Im sure this topic has been brought up before, but I ask this question, as I am doing some research for a class I am taking (just started Grad School)...

From 1950-2006 Chicago has lost more people than any other city in the country not named Detroit.

Chicago -800,000
Philly -600,000
NYC +400,000
Boston -210,000
DC -215,000
LA +2,000,000
SF -35,000
Detroit -900,000
Baltimore -300,000


New York City and LA will most likely continue to grow. Why can't Chicago keep people like NYC and LA? Considering how cheap it is to live in Chi. Obviously the metro area will continue to grow at a decent pace, but is there any hope of Chicago seeing a population boom?

Im sure this topic has been brought up before, but I ask this question, as I am doing some research for a class I am taking (just started Grad School)...

From 1950-2006 Chicago has lost more people than any other city in the country not named Detroit.

Chicago -800,000
Philly -600,000
NYC +400,000
Boston -210,000
DC -215,000
LA +2,000,000
SF -600,000
Detroit -900,000
Baltimore -300,000


New York City and LA will most likely continue to grow. Why can't Chicago keep people like NYC and LA? Considering how cheap it is to live in Chi. Obviously the metro area will continue to grow at a decent pace, but is there any hope of Chicago seeing a population boom?

I don't see any huge growth in Chicago's population. And while this wouldn't be true of so many cities, especially those that bleed population, Chicago's lack of ability to grow stems from its very financial successes.

Chicago is expensive. It is geared more to single people or married couples without children than for families. You may have more housing units, but fewer residences per unit. Chicago's population figures which are static reflect what in nations we see as a sign of success: low birth rate.

In essence, I don't see many parts of Chicago growing than I do Manhattan or San Francisco.

As for the other aspect of the NYC/LA comparison, I do believe Chicago is fundamentally different from both cities. Of all US cities, i don't believe any provide a transition zone that in most cities woud be considered the inner ring of suburbs and even a ring or two past.

Chicago has no four boroughs removed from Manhattan or the further flung sections of LA like the San Fernando Valley which are a part of LA, but not really "of" it.

Chicago's fringe suburban areas like Sauganash or Forest Glen can not be compared to the NY/LA model.

Global cities become more concerned about who is moving into them than with sheer numbers. The creative, entrependerial, financing (etc.) classes are what fuels the economy in Chgo and cities like it.

I doubt that we will ever look at city populalation again as being that saliant...either in Chicago or in far smaller but highly potent places like Boston and San Francisco.

Chicago is expensive. It is geared more to single people or married couples without children than for families. You may have more housing units, but fewer residences per unit. Chicago's population figures which are static reflect what in nations we see as a sign of success: low birth rate.


I disagree. Chicago is not an expensive city to live in. The avg home price is under $300k. No way is Chicago geared toward single people or people w/out children. Most of the city is single family homes. Most people in Chicago don't live in highrises or along the lake front.

I disagree. Chicago is not an expensive city to live in. The avg home price is under $300k. No way is Chicago geared toward single people or people w/out children. Most of the city is single family homes. Most people in Chicago don't live in highrises or along the lake front.

Although cheaper than both coasts it is by no means an inexpensive city. It's still a good deal by comparison, but not cheap. Also it is becoming more appealing for single folks and empty nesters. That's what fueled the whole central area and adjacent community areas boom over the past decade. Even the mid southside growth communities (Kenwood, Oakland) saw many more singles or married without kids moving into those areas. I am not saying that some families did not move into those areas but, the majority of new residents did not have kids or were single black women with one kid.

While I don't see a population boom happening (would you consider what is happening in NYC right now a boom? I don't), I do believe Chicago's population will start inching its way up again eventually, if not already. Lets not forget that we really can't trust these Census estimates until we get the full count in 2010.

Chicago is a midwestern city. Let's first all rememeber that and for the midwest, it is an expensive city to live in. The west side out by Austin is depressed as well as many south side area. Yes the near west side has really "boomed," but this has kicked out lots of its residents to Aurora, Maywood, etc.

The burbs have continued to grow and right now are at a standstill with the economic housing crisis, espeically for new construction. Whend the cycle ends look for much growth in Kane, Will, Mchenry counties, far more than Cook and Chicago alone.

I disagree. Chicago is not an expensive city to live in. The avg home price is under $300k. No way is Chicago geared toward single people or people w/out children. Most of the city is single family homes. Most people in Chicago don't live in highrises or along the lake front.

Inner ring Chicago is expensive and Chicago is expensive by non-coastal standards. I'm not suggesting that Chicago doesn't have a large stock of single family homes. Nor do I think the lakefront high rises dominate the city. I am suggesting that the advantages of living in Chicago and to high powered cities like it often accrue more to singles and people married without children. And again, I don't think this is any different from major cities world wide in this respect.

And I do believe as I said that NY and LA are unusual in the sense that they have transitonal zones that Chicago and other cities do not have.

I think we have a great chance of a population boom if we get the games of 2016.

While I don't see a population boom happening (would you consider what is happening in NYC right now a boom? I don't), I do believe Chicago's population will start inching its way up again eventually, if not already. Lets not forget that we really can't trust these Census estimates until we get the full count in 2010.

No, I don't consider NYC as having a boom, but it is growing in population. I hope your right about the The Census. It would really annoy me if that, over 10 years Chicago looses 85,000 people, or some stupid number like that :bash:

Although cheaper than both coasts it is by no means an inexpensive city. It's still a good deal by comparison, but not cheap. Also it is becoming more appealing for single folks and empty nesters. That's what fueled the whole central area and adjacent community areas boom over the past decade. Even the mid southside growth communities (Kenwood, Oakland) saw many more singles or married without kids moving into those areas. I am not saying that some families did not move into those areas but, the majority of new residents did not have kids or were single black women with one kid.

Well, considering Chicago is a fine world class city, I think it is cheap. I can't think of a city that is a better bargain than Chicago, considering what it has to offer.
Even with the "central area boom", I would wager that the population of that area is about the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago.

Inner ring Chicago is expensive and Chicago is expensive by non-coastal standards. I'm not suggesting that Chicago doesn't have a large stock of single family homes. Nor do I think the lakefront high rises dominate the city. I am suggesting that the advantages of living in Chicago and to high powered cities like it often accrue more to singles and people married without children. And again, I don't think this is any different from major cities world wide in this respect..

A good chunk of our Major Cities are on the coast, so I think that makes Chicago inexpensive. Even so, leave the inner ring Chicago, and the prices of a home are very cheap (by anybody standards).
Families keep moving to LA and NY, I hate using that comparison, but how are they different for families than CHicago?

I think we have a great chance of a population boom if we get the games of 2016.

I don't understand the relationship between winning the Olympics and a population boom in Chicago?

I don't understand the relationship between winning the Olympics and a population boom in Chicago?Simply because winning the bid is a ton of worldwide advertising for Chicago. We will get enormous amounts of tourisits from all over the country and world, and some might like what they see.

I'm not saying its a certainty, but it wouldn't hurt.

Simply because winning the bid is a ton of worldwide advertising for Chicago. We will get enormous amounts of tourisits from all over the country and world, and some might like what they see.

I'm not saying its a certainty, but it wouldn't hurt.

I definitley agree that it will be great for the city. I just don't see a couple hundred thousand people moving to the city simply b/c of the Olympics.

I think a more realistic concept, maybe be the Olympics will help revitalize portions of the South Side, making the area more attractive to families???

I definitley agree that it will be great for the city. I just don't see a couple hundred thousand people moving to the city simply b/c of the Olympics.

I think a more realistic concept, maybe be the Olympics will help revitalize portions of the South Side, making the area more attractive to families???Sure, but can you point to anything that would make a couple hundred thousand people move here?

My hope is the Olympics will revitalize many aspects of the city such as infrastructure and transportation. Things that will directly facilitate in the city's growth.

I wouldn't bet on the Olympics making much of a difference but as the price of Gas and heating oil increases, multifamily dwellings and higher density housing closer to the city core is going to look a lot more attractive. As more high rises are built in the city center, Chicago's population is likely to rise. I don't think too many people are going to want to commute from Rockford.

I wouldn't bet on the Olympics making much of a difference but as the price of Gas and heating oil increases, multifamily dwellings and higher density housing closer to the city core is going to look a lot more attractive. As more high rises are built in the city center, Chicago's population is likely to rise. I don't think too many people are going to want to commute from Rockford.

c'mon, svs, we all know you have been trying to correct that mistake of leaving heaven-on-the-lake to head to the-land-of-fruits-and-nuts for an eternity now and that buying that 2 bedroom ranch in Rockford is now your only opporutnity to get into the Chicagoland real estate game. you know it's just killing you not to have the opporunity to sit by the faux fireplace with its paper "flame" from December through February will the snow, wind, and cold air rustle outside your cozy door.

Who cares what the population of Chicago is. Chicagoland's 9 million or so residents are a pretty large and potent mix. Do urbanities living in Evanston or Oak Park not add to Chicago's urban nature? What does it really matter where city limits are drawn. If we're not "in" Chicago, we sure are a part of it.

^^

Are you saying it doesn't negativley effect Chicago that thousands of people flee the city for the suburbs? Bottom line is Evanston and Oak Park (which are only 2 of many suburbs) are still SUBURBS. Families who leave Chicago for Oak Park or Evanston or Hinsdale or wherever, HURT the city.

The census data is used to distribute federal funds for different programs such as Transportation. A higher U.S. Census Bureau estimated population count can result in an increase in federal funding.

Not to mention the abandoned neighborhoods that are left to sit with tons of empty lots. Walk through Roseland, Inglewood, Riverdale, or basically any Far South or West Side Neighborhood. They are all dead neighborhoods. Good thing the city can hide behind its nice skyline :ohno:

c'mon, svs, we all know you have been trying to correct that mistake of leaving heaven-on-the-lake to head to the-land-of-fruits-and-nuts for an eternity now and that buying that 2 bedroom ranch in Rockford is now your only opporutnity to get into the Chicagoland real estate game. you know it's just killing you not to have the opporunity to sit by the faux fireplace with its paper "flame" from December through February will the snow, wind, and cold air rustle outside your cozy door.

You know Ed I was just back in Chicago around the beginning of the month certainly enjoying the crisp brisk Chicago air and all that white stuff on the ground. What do you call it? We don't have too much of it in Santa Monica.

You're right as I look out on my garden seeing the roses come into bloom and the blossums on the fruit trees in back back yard, gazing at the San Gabriel mountains in the background and watching the Sun set in the Pacific I realize all that I have been missing from Chicago. Mufflers, galoshes, snow tires, mittens, frostbite. I will have to forego the cozy ranch in Rockford and settle for my little three bedroom, streamside, canyon home here in the West. Think I am going to go outside and pick couple of oranges to drown my sorrow.

Not to mention the abandoned neighborhoods that are left to sit with tons of empty lots. Walk through Roseland, Inglewood, Riverdale, or basically any Far South or West Side Neighborhood. They are all dead neighborhoods. Good thing the city can hide behind its nice skyline :ohno:name a city where this doesn't happen! It sounds like your expecting perfect urban bliss within the entire city's borders.

hiding behind its skyline? what does this mean? you're starting to sound more and more like a troll.

