwerty--just joking, BTW. You're one of my favorite forumers, but I had to hate on you for selling out back there--dawg, you can't be sayin that shit in front of peop's like Vice City and Silverlake! :) )

So I just got finished replying to Qwerty's little sellout peacemaking crap on the LA forum, and something came to mind:

Chicago has gone from about 3.6 million people in 1950 to roughly 2.9 million now. Sure, it's a population loss. But I propose that Chicago's tax base has actually increased, and the city actually has more money to work with than it used to.

Think about it--in 1950, most of Chicago consisted of reasonably large families, with wives who mostly didn't work and had lots of children. Wives and children had no income and thus paid no taxes.

Now, at 2.9 million, a very large proportion of these people are tax-paying adults. Come to think of it, one could really argue that Chicago's tax base actually increased, right? Whaddya guys think?

(Note to Qwerty--just joking, BTW. You're one of my favorite forumers, but I had to hate on you for selling out back there--dawg, you can't be sayin that shit in front of peop's like Vice City and Silverlake! :) )

Urban Politician, my impression is that few Chicagoans think or worry about population statistics. They are only relevant in cities that really struggle to hold on to their populations (Pgh, StL, Det, etc.)

Let's keep a few things in mind here: without immigration, healthy, highly urbanized cities like New York and Chicago would be matching Pittsburgh and Detroit for population loss. It's the immigrant population that sends the statistics up and off-sets out migration (Chicago) or exceeds it (New York).

Also, many metro areas in the US have a real split between city and suburb. In some cases, they end up being two separate worlds. St. Louis and Detroit fit this model. LA's huge size and lack of central identity creates its own separate world. The Bay Area has a huge bay in its middle that really can create separate worlds and competing economic units in SF, East Bay, and the Silicon Valley. In South FLA, many folks don't relate to Miami. The list goes on.

In Chicago, with the tremendous energy the city has generated in its global thrust, city and suburb are far more joined than in many metro regions. This is more than enhanced by a flatness that ties the whole together, by the extensiveness of Metra, and by an expressway system that, far more than most, is designed to tie the exterior to the core.

Will Chicago worry about population size? Hardly. Not when it is (and I believe wrongly here) catering more to the rich than to the middle classes. Chicago, in some respects, is becoming San Francisco. The urban core is for the wealthy. And Chicago that many who do not fit that description may end up in Cicero, Berwyn, Maywood, etc. Hopefully that trend will stop. But, that asside, the Trib's term "Chicagoland" keeps carrying more and more meaning.

I had heard that Chicago's population is actually going up and a significant increase is expected by the next census. I forget where I heard this, possibly the Trib. It wouldn't surprise me, I mean just look at all the new construction. How could the population not be going up?

So I just got finished replying to Qwerty's little sellout peacemaking crap on the LA forum, and something came to mind:

Chicago has gone from about 3.6 million people in 1950 to roughly 2.9 million now. Sure, it's a population loss. But I propose that Chicago's tax base has actually increased, and the city actually has more money to work with than it used to.

Think about it--in 1950, most of Chicago consisted of reasonably large families, with wives who mostly didn't work and had lots of children. Wives and children had no income and thus paid no taxes.

Now, at 2.9 million, a very large proportion of these people are tax-paying adults. Come to think of it, one could really argue that Chicago's tax base actually increased, right? Whaddya guys think?

(Note to Qwerty--just joking, BTW. You're one of my favorite forumers, but I had to hate on you for selling out back there--dawg, you can't be sayin that shit in front of peop's like Vice City and Silverlake! :) )

Interesting theory. Here are the problems I see with it:

1. The shift away from the industrial economy that existed in 1950. Most of those 1-income families in 1950 were supported by unionized blue collar workers with very stable jobs, who made enough money to support a stay-at-home wife and a passel of kids. Those jobs are gone and with them went the middle-class lifestyle of a lot of people, replaced with lower-paying service jobs that make the 1-income family much less doable these days.

2. The increase in divorce rates and births to unmarried women. This factor, added to the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, means that there are a lot of women raising children on their own on non-unionized, service sector wages. Because rates of single-motherhood are higher among both blacks and hispanics than among whites, Chicago is particularly affected by this trend because blacks and hispanics are more than 60% of the city population.

3. The tendency of high wage earners to leave the city as soon as they start having children. Just from observation among co-workers, neighbors, etc., I would estimate that 90% of the professional class in Chicago moves to the 'burbs before their first child reaches kindergarten age. This was probably just starting to happen in 1950, so the percentage wouldn't have been nearly as high then. Thus, most of the biggest money being made in the Loop is going toward paying property taxes in the burbs.

4. Razed properties. The south and west sides are still pockmarked by empty lots where dwellings and businesses used to be. The pace of razing actually increased in the past 10-15 years as the city encouraged neighborhoods to identify crack houses for condemnation to make streets safer. The owners of empty lots still have to pay property taxes, but the taxes are much lower than lots containing buildings. In 1950, there weren't a lot of empty lots in the city.