I wouldn't bet on the Olympics making much of a difference but as the price of Gas and heating oil increases, multifamily dwellings and higher density housing closer to the city core is going to look a lot more attractive. As more high rises are built in the city center, Chicago's population is likely to rise. I don't think too many people are going to want to commute from Rockford.This is a good point. I really think people are going to start getting fed up with their ever rising gas bills and decide a move closer to work would make more sense.

name a city where this doesn't happen! It sounds like your expecting perfect urban bliss within the entire city's borders.

hiding behind its skyline? what does this mean? you're starting to sound more and more like a troll.

Of course this happens in other cities, but you do not see this in LA or NY the way you would here. Not saying that the entire south side needs work, but consider that the South Side takes up more than 60% of the land area of the city, I think that is a big portion of land that needs a population increase.

What I mean by hiding behind the skyline is, many people just look at our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods and think, everything is beautiful; When in reality there is a HUGE portion of the city that is abandoned and struggling. Are there other cities with this problem? sure, but Chicago being the world class city it is, it should be on par proportionatly with a city like New York, not a city like Detroit (Im not trying to disrespect Detroit)

Troll? Give me a fucking break.

This is a good point. I really think people are going to start getting fed up with their ever rising gas bills and decide a move closer to work would make more sense.

They may decide not to move to Rockford or Aurora or some other outer ring suburb, but I doubt Families will put their house up for sale and move back to the city. They will just budget accordingly.

What I mean by hiding behind the skyline is, many people just look at our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods and think, everything is beautiful; I dont know how you figure this at all. Chicago has beautiful areas and has problems like every other city. Nobody is saying "everything is beautiful." However you seem to be saying exactly that about NY and LA.

name a city where this doesn't happen! It sounds like your expecting perfect urban bliss within the entire city's borders.

hiding behind its skyline? what does this mean? you're starting to sound more and more like a troll.

This dude is a troll in disguise. just like the city is "hiding behind its skyline", he's hiding behind his location. Don't let him fool you.

I absolutly think chicago can have a major population boom for a few reasons.... Chicago has huge and rather dense metro population (about 10 mil) in relation to the city proper (3mil) population)...the city is probaly looking the best it has ever..business are back the world is recongizing chicago..i feel if we can tap that metro populaiton and bring it back to the city we can get a major gains. Keep in mind chicago is smaller in area that LA which is almost twice the area of chicago so that is a big reason why they had solid growth....NYC (the bouroughs) are surrounded by people from all sides...New jersey plays a big part of NYC large population, not too mention that brooklyn was its own city which NYC annexed due to the fast growing population that chicago had during that time.

They may decide not to move to Rockford or Aurora or some other outer ring suburb, but I doubt Families will put their house up for sale and move back to the city. They will just budget accordingly.well I know at least 2 familes personally that have done exactly that in the last 6 months.

I feel if we can tap that metro populaiton and bring it back to the city we can get a major gains.

That is the key. I just don't think the city can do that. The solution isn't to bring all of the people downtown, it is to fill the south and west side neighborhoods. That is the challenge.

well I know at least 2 familes personally that have done exactly that in the last 6 months.

I know a few who have done that as well, but they had kids who were already done with school. I just think it is a tough sell to pull kids from a suburban school to a chicago public school. 9 times out of 10 families are gonna opt for the suburbs over the city.

the city is probaly looking the best it has ever..

This is the point im trying to make. Downtown and surrounding hoods look great, don't get me wrong. However, that area might be 10% of the entire city. Im more concerned with the areas that do not look so good (there are a lot of them). People are always going to move in and out of downtown, the key is to re-establish the neighborhoods away from downtown.

That is the key. I just don't think the city can do that. The solution isn't to bring all of the people downtown, it is to fill the south and west side neighborhoods. That is the challenge.why do you have this desire to fill the south and west sides? Look at the south and west loop neighborhoods 10 years ago. I'd say their turn around is 100%.

It will take time, but it is most certianly happening.

why do you have this desire to fill the south and west sides? Look at the south and west loop neighborhoods 10 years ago. I'd say their turn around is 100%.

It will take time, but it is most certianly happening.

...because the south and west side are huge areas of the city, and those are the areas that need to be revitalized if the city is going to increase in population, not the south and west loop.
The south and west loop have grown due to their proximity to downtown.

This is the point im trying to make. Downtown and surrounding hoods look great, don't get me wrong. However, that area might be 10% of the entire city. Im more concerned with the areas that do not look so good (there are a lot of them). People are always going to move in and out of downtown, the key is to re-establish the neighborhoods away from downtown.There are also many neighborhoods outside of downtown that do look very good. Ashburn, Beverly, Mt Greenwood, Bridgeport, Pilsen, Back of the Yards, to name a few, are all very good middle class neighborhoods.

Your dream of filling the entire city with perfect neighborhoods, will never happen. Here or in any city.

There are also many neighborhoods outside of downtown that do look very good. Ashburn, Beverly, Mt Greenwood, Bridgeport, Pilsen, Back of the Yards, to name a few, are all very good middle class neighborhoods.

Your dream of filling the entire city with perfect neighborhoods, will never happen. Here or in any city.

Your absolutley correct, those are very nice neighborhoods. I grew up on the south side (in Beverly before my family moved to Orland Park).
I know the area will never be perfect, that is not what I am going for. Im not saying for these neighborhoods to become Lincoln Park, but it is concerning that the immigrants are opting for areas like Elgin, Aurora, Joliet over Chicago.

Your absolutley correct, those are very nice neighborhoods. I grew up on the south side (in Beverly before my family moved to Orland Park).
I know the area will never be perfect, that is not what I am going for. Im not saying for these neighborhoods to become Lincoln Park, but it is concerning that the immigrants are opting for areas like Elgin, Aurora, Joliet over Chicago.I'm not too concerned about that. I like the idea of growing from the inside-out, the growth of the south and west loop are examples.

The neighborhoods on the south side we grew up in (I grew up in Wrightwood) have been largely unchanged by the people who settled there. You won't see large population changes in those neighborhoods because of that.

I'm not too concerned about that. I like the idea of growing from the inside-out, the growth of the south and west loop are examples.

The neighborhoods on the south side we grew up in (I grew up in Wrightwood) have been largely unchanged by the people who settled there. You won't see large population changes in those neighborhoods because of that.

I just have concerns that the growth will never reach those areas. The neighborhoods around Mt. Greenwood, Beverly, Morgan Park, etc. are great. They have a fairly quiet suburban feel to them, but yet are within city limits. I would love to see that throughout the rest of the south side

I just have concerns that the growth will never reach those areas. The neighborhoods around Mt. Greenwood, Beverly, Morgan Park, etc. are great. They have a fairly quiet suburban feel to them, but yet are within city limits. I would love to see that throughout the rest of the south sidewell it is happening. There are new townhomes and development has streched all the way to around 35th and State and the public housing has all been completely torn down. It will take time, but it is happening.

According to the census estimates Chicago has lost about 60,000 people since 2000. Interestingly, the yearly loss is shrinking according to the census. I would also note that throughout the 1990's Chicago was also estimated to be loosing residents. This time around, in 2010, Chicago will most likely have nearly the same population as in 2000. The number of Blacks in Chicago is declining as they move to the suburbs (and the South), but their base figure was most likely low or undercounted in 2000. The number of Hispanics is still growing at a fast pace, but maybe not as fast as during the 1990's do to the fact that many Hispanics have moved to the far suburbs such as Elgin, Aurora, Joliet, West Chicago, Waukegan. The white population is probably still loosing ground even though most of the gentrification is "white" in nature, most yupie houseolds are small in nature. Still, many Southwest and Northwest side white families have moved out to the suburbs, but are being replaced with larger sized Hispanic families. Finally, if Chicago really wants to see middle class families move back in large numbers, they have to continue to work on improving the public school system.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9431/citypopulationestimatesjb1.jpg

I know the area will never be perfect, that is not what I am going for. Im not saying for these neighborhoods to become Lincoln Park, but it is concerning that the immigrants are opting for areas like Elgin, Aurora, Joliet over Chicago.

Great point. I believe if the city is to experience any sizable increase in population it has to attract and retain or just attract more immigrants than the suburbs. I think that may be the difference in NYC, L.A., London, Toronto and other cities that are experiencing population growth. Prelude91, as a persons who work in many of the struggling southside communities, I can tell you from experience that part of the problem is the political and racial culture that was organized decades ago. I know I've harp on this issue a lot but, I know cities thrive because of new populations immigratining into their borders replacing populations that have move on due to better economic conditions or, other issues. If that pipeline is disrupted for whatever reasons, all of that cultural richness will be lost. Chicago still attracts many immigrants but, it is losing some of it to the burbs. This is also happening in L.A. and NYC but, I suspect they are attracting a lot more immigrants into the borders that they are losing overall. I could be wrong but, I feel that this part of the reason. The other issue is job growth. If the economy were producing more low wage jobs maybe more immigrants would make an effort to locate in the city.

Great point. I believe if the city is to experience any sizable increase in population it has to attract and retain or just attract more immigrants than the suburbs. I think that may be the difference in NYC, L.A., London, Toronto and other cities that are experiencing population growth. Prelude91, as a persons who work in many of the struggling southside communities, I can tell you from experience that part of the problem is the political and racial culture that was organized decades ago. I know I've harp on this issue a lot but, I know cities thrive because of new populations immigratining into their borders replacing populations that have move on due to better economic conditions or, other issues. If that pipeline is disrupted for whatever reasons, all of that cultural richness will be lost. Chicago still attracts many immigrants but, it is losing some of it to the burbs. This is also happening in L.A. and NYC but, I suspect they are attracting a lot more immigrants into the borders that they are losing overall. I could be wrong but, I feel that this part of the reason. The other issue is job growth. If the economy were producing more low wage jobs maybe more immigrants would make an effort to locate in the city.

Very good points. Im not very familiar with Toronto, but what are they doing to retain/attract more immigrants. I have always felt that Toronto and Chicago had many similarities.

^^

Are you saying it doesn't negativley effect Chicago that thousands of people flee the city for the suburbs? Bottom line is Evanston and Oak Park (which are only 2 of many suburbs) are still SUBURBS. Families who leave Chicago for Oak Park or Evanston or Hinsdale or wherever, HURT the city.

prelude, you and I must be on totally different pages. The only thing I see in the way of fleeing Chicago for the suburbs in recent years has been the escape from higher prices. And if there are other reasons, they are hardly based on desirability. Suburban Chicagoans find Chicago to be a totally desirable place. If they are escaping, it isn't from the negatives of the urban experience, but from the positives: a very intense, built up, crowded enviornment. Many people love that. And should. Others escape it at some point in their lives because they do want the simplicity that the suburbs offer (although offer in much smaller increments today).

I hardly look at Chicago's role in Chicagoland as anything other than strength. It has been a long, long time since some (many?) suburbanites thought Chicago was a basket case. Fact is, we see the city in a most favorable light.

You know Ed I was just back in Chicago around the beginning of the month certainly enjoying the crisp brisk Chicago air and all that white stuff on the ground. What do you call it? We don't have too much of it in Santa Monica.

You're right as I look out on my garden seeing the roses come into bloom and the blossums on the fruit trees in back back yard, gazing at the San Gabriel mountains in the background and watching the Sun set in the Pacific I realize all that I have been missing from Chicago. Mufflers, galoshes, snow tires, mittens, frostbite. I will have to forego the cozy ranch in Rockford and settle for my little three bedroom, streamside, canyon home here in the West. Think I am going to go outside and pick couple of oranges to drown my sorrow.

"white stuff on the ground. What do you call it?" frozen sunshine.

But keep this up, and you might face a fate worth than Dorothy as your three bedroom , streamside, canyon home gets lifted by a strong Santana and carried a way. If you have a dog, you may have to let him know you're not in LaLa Land anymore.:)

why do you have this desire to fill the south and west sides? Look at the south and west loop neighborhoods 10 years ago. I'd say their turn around is 100%.

It will take time, but it is most certianly happening.

much of Chicago's gentrification, of course, took place in close in neighborhoods to the downtown core and much of it was fueled by those people wealthy enough toinvest in having their own homes built as opposed to waiting for developers to do it (although obviously the developers came in large numbers).

Let me use the North Side as an example here: on the North Side, the near North area was a no brainer for development and its success fueled the growth of the mid-North lakefront as well.

The Far North Side is another matter. It benefits from proximity to downtown which has shot up real estate prices and also has benefited from some pretty healthy housing stock. What it does not share with the Near North and Mid North is that funky urban panache, that special walking and strolling environment. It is more mundane. But it can be attractive and enticing.

Switch to areas south, southwest, and west. Lots of working class neighorhoods, many in varying states of disrepair. People with real money are not going to seek them out. And more middle class people who might choose them as options over the suburbs unless developers do what they cannot do for themselves: develop large scale middle class developments that are more affordable than Bridgeport Village or Roosevelt Sq. They cannot do it for themselves.

In addition, mass transit on the South Side is not as extensive as the north. Some of the greatest successes in recent years in South Side development away from the Loop has happened along the orange line. Most options like this would need to be available to make mid- and far- South Side communities more desirable to the middle class that might populate them.

I feel I've entered the twilight zone on this thread. Am I completely nuts (well, obviously, yes) or are there others who think like I do?

I see a city of almost 3,000,000 people in a metropolitan area of more than 9,000,000 with a alpha status among world cities and a global economy that brings together creativity, financing, research, technology and other such essential to a modern city that has built itself into a major attraction to the high powered mobile population that makes things work is a damned healthy place.

and there is nothing in the city or metropolitan populations of either New York or Los Angeles that would indicate to me that we are lacking in any way.

Then again, maybe I am just insane.

^ I see your point, but a trip through Chicago's vast south side can have a tendency to quickly curtail one's optimism

How much each of these cities expanded their city limits during this time period is important. The cities may not have been growing so much as swallowing up preexisting surrounding land for some municipal or political purpose.

Here is the updated as of 2006 NIPC report on the projected population of the city of Chicago, Cook and the five core counties in 2030.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/98/nipc2030projectionsoj1.jpg

On the google satellite map, look south of Comiskey between the Dan Ryan and King Drive, and you will notice a ton of empty lots as far south as the area west of Jackson Park. I wonder how many thousands of people can be added just by building on those empty lots.

^ I see your point, but a trip through Chicago's vast south side can have a tendency to quickly curtail one's optimism

absolutely. but you're in New York and I'm sure going to the south Bronx is no walk in a garden. I don't think it is so much a question if these major global cities have areas of poverty and dysfunction as much as one that asks has there ever been a major city anywhere in the world without such inequities and urban disaster areas?

In an age of global cities, no matter how wealthy they get (and perhaps because of that very wealth), there will be strong need for close-by low paying service jobs. To allow people working in them to continue to live in the city but to have a reason place to live would not occur without some form of subsidy or other government action (no I'm not suggesting public housing here).

How much each of these cities expanded their city limits during this time period is important. The cities may not have been growing so much as swallowing up preexisting surrounding land for some municipal or political purpose.

of course you are right. And while those fringe areas were growing, areas closer to the core were losing population. They were just losing it in-city, not city to suburb.

The poster child for your observation here? St. Louis. The mighty city by the Missisippi that overpowered all that surrounded it didn't need the riff raft across city limits. So it pulled out of St. Louis County and went its own way.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Your comment here also is linked to my observation that NY and its boroughs and LA with its harbor, valley, and far flung westside areas has more breathing room and more of a transitonal zone than Chicago does.

All those immigrants that come to and dominate Queens manage to find a structure where each area in the borough is more village like than city neighborhood like (not due to density, mind you, but organization) find a sense of place for a new home that may be more difficult in the gridded streets of Chicago. Point is, those were villages in Queens and were established a lot longer before consolidation of greater New York than any of the areas like Hyde Park, Jeff Park, or Lake View that Chicago acquired early enough to make them pure Chicago. And, of course, that sense of being a place apart from the city would also hold true for every community in the San Fernando Valley.

Chicago, in this respect, is organized completely differently than NY or LA. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

...because the south and west side are huge areas of the city, and those are the areas that need to be revitalized if the city is going to increase in population, not the south and west loop.
The south and west loop have grown due to their proximity to downtown.

I dont understand this thinking. Pilsen, Little Village, University Village,Tri Taylor/West Gate/West Loop is pretty big in land area, not dead at all.

Alot of the southside isnt as dead as you think, the SW side is pretty damn stable and HUGE in land area. Far SW Side (Beverly/Mt Greenwood) is in better shape. You need to be more specific in knocking the south or west side because the areas you are talking about seem to be the exception.

absolutely. but you're in New York and I'm sure going to the south Bronx is no walk in a garden.



The South Bronx is changing for the better. The Bronx overall is thriving with street life. Not comparable to the South Side. There might be poor areas of the Borough, but the place is dense! The entire borough has a pop. dens. of 31k/sq mi. That is the difference here in Chicago, there are areas of the south side that are literally abandoned.

I dont understand this thinking. Pilsen, Little Village, University Village,Tri Taylor/West Gate/West Loop is pretty big in land area, not dead at all.


Those neighborhoods are fine, walk through Inglewood, Roseland, Pullman, Riverdale, etc..

I dont understand this thinking. Pilsen, Little Village, University Village,Tri Taylor/West Gate/West Loop is pretty big in land area, not dead at all.

Alot of the southside isnt as dead as you think, the SW side is pretty damn stable and HUGE in land area. Far SW Side (Beverly/Mt Greenwood) is in better shape. You need to be more specific in knocking the south or west side because the areas you are talking about seem to be the exception.

I live on the sw side. Trust me there tons of blown out neighborhoods. Every work day I communte home on the rock island line (metra) and, its depressing lookig out of the window from 47th street to Beverly. I'm not saying that other cities are better but, the southside just doesn't have the vibrancy found on the northside. There are no neighborhoods on the northside that have the amount of destruction found on the south and west sides.

I dont understand this thinking. Pilsen, Little Village, University Village,Tri Taylor/West Gate/West Loop is pretty big in land area, not dead at all.


Those neighborhoods (except West Loop) were fully occupied to begin with and are almost certainly losing population now with gentrification.

The South Bronx is changing for the better. The Bronx overall is thriving with street life. Not comparable to the South Side. There might be poor areas of the Borough, but the place is dense! The entire borough has a pop. dens. of 31k/sq mi. That is the difference here in Chicago, there are areas of the south side that are literally abandoned.

How can you say that the South Side is not reviving? Just driving the lakefront (not on the Drive) from McCP to Hyde Park shows how things are filling in and with the plans to give the south lakefront parks the treatment that north side lakefront parks (well, park, that is..Lincoln) will change things more. Obviously so will a successful Olympic bid.

Slightly inland on the State Steet axis, development is filling in where the Tyalor homes were. Multimillion homes go up in Bridgeport while neighboring Chinatown burgeons with high end growth. Even South Shore is seeing some revival.

How can you say that the South Side is not reviving? Just driving the lakefront (not on the Drive) from McCP to Hyde Park shows how things are filling in and with the plans to give the south lakefront parks the treatment that north side lakefront parks (well, park, that is..Lincoln) will change things more. Obviously so will a successful Olympic bid.

Slightly inland on the State Steet axis, development is filling in where the Tyalor homes were. Multimillion homes go up in Bridgeport while neighboring Chinatown burgeons with high end growth. Even South Shore is seeing some revival.

Recently I drove to the Roseland neighborhood (119th and Michigan) to pick up my Girlfriends Grandmother who has lived in that area for 70years. I took Michigan Avenue south and from about the 50's or 60's all the way to 119th; Driving through those areas, you know what you will see? NOTHING. There are no people, no businesses. It is quite depressing. Michigan Ave from about 111th to 119th is a mess. I would say that nearly HALF the buildings are boarded up. No joke.
State St. is the same thing.
Have you ever taken the Green Line to 63rd? Same thing, abonded houses, empty lots, it is very sad. When you say "who cares what the population of Chicago is" These are the areas I think of.

Obviously, Im being over-critical of the city, but it is just mind blowing to think that Chicago has LOST 800,000 people. I know that the metro area is much stronger today than it was even just 20 years ago, but that has come at the expense of the city itself.

Cities have a growth, decay, and redevelopment cycle. They tend to spread outward taking up agricultural land while the ring around the central business district falls into decay. As one of the older forumers I have seen middle class areas in the city decay but I also see the obvious revitalization that is taking place. Areas that were horrible a few years ago like the near west and south sides are booming. I can see regrowth happening even in areas like Garfield Park. I have no doubt that the burned out areas some of the forumers are talking about will be very attractive in twenty years. As they will be built up more as multiunit dwellings as opposed to single family detached homes, it appears inevitable to me that Chicago's population will increase at least as long as jobs are there.

I feel I've entered the twilight zone on this thread. Am I completely nuts (well, obviously, yes) or are there others who think like I do?

I see a city of almost 3,000,000 people in a metropolitan area of more than 9,000,000 with a alpha status among world cities and a global economy that brings together creativity, financing, research, technology and other such essential to a modern city that has built itself into a major attraction to the high powered mobile population that makes things work is a damned healthy place.

and there is nothing in the city or metropolitan populations of either New York or Los Angeles that would indicate to me that we are lacking in any way.

Then again, maybe I am just insane.

Well just because you are insane, it doesn't mean that your observations are incorrect.

But keep this up, and you might face a fate worth than Dorothy as your three bedroom , streamside, canyon home gets lifted by a strong Santana and carried a way. If you have a dog, you may have to let him know you're not in LaLa Land anymore.:)

Ed you have to remember that the gusty wind conditions originate in the midwest and deposit folks from the midwest in OZ. I am in OZ already and it suits me fine. I came out here as a result of the hurricaine that resulted in Cook County Hospital losing its accreditation and depositing me in Munchkin land. Following the yellow brick road otherwise known as Wilshire Blvd, I gradually wended my way out to Santa Monica running into a few witches and flying monkeys along the way mostly in West Hollywood.

In this my story is not all that different from L. Frank Baum's who wrote the Wizard of Oz while living in Chicago and then wended his way out to Hollywood where he spent the rest of his life. in this strange country with purple blossoming trees, and orange, green, and yellow fruit, people dressed in strange costumes, and more than a few folks in need of a brain, a heart, or some courage.

This is Baums Hollywood home "Ozcot".
http://www.ericshanower.com/tigertreats/ourhollywood.jpg

Well just because you are insane, it doesn't mean that your observations are incorrect.

and i'm sending you the shrink bills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(you'll need to take out a loan):)

Ed you have to remember that the gusty wind conditions originate in the midwest and deposit folks from the midwest in OZ. I am in OZ already and it suits me fine. I came out here as a result of the hurricaine that resulted in Cook County Hospital losing its accreditation and depositing me in Munchkin land. Following the yellow brick road otherwise known as Wilshire Blvd, I gradually wended my way out to Santa Monica running into a few witches and flying monkeys along the way mostly in West Hollywood.