Granted, there are factors in the other direction of income staying in the city: the recent trend of "empty nesters" returning to the city, and the tendency of gays and lesbians to stay in the city. But I think the factors listed above still point to a lower tax base overall.

^That's why you're the man, Kevin J! Always giving the economic breakdown.

But either way, surely the shrinking size of Chicago's families and increase proportion of adult workers has helped curtail some of the losses. Even though Chicago (like all cities today) has financial problems, it's obvious that they still have a HUGE budget to work with.

And yes, the number of empty lots today is greater than in 1950--but with all of the new construction, when do you see that gap closing?

A good deal of the new construction that has gone on in the city took place on properties where an existing building was razed. This generally is what happens when new residences go up in "desirable" neighborhoods, such as Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Off the top of my head, I can think of large condo buildings in Lakeview alone that were built or are being built where the following used to stand: a taxi garage, a gay nightclub, a bowling alley, and a theater. This trend will always continue and indeed it's spreading to the latest "hot" neighborhoods, such as Uptown/Andersonville, where big new condos have been/are being built where a gas station, a skating rink, and an auto garage used to stand.

The building boom has spread to other city neighborhoods where a fair amount of development now is happening on empty lots. But big sections of the south and west sides, where most of these properties are, have been untouched by this activity.

The worst neighborhoods won't even see new construction soon because the cycle of neighborhood turn-around is usually led by rehabs of existing buildings. The rehab pioneers have to come in first to "make the neighborhood safe" enough to attract commercial developers willing to develop vacant properties.

So it's going to be a long, long time before all the gaps get filled in. Remember, Chicago is roughly 230 square miles, into which the city limits of Boston, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Cleveland combined would fit.

There is a noticeable amount of construction going on in many South Side neighborhoods. Of course, you have to actually set foot in these areas to know that. In fact, I've never seen so much construction. There are still many empty lots to fill in but things are getting much better.

There is a noticeable amount of construction going on in many South Side neighborhoods. Of course, you have to actually set foot in these areas to know that. In fact, I've never seen so much construction. There are still many empty lots to fill in but things are getting much better.

Dampyre: I have seen first hand the new construction that is going on in areas such as Woodlawn along east 63rd St. and the area south of IIT. Nothing in my post indicated that there is no new construction happening on the south side. In fact, I specifically said that a fair amount of new construction is occuring in other city neighborhoods. You said "noticeable," while I said "fair amount." This is what you're quibbling over?

I added that there are large sections of the south side where this is not happening because I know of a few where this is true. I've been to Englewood and whatever the area west of Washington Park is called. If there's a lot of new construction going on in these areas, I must have missed it because I didn't see any.

Despite being a northsider, I lived on the south side for 5 years and make a point to look at what's going on there first-hand every once in awhile.

Dampyre: I have seen first hand the new construction that is going on in areas such as Woodlawn along east 63rd St. and the area south of IIT. Nothing in my post indicated that there is no new construction happening on the south side. In fact, I specifically said that a fair amount of new construction is occuring in other city neighborhoods. You said "noticeable," while I said "fair amount." This is what you're quibbling over?

I added that there are large sections of the south side where this is not happening because I know of a few where this is true. I've been to Englewood and whatever the area west of Washington Park is called. If there's a lot of new construction going on in these areas, I must have missed it because I didn't see any.

Despite being a northsider, I lived on the south side for 5 years and make a point to look at what's going on there first-hand every once in awhile.

There isn't much conscruction going on along 63rd st. In fact, there isn't any! The remaining vacant lots are supposedly all bought and Columbia Pointe will expand but right now, nada. All the construction is going on in other Woodlawn areas. Maybe you don't know as much as you think.

Of course the enitire South Side isn't seeing construction but areas like Washington Park, Bronzeville, Woodlawn, South Shore, Bridgeport, Kenwood and Oakland are all seeing lots of activity. No, Englewood isn't booming. So what?

I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you. You challenged what you thought to be my statement that there's no new construction on the south side. I clarified that I did not say that nor do I believe it to be true.

Since I refuted your original attempt to characterize me as a stereotypical northsider who would never go slumming on the south side, you've now set out to prove that you know more than me about the south side. Well, it's your lucky day: I hereby concede that you know more than me about the south side. Congratulations.

It looks like the City of Chicago has gained over 200,000 people since the 1990 census, but a 2003 estimate has Chicago at 2,869,121 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html)

City of Chicago Decennial Population
1830 100
1840 4,470
1850 29,963
1860 112,172
1870 298,977
1880 503,185
1890 1,099,850
1900 1,698,575
1910 2,185.283
1920 2,701,705
1930 3,376,438
1940 3,396,808
1950 3,620,962
1960 3,550,404
1970 3,369,357
1980 3,005,072
1990 2,783,726
2000 2,896,016
Source:http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/timeline/population.html

Chicagoland Regional Population, Projected Through 2015
1950: 4,945,000
1955: 5,441,000
1960: 5,977,000
1965: 6,345,000
1970: 6,716,000
1975: 6,749,000
1980: 6,780,000
1985: 6,786,000
1990: 6,792,000
1995: 6,849,000
2000: 6,989,000
2005: 7,181,000
2010: 7,390,000
2015: 7,603,000
Source: UN 2001; http://www.megacities.uni-koeln.de/_frame.htm?http://www.megacities.uni-koeln.de/documentation/chicago/statistics.htm

Well, I have been on the South Side a few times, and the only areas I noticed some redevelopment going on were in South Shore and Washington Park, in terms of latter stages, but it's not exactly "widespread" yet like it is in places like Bridgeport and the South Loop, along with some West Side neighborhoods.