In this my story is not all that different from L. Frank Baum's who wrote the Wizard of Oz while living in Chicago and then wended his way out to Hollywood where he spent the rest of his life. in this strange country with purple blossoming trees, and orange, green, and yellow fruit, people dressed in strange costumes, and more than a few folks in need of a brain, a heart, or some courage.

This is Baums Hollywood home "Ozcot".
http://www.ericshanower.com/tigertreats/ourhollywood.jpg

i accept the reality of your Ozcot and your honesty that went with it, but to be honest, I think the Psycho house at Universal in the valley would have made a far more interesting Hollywood-like story. A nice touch would have included the Bates Motel and an introduction to ma svs. in drag.

You know Chicago was the original Hollywood, but it is pretty pathetic that this midwestern guy has to rescue your California dream story.

i accept the reality of your Ozcot and your honesty that went with it, but to be honest, I think the Psycho house at Universal in the valley would have made a far more interesting Hollywood-like story. A nice touch would have included the Bates Motel and an introduction to ma svs. in drag.

You know Chicago was the original Hollywood, but it is pretty pathetic that this midwestern guy has to rescue your California dream story.

Actually New Jersey and Astoria New York was the original Hollywood along with the Lumieres in France. And yes I know about Essanay studios. Ma svs by the way still lives in Chicago. If you open the wrong door in Rogers Park you may still find her there cleaning the shower.

Actually New Jersey and Astoria New York was the original Hollywood along with the Lumieres in France. And yes I know about Essanay studios. Ma svs by the way still lives in Chicago. If you open the wrong door in Rogers Park you may still find her there cleaning the shower.

did you know that you could still see the Universal studios logo on a small white building due south of Roosevelt on the west side of Michigan Ave that was the studio's home before it moved to LA?

thanks for the advise, but I think I'll be avoiding Rogers Park for a while! Does she still keep the sofa covered with plastic?

did you know that you could still see the Universal studios logo on a small white building due south of Roosevelt on the west side of Michigan Ave that was the studio's home before it moved to LA?

No, do you have a picture? I would be interested.

thanks for the advise, but I think I'll be avoiding Rogers Park for a while! Does she still keep the sofa covered with plastic?

All Jewish women of a certain age keep their sofas covered with plastic.

I agree strongly with Prelude's last few posts.

Sorry, Edsg, but New York does noy have anywhere near the amount of dead, abandoned land that Chicago does.

And I hate saying that, by the way. I'm one of the biggest Chicago boosters out there, for those of you who know me. Deep down, I can't stand to see NYC thriving while Chicago puts up with this nonsense.

But it's basically true. The Bronx is dense as hell. It may be unsafe in some areas, but it's still full of life. Chicago's biggest problem is its demolition machine. It really never gave neighborhoods a chance to come back, the city just bulldozed the shit out of everything on the south side, and all that wonderful prewar development is gone forever. No matter what New Urbanist planning we see, anything built now is sure to go out of its way to accommodate the car.

All Jewish women of a certain age keep their sofas covered with plastic.

no picture. I used to some side work doing tour guides for greyline. It was one of the places we passed. it's a one or two story building, I believe white terra cotta, and easy to pick out, a door or two down from the Roosevelt-Michigan intersection, southwest side of corner. Maybe someone here has a pic. Covered in plastic, of course.

I agree strongly with Prelude's last few posts.

Sorry, Edsg, but New York does noy have anywhere near the amount of dead, abandoned land that Chicago does.

And I hate saying that, by the way. I'm one of the biggest Chicago boosters out there, for those of you who know me. Deep down, I can't stand to see NYC thriving while Chicago puts up with this nonsense.

But it's basically true. The Bronx is dense as hell. It may be unsafe in some areas, but it's still full of life. Chicago's biggest problem is its demolition machine. It really never gave neighborhoods a chance to come back, the city just bulldozed the shit out of everything on the south side, and all that wonderful prewar development is gone forever. No matter what New Urbanist planning we see, anything built now is sure to go out of its way to accommodate the car.

think you got me wrong. I don't disagree. And New York has manged to be far more vibrant throughout the city than what Chicago has been able to do outside the core areas, much of the North Side, and close in areas to the Loop. You are unquestionably correct.

Urban, let me toss this one out to you:

I like to draw a line around 1950, with WWII behind us, as the point where there was a shift in the relationship between New York and other US cities.

I see the era from the true assent of NYC (let's place it around the Erie Canal era) to 1950 as being a unique time when America had only one truly great city, New York, and in a less technologically advanced time in a country perhaps not yet having come of age, one city could hold the role that NYC had.

In essence, New York was to the US waht London was Britain or Paris to France.

While NYC's status did not suffer after WWII, other American cities began to rise through technologies that allowed for more decentralization in the US and by the growth of the west and the sun belt. And part of this growth involved the more mundane facade of the cities besides New York to take on a degree of pizzaz that was missing in a more industrial era.

So here is my contention: even though there has been notable infusions of what makes a city exciting in cities like Chicago, we do have a serious lack:

Quite simply that would be the tremendous infrastructure of NYC, the parts put together prior to 1950 when the big apple may have been the only apple and that has allowed for the enhancement of that remarkable city that was in place before we were even viewing t.v.

Do you agree at all that New York was fortunate to have these pre-1950 pieces in place that allowed for mere augmentation, something that the physical environment in other US cities could not allow for?

and one more for you, Urban, if you can handle it:

Rich Daley is notable for the diverse ways in which he tries to not only promote Chicago but the many angles he finds to improve it. World class city is unquestionably a mission. And he certainly isn't afraid to look elsewhere for ideas.

But is Daley missing an opportunity? Should be and the city be studying the neighborhoods of NYC, particularly in the outer boroughs to find parallels with Chicago that might infuse some of the same dynamics here?

Is the type of vibrancy and the commitment to such communities an impossiblity without the oversight and the leadership of the city administration? Can it be left strictly in private hands to pull it off?

Do you agree at all that New York was fortunate to have these pre-1950 pieces in place that allowed for mere augmentation, something that the physical environment in other US cities could not allow for?

^ Chicago had that as well, on the south side.

It was thrown away. And now, all we ever hear about is parking.

There's already plenty of parking, people..

and one more for you, Urban, if you can handle it:

Rich Daley is notable for the diverse ways in which he tries to not only promote Chicago but the many angles he finds to improve it. World class city is unquestionably a mission. And he certainly isn't afraid to look elsewhere for ideas.

But is Daley missing an opportunity? Should be and the city be studying the neighborhoods of NYC, particularly in the outer boroughs to find parallels with Chicago that might infuse some of the same dynamics here?

^ Yup. He's a great mayor symbolically, but he just doesn't see the forest for the trees

Is the type of vibrancy and the commitment to such communities an impossiblity without the oversight and the leadership of the city administration? Can it be left strictly in private hands to pull it off?

I have no idea..

^ Chicago had that as well, on the south side.

It was thrown away. And now, all we ever hear about is parking.

There's already plenty of parking, people..

^^ That's certainly true. The city once boasted one of the world's largest streetcar systems (which is today, with very few modifications, the same as the bus system).

However, if we're gonna strictly talk about transit, the South Side hasn't lost a ton of L tracks. South Side Rapid Transit operated what is now the south branch of the Green Line, with spur lines into Kenwood, the Stock Yards, Englewood, Woodlawn, and Normal Park. Of these, the only significant loss is the Kenwood Branch. Normal Park was extremely short, Stock Yards served a one-massive employer that no longer exists, and Englewood and Woodlawn still exist.

However, in the modern era, the city has built both the Orange Line and the Dan Ryan branch of the Red Line to add rail transit to places that didn't have it previously. The Illinois Central, which acted instead of a rapid transit line along the south lakefront, is still there and only needs stations to be rebuilt.

Now, as far as traditional neighborhoods, Chicago had its fair share of housing projects, but so did NYC and other cities. I think that, while inner-city residents (mostly black) decided in NYC to build upon their established urban culture and make the best of their situation, the black community in Chicago started looking for ways out of the inner-city as soon as white residents did. Consequently, Chicago's poorest South and West Side neighborhoods were allowed to languish.

The race riots in the 1960s damaged many buildings significantly, and rather than spend the funds to fix and repair the damage, many pre-existing merchants decided to cut their losses and flat-out leave the city. This left many buildings unoccupied and neglected, eventually leading to their demolition.

There is a huge historical piece we haven't explored here. It is exceedingly important to the discussion.

We all know that Chicago's story is the story of the American city. And that story that got played out in all cities in the north and to a degree in the west during the Great Migration found African Americans squeezed into their own neighborhoods with natural of man made lines of division separating them from the white population. Neither segregation or the ghetto was a Chicago institution; it was national in scope.

But how Chicago or any city segregated could be different. And Chicago's segregation was sadly unique. And far more debilitating than anything in New York.

Our black-and-white divide was no mossaic. There was little checkered about it. Ours came in huge, mind boggling acres of land. Ours was so great that one could actually speak of a white North Side and a black South Side with an oversimplication that still had aspects that very much bordered on reality.

Every trip on the red line during its Howard el days was a sociological nightmere. Start up on Howard on the far north side and see all the white people get on board for a trip downtown. The train looked little different at Chicago or Grand than it did at Howard. But at Washington, things started to change. Whites got off. Blacks got on board. And the change in the train's demographics became blacker and blacker throught Monroe and Jackson. By Roosevelt, the deal was done. This was now a black train.

You do not cover your landscape with a huge piece of land and squeeze its residents into it as if it were the Warsaw Ghetto without paying a huge price for your folly well into the future. A scarred neighborhood in, say, New York, can rebuild far more easily when there are stable neighorhoods around it.

But the chernoblization of vast parts of Chicago's south and west sides will take a lot longer to rectify the tragedies of the past than the far more fixable landscape of New York or many other US cities.

Chicago still has a black belt around its neck and is still paying one hell of a price for a degree of intollerance that is more than half a century old.

Amen. Segregation has and continues to hurt the city(especially the south and westsides). When the politicians and other city leaders awake from their deep sleep and realize this, maybe then we can fix the south and west sides,

There is a huge historical piece we haven't explored here. It is exceedingly important to the discussion.

We all know that Chicago's story is the story of the American city. And that story that got played out in all cities in the north and to a degree in the west during the Great Migration found African Americans squeezed into their own neighborhoods with natural of man made lines of division separating them from the white population. Neither segregation or the ghetto was a Chicago institution; it was national in scope.

But how Chicago or any city segregated could be different. And Chicago's segregation was sadly unique. And far more debilitating than anything in New York.

Our black-and-white divide was no mossaic. There was little checkered about it. Ours came in huge, mind boggling acres of land. Ours was so great that one could actually speak of a white North Side and a black South Side with an oversimplication that still had aspects that very much bordered on reality.

Every trip on the red line during its Howard el days was a sociological nightmere. Start up on Howard on the far north side and see all the white people get on board for a trip downtown. The train looked little different at Chicago or Grand than it did at Howard. But at Washington, things started to change. Whites got off. Blacks got on board. And the change in the train's demographics became blacker and blacker throught Monroe and Jackson. By Roosevelt, the deal was done. This was now a black train.

You do not cover your landscape with a huge piece of land and squeeze its residents into it as if it were the Warsaw Ghetto without paying a huge price for your folly well into the future. A scarred neighborhood in, say, New York, can rebuild far more easily when there are stable neighorhoods around it.

But the chernoblization of vast parts of Chicago's south and west sides will take a lot longer to rectify the tragedies of the past than the far more fixable landscape of New York or many other US cities.

Chicago still has a black belt around its neck and is still paying one hell of a price for a degree of intollerance that is more than half a century old.

I was going to mention the same phenomenon. I grew up on the South Side (Chatham) and lived through the block busting era. My family was the last white family to leave our block so I have first hand experience of the hysteria.

E.J. Taylor's book American Pharaoh which is a pretty good biography of Daley I discusses in great detail the building and city remodeling that took place to keep the races separate. In New York, the expressways were built for transportation, in Chicago one of the reasons the Dan Ryan was built the way it was, was to form a separation wall between Bronzeville and Bridgeport. Also the leveling of neighborhoods and the replacement of homes with housing projects was unparalleled in Chicago. New York had its projects as well but the separation barriers were never as inpenetrable and the neighborhood destruction never as complete as in Chicago although I remember the South Bronx in the early seventies and it was pretty desolate as well.

The good news is these empty blocks will provide the canvas to build the new city. I await the resurgence of Garfield Park in the near future.

Amen. Segregation has and continues to hurt the city(especially the south and westsides). When the politicians and other city leaders awake from their deep sleep and realize this, maybe then we can fix the south and west sides,

Let's take it one step further, urbanpin. Race has been the most dibilitating factor in the American experience. And the most ironic part of it: white America is totally clueless that in the process of keep the black man down, it literally tore apart the good that the white community would have shared with the black community if racism had not been an issue.

Just think about how many poor, uneducated, backwards, and neglected southern whites, one of the most in-crisis groups in the United States would have been if they had not lived in a society where their common needs with the African Americans in their communities had been capable of uniting against the power structure that kept both down so that the elite could stay up.

What would have happened to the labor movement in the US, once a force, if black and white laborers saw their common causes rather than differences.

Black slavery, Jim Crow, and all the shit that has come afterwards has undoubtedly been a tragedy for black people. Too bad lots of white people didn't realize how tragic it was for them.

In New York, the expressways were built for transportation, in Chicago one of the reasons the Dan Ryan was built the way it was, was to form a separation wall between Bronzeville and Bridgeport.

Robert Moses did his share of expressway segregation, too...

I do agree that Chicago's segregation goes beyond what we see in other cities. However, that just makes it more impressive or fortunate that we have managed to avoid large-scale racial conflict in the city ala the Rodney King riots.

Robert Moses did his share of expressway segregation, too...

I do agree that Chicago's segregation goes beyond what we see in other cities. However, that just makes it more impressive or fortunate that we have managed to avoid large-scale racial conflict in the city ala the Rodney King riots.

for all race has been an issue, Chicago polarization is nothing compared to LA's. And that has been such a sad thing for that city.

The trick here, ardeclia, is for us to think less in terms of "right" or "wrong" about the past on this issue for frankly on the issue of race, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have gotten as wrong all all American cities have.

So let's look at circumstances.

Chicago's South Side, race aside, became the most industrial part of a highly industrial city. Chicago's status as a transportation hub is more titled south than north; that was our most important connection to the east, but also to the west and south. Only the swath from Milwaukee to Seattle require a rail trip through the North Side.

And the South Side's proximity to the steel mills of the Calumet area in nw IN made for a less desirable place to live.

So North Side surpassed the South Side for wealth and desirablity and when Potter Palmer jump started the Gold Coast by moving there from Prairie Avenue, it was fairly clear from that point on that other than in politics, the North Side was going to hold sway over the South. And at that point in time, race wasn't even an issue.

So factory, tracks, stockyard, and an ill wind blowing from Gary doomed the South Side to a less rosy future than the north.

Quite simply, for black immigrants to Chicago having a hard time getting a toe hold in a segregated city, the South Side had property that was easier to obtain for rent or purchase than the better kept and more desirable North.

Then you get the whole Great Migration which in the case of Chicago was a movement from Miss, Ala, La, and other gulf coast points. And the traffic was carried by the Illinois Central. Which terminated at 12th Street (not Roosevelt Rd yet) and when these people escaping Jim Crow got off board, they were 12 blocks south of the Loop and the proximity to places south became the route of choice. Viola. the black belt.

and belt it was. The city city squeezed and crammed and kept the borders narrow, our own version of the string that attached LA proper to the harbor area, but one where race, not controlling a port was the issue.

but the cramming could only work for so long before the pressure popped and spillover to previously white areas became an issue. So, yes, indeed the widest expessway the nation every built was put down between Bronzevillle and the other black areas to the east and Bridgeport and the white communities to the west.

And what happened on the south became a mini-version of our own West Side Story where a smaller but still significant belt overflowed it seams.

That New York or other cities did not follow the route we did is no doubt in part due to geography and the less established and entrenched nature of Chicago neighborhoods compared to a far older and more developed New York.

If I were to recap this thread up to this point, I think there's a general sense that the North Side is pretty healthy but that both the South and West sides have too many pockets of little acitivity or indication that they are turning around.

Right?

If so, there is a big question we haven't touched on and I'd love to hear an answer from you guys:

In South Side vs. West Side, how do you view the battle to see which one can turn around the quicker, the more comprehensively, and the more effectively?

And can either challenge the healthy positon of the North Side in the foreseeable future?

Robert Moses did his share of expressway segregation, too...

I do agree that Chicago's segregation goes beyond what we see in other cities. However, that just makes it more impressive or fortunate that we have managed to avoid large-scale racial conflict in the city ala the Rodney King riots.

Are you kidding? You should have been in Chicago in '68.

If I were to recap this thread up to this point, I think there's a general sense that the North Side is pretty healthy but that both the South and West sides have too many pockets of little acitivity or indication that they are turning around.

Right?

If so, there is a big question we haven't touched on and I'd love to hear an answer from you guys:

In South Side vs. West Side, how do you view the battle to see which one can turn around the quicker, the more comprehensively, and the more effectively?

And can either challenge the healthy positon of the North Side in the foreseeable future?

That's a very interesting question. I think the South Side should have a edge on recovery because it has the benefit of the lake as well as the two universities U of C and IIT. I have been very inpressed by the changes in the near south side already from Printer's row to the IIT campus. Burnham Park is now a lively integrated place. When I lived here it was no Man's land. I think the demise of the steel mills also opens up some areas for development.

But the West side is coming back as well. When my wife taught on the near west side in the 70's she would be warned by the cops not to walk along Taylor street because it wasn't safe. Now it's great. The West Loop is coming along as well. I really think the time is not long that east Garfield Park will be considered quite desirable as well becasue of its access to the park, conservatory, and transportation. I think the inner ring suburbs on the west side may not fare so well, but that will increase the reasons for folks to move back into the city.

I actually see great regrowth for Chicago in the next twenty years.

That's a very interesting question. I think the South Side should have a edge on recovery because it has the benefit of the lake as well as the two universities U of C and IIT. I have been very inpressed by the changes in the near south side already from Printer's row to the IIT campus. Burnham Park is now a lively integrated place. When I lived here it was no Man's land. I think the demise of the steel mills also opens up some areas for development.

But the West side is coming back as well. When my wife taught on the near west side in the 70's she would be warned by the cops not to walk along Taylor street because it wasn't safe. Now it's great. The West Loop is coming along as well. I really think the time is not long that east Garfield Park will be considered quite desirable as well becasue of its access to the park, conservatory, and transportation. I think the inner ring suburbs on the west side may not fare so well, but that will increase the reasons for folks to move back into the city.

I actually see great regrowth for Chicago in the next twenty years.

Good points. You are right about the universities on the south side (but don't forget the area's biggest is UIC on the west). The lakefront is HUGE when it comes South Side redevelopment.

The West Side's advantage? The downtown area seems to flow into it much more seamlessly than on the south. West of Halsted seems like an extension of the DT area.

Obviously many inner ring suburbs are already doing well. Particularly north. It is hard to argue the effect of proximity to Chicago on real estate prices in Evanston, Skokie, Lincolnwood, Niles, Morton Grove, Park Ridge, etc. And west this would definitely be true in Oak Park. I think for more of this to occur though you'd need for a healthier far west side to evolve.

But I do agree with you. The city and the areas around it are nicely positoned. (I also see your point about Pasadena and Evanston on the other thread).

interesting article here...

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=159207

there is one big issue we haven't discussed here. We talk about an increase in Chicago's population and ignore the demographics of who is to fill that increase.

If you are waiting for couples with children to move back into the city to repopulate it, forgetaboutit. This is a shrinking demographic and factors that make the periphery a better fit are not going to change even with better schools and lower crime rates. Open space, cheaper land, and other such factors are important to this demographic and, again, there are precious few to go around.

So who do you wish to fill this growth you'd like to see and how do you target each group?

immigrant communities? just out of college? young professionals in their 30's? gays and lesbians? job seekers of every quality imaginable? wealthy? creative folks? those who value diversity?

unless you target where you think the increase is going to come from, this becomes an exercise in futility. One size definitely does not fit all.

If you are waiting for couples with children to move back into the city to repopulate it, forgetaboutit. This is a shrinking demographic and factors that make the periphery a better fit are not going to change even with better schools and lower crime rates. Open space, cheaper land, and other such factors are important to this demographic and, again, there are precious few to go around.


Well Immigrants can be "couples with Children", cant they? I agree that Families will most likely not be the group that moves to the South and West side neighborhoods, but what makes Chicago different than say NYC? Tons of Families move to Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens; all of which are more expensive, denser, and lower crime rate than Chicago. Also consider that Queens and Brooklyn are physically on Long Island which is fairly suburban, but many families there chose to stay in the city.

I don't see any reason why couples with children should not move back to the city assuming crime is controlled and public schools are restored to the quality they had in the fifties. I grew up in the city, and it was a great big playground for me. I got interested in the museums early from school field trips and days bumming around with my Dad. I used to ride my bike all over the north side down to Riverview and the Museum campus. Chicago has a great system of parks, lots of interesting stores, galleries, sports facilities, and great cheap eats; anything a kid could want; plus you get to meet all sorts of interesting people.

I do certainly do not regret growing up in the city. There are attractions to suburbia as well but in an urban setting like Chicago the entire town can be your playground.

Great point. I believe if the city is to experience any sizable increase in population it has to attract and retain or just attract more immigrants than the suburbs. I think that may be the difference in NYC, L.A., London, Toronto and other cities that are experiencing population growth.

Well Immigrants can be "couples with Children", cant they? I agree that Families will most likely not be the group that moves to the South and West side neighborhoods, but what makes Chicago different than say NYC? Tons of Families move to Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens; all of which are more expensive, denser, and lower crime rate than Chicago. Also consider that Queens and Brooklyn are physically on Long Island which is fairly suburban, but many families there chose to stay in the city.

Immigrants tend to have larger families, at least the last wave of hispanics in the Chicago area did. Working class and middle income families, (white, black,hispanic and, others will continue to move out in search of the american dream. It would be interesting to know if NYC grew in population and by how much during any period in which immigration into the U.S. was at its lowest.