In Bronzeville and that whole area between Hyde Park and the South Loop, there are a considerable number of lots that have been razed or are in the process of it, and some new homes are being built, but a lot of old ones being remodeled. That area right now is being rediscovered and is coming along nicely about one or two blocks at a time, but it's still a few years off from booming like the South Loop. I have no doubt such redevelopment in the South Side will spread over a wider area, but I think we're still a few years away from seeing the level and pace of redevelopment you're seeing in a lot of the West Side right now.

For all the growth that is unquestionably happening in Chicago (downtown and areas north, south, and west), in reality there is not one major established city in the US whose population can grow WITHOUT IMMIGRATION. What has fueled the success of Chicago and New York in recent years has been the ability of immigrants coming to neighborhoods and often revitalizing them through their energies into vital places.

And for cities in the southwest that are newer and can grow (i.e. Las Vegas), their growth is on the periphery, not the core. That periphery in Chicago and New York is well out of city limits.

Chicago in reality grows even when, for example, Asians move here and choose Skokie as an address over Chicago as an address. Chicago does not stop at Howard Street or at Austin. It goes on, beyond.

Added thought: if population increase were really imporant to the city, all that expensive housing going up in the core would have been scaled back and made more affordable than it is. Chicago, for better or for worse, is happy to get 1 very rich person moving in for every 10 middle class people moving in.

Desperately watching the municipal census figures is far more of an Angeleno thing (as evidenced on this board) than a Chicago thing. Chicago's attitude on it: frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

It looks like the City of Chicago has gained over 200,000 people since the 1990 census, but a 2003 estimate has Chicago at 2,869,121 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html)

City of Chicago Decennial Population
1830 100
1840 4,470
1850 29,963
1860 112,172
1870 298,977
1880 503,185
1890 1,099,850
1900 1,698,575
1910 2,185.283
1920 2,701,705
1930 3,376,438
1940 3,396,808
1950 3,620,962
1960 3,550,404
1970 3,369,357
1980 3,005,072
1990 2,783,726
2000 2,896,016
Source:http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/timeline/population.html

Chicagoland Regional Population, Projected Through 2015
1950: 4,945,000
1955: 5,441,000
1960: 5,977,000
1965: 6,345,000
1970: 6,716,000
1975: 6,749,000
1980: 6,780,000
1985: 6,786,000
1990: 6,792,000
1995: 6,849,000
2000: 6,989,000
2005: 7,181,000
2010: 7,390,000
2015: 7,603,000
Source: UN 2001; http://www.megacities.uni-koeln.de/_frame.htm?http://www.megacities.uni-koeln.de/documentation/chicago/statistics.htm

This count is easily leaving many areas out. Chicago's 9-county (sorry, but I don't buy the 6-county bullshit--I consider Gary and Kenosha a part of Chicagoland) metro population, as posted in the World Almanac, is over 9 million, as of 2000

Well, I have been on the South Side a few times, and the only areas I noticed some redevelopment going on were in South Shore and Washington Park, in terms of latter stages, but it's not exactly "widespread" yet like it is in places like Bridgeport and the South Loop, along with some West Side neighborhoods.

In Bronzeville and that whole area between Hyde Park and the South Loop, there are a considerable number of lots that have been razed or are in the process of it, and some new homes are being built, but a lot of old ones being remodeled. That area right now is being rediscovered and is coming along nicely about one or two blocks at a time, but it's still a few years off from booming like the South Loop. I have no doubt such redevelopment in the South Side will spread over a wider area, but I think we're still a few years away from seeing the level and pace of redevelopment you're seeing in a lot of the West Side right now.

Okay, I guess you and Kevin are more familiar with what's going on than I am.

Okay, I guess you and Kevin are more familiar with what's going on than I am.

Damp, give us some examples of what new development is going on in the south side

Dampyre!!! What aren't you in the Toronto forum bashing my fair city?

Anyway, I just came in here to agree with edsg25. Chicago is a outstanding city, and pity population statistics don't really matter in America's second greatest city. The growth of the suburbs happened everywhere, and whatever population the city of Chicago may have lossed between 1950 and 2000, doesn't really matter since it has likly increased far more in the metro area. As a result, I bet the daytime population of chicago even exceeds the 1950 count. And with the growing condo boom, the actual city of Chicago may even surpass it's peak set in 1950... It's only a matter of time and people will continue to come to Chicago since it's one of the best cities in the world.