I don't see any reason why couples with children should not move back to the city assuming crime is controlled and public schools are restored to the quality they had in the fifties. I grew up in the city, and it was a great big playground for me. I got interested in the museums early from school field trips and days bumming around with my Dad. I used to ride my bike all over the north side down to Riverview and the Museum campus. Chicago has a great system of parks, lots of interesting stores, galleries, sports facilities, and great cheap eats; anything a kid could want; plus you get to meet all sorts of interesting people.

I do certainly do not regret growing up in the city. There are attractions to suburbia as well but in an urban setting like Chicago the entire town can be your playground.

should probably isn't the operating verb here. Of course, they should be able to. but I'll stick to the idea that this is a different era not only for Chicago, but for all American cities.

the Chicago that you and I grew up in, svs, was still close enough to its industrial roots and the pattern of settlement was very much based on the industrial jobs being close by and the city being more utilitarian and far less about life style.

Today, a number of major US cities are more along the lines of the European cities where real estate values skyrocket the closer you get to the core. Simply put, I can't see how Chicago or other prosperous cities (like yours, LA) are going to be able to halt the socio-economic segregation that so sadly has been part of their successes without the help of the federal govenment. If racial segregation has weakened (and it has), economic segregation has never been as powerful as it is today.

Again, I want to stress on the children issue: marriage has shrunk to a mere shaddow of when you and I grow up and people are marrying later and putting off having children till later. Yes, immigrants often follow an older model that both svs and I have expereinced, but native born Americans do not.

Simply put, the so called "traditional family"...two parents and children...makes up a much smaller percent of today's population. They exist, of course, and I'm with you about how I would like to see them in the city, but modern urban land values combined with a vastly different and far weaker family set up has made this pool of people much smaller than it once was.

And that's true of all advanced nations with declining birth rates that seek immigrants to fill not only the jobs that they don't want to do, but higher paying jobs that they are not able to fill with a declining indigenous population.

Let's not forget: for all we hear about declining population in Europe, the US would have been in the exact same boat if it hadn't been for massive immigration. Other than that, we're not all that different from the Brits, French, Germans, etc.

I'd like to look at the strong emotions generated over parts of the south and west sides not reviving and growing as a good thing.

Let's put a little perspective in here. If today we lament the lack of construction and growth in the most depressed areas of Chicago, let's remember what the conventional wisdom was a mere 20 or 30 years ago (a drop in the bucket when considering history):

we not only didn't rue the fact that vast areas of the South and West sides showed absolutely no evidence of revival, we were generally convinced that these depressed areas were scorched earth that never would revive. We saw real estate as being constant, not dynamic.

And let's not forget how long the old divides of where development can take place and where it cannot....Congress Street at one point, Roosevelt next, and eventually Cermak....is of the past.

So, yes, one could certainly make the argument that some have here that vibrancy escapes a number of areas of Chicago, perhaps far more than New York. But one can also look at it differently: Chicago is a leader in the nation among cities with vibrant neighborhoods (some cities would love to have what we already have in place), the redevelopment of both the South and West Side is taking place (even if the rate is less than we want to see), and the global nature of the Chicago economy will lead to increased land values and the very type of redevelopment that is being touted here.

Seems to me that things that the historical progression in works here is hardly a source of grimness, and perhaps one for celebration.

the redevelopment of both the South and West Side is taking place (even if the rate is less than we want to see), and the global nature of the Chicago economy will lead to increased land values and the very type of redevelopment that is being touted here.

Seems to me that things that the historical progression in works here is hardly a source of grimness, and perhaps one for celebration.


Redevelopment is happening in the Near South and Near West Sides, which is great for the city. However, a vast majority of the south/west sides are getting worse, not better.

Redevelopment is happening in the Near South and Near West Sides, which is great for the city. However, a vast majority of the south/west sides are getting worse, not better.

I see it more extensive than you do. I would include the Near SW, Mid South, and MidWest sides as areas that are in some degree of redevelpment along with the two your described.

if if you are righ, are there ever times in any city or metropolitan areas, where the fortunes of one area isn't rising while the fortunes of another are in decline?

Sometimes you have to prepare a field before you can plant the crop; I think Chicago is preparing for growth on the west and south sides. The key will be to make sure the population is able to grow along with the real estate. One missing key, I believe to the revitalization of the south and west sides has to be fixing the educational system. Fifty years ago when I attended Ruggles and Boone grammar schools, I recieved what I now believe was a pretty good education. One that allowed me to win a state scholarship and ultimately receive an advanced degree, and in the process advance from lower middle class to upper middle class living. The new jobs are going to require education, familiarity with computers and a high degree of literacy. I see many of these new jobs opening up in Chicago. The schools will have to do a better job so that the people living on the north and south sides can benefit from them. As they do the neighborhood will come back. I remember when Austin, Garfield Park, Douglas Park, Chatham, and South Shore were very lively and desirable places to live, Even with the empty lots and closed storefronts in many of these neighborhoods, the parks and boulevards still remain and will provide an armature for a revitalized city.

When I was in graduate school, I had an appartment on Waveland and Halstead in what is now called Wrigleyville (BTW $105.00 for four rooms, give you an idea of how long ago that was). Most of my aunts and older relatives refused to visit me because they thought the neighborhood was "bad". Look at Wrigleyville now. I think if you come back in 20 years or so you will be surprised at how nice Garfield Park and Douglas Park will be.

Sometimes you have to prepare a field before you can plant the crop; I think Chicago is preparing for growth on the west and south sides. The key will be to make sure the population is able to grow along with the real estate. One missing key, I believe to the revitalization of the south and west sides has to be fixing the educational system. Fifty years ago when I attended Ruggles and Boone grammar schools, I recieved what I now believe was a pretty good education. One that allowed me to win a state scholarship and ultimately receive an advanced degree, and in the process advance from lower middle class to upper middle class living. The new jobs are going to require education, familiarity with computers and a high degree of literacy. I see many of these new jobs opening up in Chicago. The schools will have to do a better job so that the people living on the north and south sides can benefit from them. As they do the neighborhood will come back. I remember when Austin, Garfield Park, Douglas Park, Chatham, and South Shore were very lively and desirable places to live, Even with the empty lots and closed storefronts in many of these neighborhoods, the parks and boulevards still remain and will provide an armature for a revitalized city.

When I was in graduate school, I had an appartment on Waveland and Halstead in what is now called Wrigleyville (BTW $105.00 for four rooms, give you an idea of how long ago that was). Most of my aunts and older relatives refused to visit me because they thought the neighborhood was "bad". Look at Wrigleyville now. I think if you come back in 20 years or so you will be surprised at how nice Garfield Park and Douglas Park will be.

Schools are essential, svs. However, in that role we are far more talking about the American city and frankly American society than Chicago.

Our national real estate was long segregated by race, religion, ethnicity. Those are less issues today, but they have been replaced by just as frightening a form of segregation: economics.

Our neighborhoods, in city and out, are based today far more on the niche they play for a particular type of group with a particular lifestyle (young professional, straight out of college, gay/lesbian, young couple with children, nuclear families, artists and the creative class, singles, executives, service people (police, fire), etc. They are no longer the cross section of people they once were. And if artists do go in to an edgy, but promising, neighborhood and gentrify it, you can be sure they will be squeezed out of it soon enough.

The city? Hey, look at suburbia. The economic ghettos are countless. And those who want to escape them to put their children in better schools to give them the chance that was far more prevalant when you atteneded Ruggles and Boone means a huge chunk of income to live (be it rent or buy) in a community that will give their kids a leg up. Many suburban high schools are disaster zones, and if you are of low or lower middle income and you want you kid to go to high school at New Trier, Stevenson, GBN, GBS, Highland Park, Deerfield, etc., you are going to pay dearly for it.

one assumption that i keep hearing is that gentrification will lower the population because it pushes out larger, poorer families. what i don't understand, though, is why that means lower population growth for the city. sure, some of those families being pushed out are going to move to the suburbs, but isn't it more likely that they will move elsewhere in the city, filling up less populous/desirable neighborhoods?

Schools are essential, svs. However, in that role we are far more talking about the American city and frankly American society than Chicago.

Our national real estate was long segregated by race, religion, ethnicity. Those are less issues today, but they have been replaced by just as frightening a form of segregation: economics.

Our neighborhoods, in city and out, are based today far more on the niche they play for a particular type of group with a particular lifestyle (young professional, straight out of college, gay/lesbian, young couple with children, nuclear families, artists and the creative class, singles, executives, service people (police, fire), etc. They are no longer the cross section of people they once were. And if artists do go in to an edgy, but promising, neighborhood and gentrify it, you can be sure they will be squeezed out of it soon enough.

The city? Hey, look at suburbia. The economic ghettos are countless. And those who want to escape them to put their children in better schools to give them the chance that was far more prevalant when you atteneded Ruggles and Boone means a huge chunk of income to live (be it rent or buy) in a community that will give their kids a leg up. Many suburban high schools are disaster zones, and if you are of low or lower middle income and you want you kid to go to high school at New Trier, Stevenson, GBN, GBS, Highland Park, Deerfield, etc., you are going to pay dearly for it.

Someone might want to start a new thread about the demise of public education in the United States over the past 50 years. This might be a good topic for you edgs25 since you are an ex-school teacher. My teaching has been pretty much limited to medical students which is a very different story.

one assumption that i keep hearing is that gentrification will lower the population because it pushes out larger, poorer families. what i don't understand, though, is why that means lower population growth for the city. sure, some of those families being pushed out are going to move to the suburbs, but isn't it more likely that they will move elsewhere in the city, filling up less populous/desirable neighborhoods?

It doesn't mean lower population growth; it means population Loss. In the case of the south side and west side, it isnt gentrification that is hurting the area; it is just the fact that people are leaving (in huge numbers), many of them moving to Aurora, Joliet, Elgin, etc...

Someone might want to start a new thread about the demise of public education in the United States over the past 50 years. This might be a good topic for you edgs25 since you are an ex-school teacher. My teaching has been pretty much limited to medical students which is a very different story.

it's pretty well collapsed.

where did you teach? UCLA?

it's pretty well collapsed.

where did you teach? UCLA?

USC I told you about my mixed emotions during the last Rose Bowl.

USC I told you about my mixed emotions during the last Rose Bowl.

i do remember. i guess my problem was i wasn't thinking football. so, for contreception, doc, recommend trojans?

i do remember. i guess my problem was i wasn't thinking football. so, for contreception, doc, recommend trojans?

Always. old joke about the two USC's (LA and Columbia). Which is better?

The Trojans because they can neutralize anything the Cocks can produce.

We're getting way off subject.

Always. old joke about the two USC's (LA and Columbia). Which is better?

The Trojans because they can neutralize anything the Cocks can produce.

We're getting way off subject.

maybe. i hope i haven't bruined you day.

maybe. i hope i haven't bruined you day.


Don't mind UCLA at all. I've done a little teaching at at some UCLA facilities over the years as well. All three of my daughters have gone to one or another of the UC's over the years. I'm rooting for UCLA in the NCAA.

Chicago in top 10 for metro growth
US CENSUS | Population continues shift to South, West
http://www.suntimes.com/business/863937,texas032708.article
March 27, 2008
Recommend

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

DALLAS----Four Texas metropolitan areas -- and Chicago -- were among the biggest population gainers as Americans continued their trend of moving to the Sun Belt in 2006 and 2007, according to Census Bureau estimates.

thanks, george. a very good article.

it certainly highlights something i think is exceedingly salient here: "Chicago" is much more a metropolitan area than a city. Obviously I would, like the rest of you, see a total revival in the most devastated parts of Chicago and a vibrant street life everywhere.

But I am also of a belief that today's "health" of our cities is no longer a municipal issue, but a metropolitan one. We are far removed from the era where Detroit became a basket case case as population shifted from city to suburb. Today's reality is that no metropolitan area could follow a Detroit or St. Louis model and have any chance of success in a global economy. Any suburban area that drains its central city in the 21st century is screwing itself as much as it is the folks left behind.

That brings me back to a previous statement. Evanston and Oak Park urbanization and street life are a Chicago positive that is as much a part of what Chicago is about, IMHO, as the dead zones on the South and West sides. Evanston and Oak Park are Chicago and neither Howard Street or Austin Blvd have the power or width to make that statement false. And the fact that Evanston and Oak Park are outside the big city's city limits and Queens and Brooklyn are within them means little to me. Evanston and Oak Park street life is just as valid a proof of Chicago's vibrancy as Astoria or Flushing is for New York City.

Now that does change the argument one iota that depressed areas need to be addressed. But we do not and should not look at this as a city issue but a metropolitan one. Chicago is a member in good standing in Chicagoland. Its health is in similiar standing to a good percent of the health of the various suburbs that surround it.

The issues I see here are far more related to how do we get the disadvantaged communities that dot the landscape from Kenosha to Gary to start seeing some of the great things that happen in Lincoln Park and Lincolnwood, Lake View and Lake Forest, River North and Riverwoods, Hyde Park and Highland Park, Forest Glen and Glenview.

Our health is hardly tied to Chicago as a city, but Chicagoland as an economic and cultural unit.

^ Most of that growth in our metro area has been in Grundy, Kane, Kendall, McHenry, and Will Counties. Not Cook. Do you really think the sprawl is good for the area? There are not too many places in Cook county that are seeing a population increase. Orland Park? Tinley Park? that might be it.

I can't imagine a scenerio in which people moving 40 or 50 miles away from the city in some crappy subdivision in the middle of nothing can be good for the city...

it certainly highlights something i think is exceedingly salient here: "Chicago" is much more a metropolitan area than a city. Obviously I would, like the rest of you, see a total revival in the most devastated parts of Chicago and a vibrant street life everywhere.

But I am also of a belief that today's "health" of our cities is no longer a municipal issue, but a metropolitan one. We are far removed from the era where Detroit became a basket case case as population shifted from city to suburb. Today's reality is that no metropolitan area could follow a Detroit or St. Louis model and have any chance of success in a global economy. Any suburban area that drains its central city in the 21st century is screwing itself as much as it is the folks left behind..
I think that an argument can be made that the suburbs did drain a big portion of the city population.

That brings me back to a previous statement. Evanston and Oak Park urbanization and street life are a Chicago positive that is as much a part of what Chicago is about, IMHO, as the dead zones on the South and West sides. Evanston and Oak Park are Chicago and neither Howard Street or Austin Blvd have the power or width to make that statement false. And the fact that Evanston and Oak Park are outside the big city's city limits and Queens and Brooklyn are within them means little to me. Evanston and Oak Park street life is just as valid a proof of Chicago's vibrancy as Astoria or Flushing is for New York City...
Queens and Brooklyn (which combined have a pop. of about 4.5 million people) ARE NYC just as much as Manhattan. The same can't be said for Oak Park and Evanston with Chicago




The issues I see here are far more related to how do we get the disadvantaged communities that dot the landscape from Kenosha to Gary to start seeing some of the great things that happen in Lincoln Park and Lincolnwood, Lake View and Lake Forest, River North and Riverwoods, Hyde Park and Highland Park, Forest Glen and Glenview.


I notice you have a very North-Side bias. Keep in mind the majority of the City/Suburbs are on the South Side. I could care less about Kenosha and Gary, they are not part of Chicago, hell they are not even in our State.

^ Most of that growth in our metro area has been in Grundy, Kane, Kendall, McHenry, and Will Counties. Not Cook. Do you really think the sprawl is good for the area? There are not too many places in Cook county that are seeing a population increase. Orland Park? Tinley Park? that might be it.

I can't imagine a scenerio in which people moving 40 or 50 miles away from the city in some crappy subdivision in the middle of nothing can be good for the city...

I'm totally anti-sprawl and applaud the growth of the inner ring of suburbs. I never said that Evanston and Oak Park match the extent of Bkyn and Qns; that would be ridiculous. All I said is that they share the same type of relationship with core Chicago as Bkyn and Qns do with Manhattan although Ev and OP are outside city limits and the two boroughs are not.

I'm not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with you on everything here. I'm not. You have brought up good points. But Chicago is not New York, it is considerably smaller and what works in NYC may not work the same way here. But what I do think is signifcant is that at our own pace, we are making the recoveries we should, even if the rate could increase.

I know you are not disagreeing with me, but we don't share the same views when it comes to Chicago vs. Chicagoland. I just don't like that all of the growth in the area is in the fringe suburbs. Chicago seems to be slowly losing population (hopefully the 2010 census will prove me wrong) and Cook county as a whole seems to loose population as well. I think it is important for the city of Chicago to increase it's population. I could care less if New Lenox, Plainfield, Sugar Grove, or wherever else are growing very fast, and unfortunetly that seems to be where all teh growth is taking place.

I'd like to go back to the Olympics as a catalyst for growth, specifically on the south and west sides. The venues being erected, specifically the Olympic stadium, will be used after the games are over for use in the community. I think thats a great start to encourage growth in those areas. The venues will be great assests to the neighborhoods.

I'd like to go back to the Olympics as a catalyst for growth, specifically on the south and west sides. The venues being erected, specifically the Olympic stadium, will be used after the games are over for use in the community. I think thats a great start to encourage growth in those areas. The venues will be great assests to the neighborhoods.

this kind of shows what can happen when you have something like the Olympics to plan for. it can make things happen.

But along with cbotynyse's suggestion here, we can also plan for things that are not "events".

For example, the price of gasoline is going over $4/gal. The days of cheap oil are over. What lies ahead is a fundamental shift on how we view centralization over sprawl and how we have to structure our lives on decreased uses of our cars. And for once, city and suburban and "life style" is not the driving issue. The reality of the impracticality of the very cars our lives are built around is the issue.

Chicago needs to work with developers on how to create the options for middle class people who are going to be seeking housing closer to the city core and will need a transportation system in place to make it work for them. This will not be about gentrifying neighborhoods by the artists and those with money have been doing for so many years now. This is about the practicality of cutting down on the cost of transportation.

So this isn't about cool digs in Wicker Park or Lincoln Park or seeing housing prices rise in close in suburbs like Evanston, Skokie, Park Ridge, and Oak Park due to people wanting close access to all Chicago has to offer.

It's about people who will be more than happy to find housing in areas removed from the city's real buzz but close enough that public transportation makes the car less and less of an option. And areas of Chicago even have the advantage in this respect over the burgeoning downtown areas spread over the metropolitan area along the Metra lines. The cost of energy makes even the Metra trips expensive compared to living in the city itself.

If you want to find ways to repopulate Chicago, think of what could be the attraction of that fallow land; gasoline prices put so much added value on to that space that some smart developer who wishes to make a buck, perhaps even before the housing crisis ends, needs to think of ways of developing affordable middle class housing in the underutilized parts of Chicago.

What use do the residents of Washington Park have for Olympic venues? There's nothing in the history of the games that makes me think they would boost the population or the prestige of those neighborhoods. If anything, they could cause damage as Chicago goes the way of Montreal.

What use do the residents of Washington Park have for Olympic venues? There's nothing in the history of the games that makes me think they would boost the population or the prestige of those neighborhoods. If anything, they could cause damage as Chicago goes the way of Montreal.The stadium will be used as a sporting facility for the neighborhood after the Olympics are gone. At the very least, it will give children in the neighborhood a chance to do something other than turn to drugs and gangs.

The people in charge of 2016 are very mindful of what happened in Montreal and are not about to make the same mistakes.

I know you are not disagreeing with me, but we don't share the same views when it comes to Chicago vs. Chicagoland. I just don't like that all of the growth in the area is in the fringe suburbs. Chicago seems to be slowly losing population (hopefully the 2010 census will prove me wrong) and Cook county as a whole seems to loose population as well. I think it is important for the city of Chicago to increase it's population. I could care less if New Lenox, Plainfield, Sugar Grove, or wherever else are growing very fast, and unfortunetly that seems to be where all teh growth is taking place.

why would you assume i disagree with you on that one? actually we're in complete agreement. when i say suburbia, i am not thinking of the areas that mirror our traditional view of bedroom community or are so far out from the city that they have a life of their own. What I'm suggesting is the inner ring of suburbia can be looked at as our Brooklyn, Queens, or even San Fernando Valley since Chicago doesn't have the type of transitional areas that are so much part of the structure of New York or Los Angeles.

why would you assume i disagree with you on that one? actually we're in complete agreement. when i say suburbia, i am not thinking of the areas that mirror our traditional view of bedroom community or are so far out from the city that they have a life of their own. What I'm suggesting is the inner ring of suburbia can be looked at as our Brooklyn, Queens, or even San Fernando Valley since Chicago doesn't have the type of transitional areas that are so much part of the structure of New York or Los Angeles.

fair enough, but many people are also leaving our inner ring suburbs for the 5,000 sq ft house in the country.

When it comes to US cities, despite not having been part of colonial America, Chicago comes across as a pretty old place. That is, Chicago was right there when the true urban era began in the US after the civil war at a time when industrialization and immigration transformed a rural nation into an urban one. And no city shared the rise of that era outside the northeast corridor than Chicago. It alone of its midwestern peers was at the forefront of that era's story of how greatness was carved out of the new economics and how civic pride became a major force in urbanization. There is an incredible linkage of four major cities, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, during this era.

Yet for all its age, Chicago's maturity does not match New York's. That seems to be something that in one form or another comes up on this thread. New York does have more of the pieces in place than Chicago. And that is a great thing for any city to have.

But is there also a flip side? To me, one of the most exciting things about Chicago since the late 1980's when it started to put a lot of the race issues and its industrial past behind it and the new city started to emerge has been the very "work in progress" that relates to the topic of this thread. To me, there is something exciting in Chicago that NYC does not match in the ability to see what was once in decay and thoroughly underdeveloped evolve into an urban showcase.

Our city seems to change overnight. Our old notions of areas that are written off changes so that the entire canvass of the city is open to change, even if it doesn't occur at the same time.

Punctuating it all is a skyline that is destined for uniqueness in the United States: New York in this era gives us the power and mass of a skyline based on bulk, a huge block that dominates everything around it. Chicago goes for height and elegance and perhaps a far more Oz-like profile than Manhattan. Both are great, but Chicago's reach for the sky inspires me more.

No, this isn't New York vs. Chicago. Both are fabulous. All I'm saying here is for me, the mind boggling evolution of a city becoming something new and special in Chicago offers a show that no other city can offer me.

fair enough, but many people are also leaving our inner ring suburbs for the 5,000 sq ft house in the country.

shall we pass around a cup for these folks when they find that they are no longer able to fill up their tanks with those limits on their credit cards, let alone heat those 5000 sf McMansions. Can you think of a dumber use of your money than a 5000 sf home in the middle of nowhere when gas prices will soon be over $4/gal.

These folks may be able to afford a plasma t.v. in every room in the house (including closets), but they sure aren't tuned into the channels that tell it like it is on energy prices and the economy.

When it comes to US cities, despite not having been part of colonial America, Chicago comes across as a pretty old place. That is, Chicago was right there when the true urban era began in the US after the civil war at a time when industrialization and immigration transformed a rural nation into an urban one. And no city shared the rise of that era outside the northeast corridor than Chicago. It alone of its midwestern peers was at the forefront of that era's story of how greatness was carved out of the new economics and how civic pride became a major force in urbanization. There is an incredible linkage of four major cities, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, during this era.

Yet for all its age, Chicago's maturity does not match New York's. That seems to be something that in one form or another comes up on this thread. New York does have more of the pieces in place than Chicago. And that is a great thing for any city to have.

But is there also a flip side? To me, one of the most exciting things about Chicago since the late 1980's when it started to put a lot of the race issues and its industrial past behind it and the new city started to emerge has been the very "work in progress" that relates to the topic of this thread. To me, there is something exciting in Chicago that NYC does not match in the ability to see what was once in decay and thoroughly underdeveloped evolve into an urban showcase.

Our city seems to change overnight. Our old notions of areas that are written off changes so that the entire canvass of the city is open to change, even if it doesn't occur at the same time.

Punctuating it all is a skyline that is destined for uniqueness in the United States: New York in this era gives us the power and mass of a skyline based on bulk, a huge block that dominates everything around it. Chicago goes for height and elegance and perhaps a far more Oz-like profile than Manhattan. Both are great, but Chicago's reach for the sky inspires me more.

No, this isn't New York vs. Chicago. Both are fabulous. All I'm saying here is for me, the mind boggling evolution of a city becoming something new and special in Chicago offers a show that no other city can offer me.:applause:

Im sure this topic has been brought up before, but I ask this question, as I am doing some research for a class I am taking (just started Grad School)...

From 1950-2006 Chicago has lost more people than any other city in the country not named Detroit.

Chicago -800,000
Philly -600,000
NYC +400,000
Boston -210,000
DC -215,000
LA +2,000,000
SF -600,000
Detroit -900,000
Baltimore -300,000

Not sure where you're getting your information, but no way has the city of SF lost 600K people since 1950:

SF Population (from Wikipedia):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/SFPopulationGrowth.jpg

Punctuating it all is a skyline that is destined for uniqueness in the United States: New York in this era gives us the power and mass of a skyline based on bulk, a huge block that dominates everything around it. Chicago goes for height and elegance and perhaps a far more Oz-like profile than Manhattan. Both are great, but Chicago's reach for the sky inspires me more.

No, this isn't New York vs. Chicago. Both are fabulous. All I'm saying here is for me, the mind boggling evolution of a city becoming something new and special in Chicago offers a show that no other city can offer me.

^ This is basically what keeps me coming back. New York, for all its unbelievable greatness, is sort of just adding to its collection. It's got nowhere to go but down at this point (which doesn't seem to be happening, of course).

Chicago is in an entirely different situation and, to people who love watching cities get built, its "work in progress" feel is very appealing.

Not sure where you're getting your information, but no way has the city of SF lost 600K people since 1950:


Typo on my part...I fixed it

When it comes to US cities, despite not having been part of colonial America, Chicago comes across as a pretty old place. That is, Chicago was right there when the true urban era began in the US after the civil war at a time when industrialization and immigration transformed a rural nation into an urban one. And no city shared the rise of that era outside the northeast corridor than Chicago. It alone of its midwestern peers was at the forefront of that era's story of how greatness was carved out of the new economics and how civic pride became a major force in urbanization. There is an incredible linkage of four major cities, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, during this era.

Yet for all its age, Chicago's maturity does not match New York's. That seems to be something that in one form or another comes up on this thread. New York does have more of the pieces in place than Chicago. And that is a great thing for any city to have.

But is there also a flip side? To me, one of the most exciting things about Chicago since the late 1980's when it started to put a lot of the race issues and its industrial past behind it and the new city started to emerge has been the very "work in progress" that relates to the topic of this thread. To me, there is something exciting in Chicago that NYC does not match in the ability to see what was once in decay and thoroughly underdeveloped evolve into an urban showcase.

Our city seems to change overnight. Our old notions of areas that are written off changes so that the entire canvass of the city is open to change, even if it doesn't occur at the same time.

Punctuating it all is a skyline that is destined for uniqueness in the United States: New York in this era gives us the power and mass of a skyline based on bulk, a huge block that dominates everything around it. Chicago goes for height and elegance and perhaps a far more Oz-like profile than Manhattan. Both are great, but Chicago's reach for the sky inspires me more.

No, this isn't New York vs. Chicago. Both are fabulous. All I'm saying here is for me, the mind boggling evolution of a city becoming something new and special in Chicago offers a show that no other city can offer me.

I strongly agree with what you are saying. However, (as stated before) Chicago had/has just as many pieces in place as NYC. Unfortunetley much of it has been demolished. The whole notion that the city is changing over night basically only applies really to the downtown area, most of the south side and west side are not benefiting from it. As much as I like them, skyscrapers are not what is going to change the city as a whole; it is the neighborhoods that need to change. If the entire city looked like the South Loop or Streeterville, we would have a pretty sterile city. IMO skyscrapers do not add to the charm/energy of a city; it is the people.

The entire Chicago metro area experienced net outmigration last year. The net domestic outmigration was ~(57,000) - almost as bad as Detroit.

^ This is basically what keeps me coming back. New York, for all its unbelievable greatness, is sort of just adding to its collection. It's got nowhere to go but down at this point (which doesn't seem to be happening, of course).

Chicago is in an entirely different situation and, to people who love watching cities get built, its "work in progress" feel is very appealing.

Tup, you've just stated exactly how i feel about Chicago. New york is the shit and everyone knows it but to me it can't really get any better. Chicago on the other hand has so much to look forward to and so much potential and that potential is what gets me so excited to be a Chicagoan.

It is sad to me that Chicago is losing people. Most big cities in the country are growing in Population (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, NY, LA, DC) why is Chicago losing people? It seems like so many people are leaving for the suburbs. I think Houston will pass Chicago in population soon, as will Brooklyn (and Brooklyn is only 1/3 the land size as Chicago) :ohno:Downtown Chicago is going through a building boom that hasnt been seen here in 30 years. I think as the downtown area contiunes to grow it will spill over to the outlying neighborhoods.

If gas prices continue on their current path, and stay this high, I believe we will see a reversal back into the city from the suburbs and exburbs. If you think about it, mass production of the automobile made the suburbs even possible.

And I also stand by my prediction of a post-Olympics boom for the entire city, specifically the the outer neighborhoods.

At any rate, I'm not really concerned. I am enjoying everyday living in the best city in the world and watching the amazing changes going on right now. In 5 years time, the city will look and feel completely different than it did 5 years ago. I couldn't care less what the population of other cities are doing. Chicago is and will remain one of the best places to live on Earth.

It is sad to me that Chicago is losing people. Most big cities in the country are growing in Population (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, NY, LA, DC) why is Chicago losing people? It seems like so many people are leaving for the suburbs. I think Houston will pass Chicago in population soon, as will Brooklyn (and Brooklyn is only 1/3 the land size as Chicago) :ohno:


Well after reading your [total] 15 previous posts it is clear you are a complete idiot and a troll.:ohno:

It is sad to me that Chicago is losing people. Most big cities in the country are growing in Population (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, NY, LA, DC) why is Chicago losing people? It seems like so many people are leaving for the suburbs. I think Houston will pass Chicago in population soon, as will Brooklyn (and Brooklyn is only 1/3 the land size as Chicago) :ohno:

this is true. and it is so very sad. Chicago is in deep decline as you note. You must have read the recent Princeton study and the one done by the American Urban Institute in DC on the topic.

It did note that Chicago's rate of decline over the next 25-30 years will exceed all cities with the exception of New York which it profiled will definitely be exceeded in both population and economic power by Los Angeles by 2017. What I found even more surprising was how it noted that both Houston and Atlanta through their newer infrastructure, more inviting business climate and realtive safety from rising sea levels and higher labor costs anticipated to hit coastal cities like New York will be surpassing NYC by mid-century.

The studies also suggested the liklihood that the financial markets in lower Manhattan will be squeezed out financially due to inadequate and unflexible space with Jersey City being the first to gain on NY's loss, followed by Boston and Phila.

The other projection that shoots daggers in the heart of Bwy was the company that own Circe de Sollei will be constructing 5 new megathreatres on the Vegas strip which has the land to accomodate this. In ten years, Vegas will surpass New York as the theatrical captial of the US.

Philadelphia is anticipated to surpass New York as the major shipping center in the northeast corridor with the construction of the massive Delaware River Container-max facilitity south of the Philly airport. This huge development will offered a sheltered and protected harbor for Atlantic shipping that is threatened in both NY and Boston due to coastal erosion and storm concerns projected by global warming.

And Boston's new Education and Research Consortium (Harvard,MIT, BC, BU, Tufts, UMass, N'eastern, Brandeis) is cooperating with the high tech firms in the Boston region to make an equivablent to Silicon Valley in Calif. This is expected to seriously harm NYC's efforts in both the fields of higher education. research, and high tech.

Brooklyn, I'm glad you were able to share with us. Sorry about the negative attitudes on the part of the other Chicagoans. In a sense, as bad as we feel about our own plight, we certainly can imagine how you must be feeling over the numerous projections that NYC will be in far worse shape.

I think both of our cities have had great runs. I know you lament what will happen to our great city, and we feel even worse for you guys and the even more dire projections for New York.

I guess nothing stays the same. But at least NY and Chgo will be in this together. Again, thanks for sharing with us here.

edsg25....you have to be the biggest D*** i have ever seen...its like you come and just pull this sh*t out of your ass...or maybe its just an april fools joke..either way...your throughly accomplished your goal of being super annoying!

edsg25....you have to be the biggest D*** i have ever seen...its like you come and just pull this sh*t out of your ass...or maybe its just an april fools joke..either way...your throughly accomplished your goal of being super annoying!

gee. thanx!:) i do work hard at it. and I am the biggest D*** you have ever seen.

bravo edsg25!

bravo edsg25!

thanx, cbotnyse. always appreciate nice comments. fight fire with fire with this one with the genius of Brooklyn. even if chgo 23 missed my sarcasam.

lol...well sorry if i missed the sarcasm in that whole paragraph...maybe i need to get used to your humor style

lol...well sorry if i missed the sarcasm in that whole paragraph...maybe i need to get used to your humor style

that will be tough, chgo23; I'm not even used to it yet! no need to apologize.

:ohno:serious question:

didn't silverlake move to NYC? is there a good possiblity that Brooklyn Heights is another screen name? I mean...silverlake, an LA neighborhood, BkynHts, a NY neighborhood. Coincidence? There is such a similarity of comments and the same sort of jealousy of Chicago that makes him make up such nonsense to put down Chicago so he can feel better about his city (be that LA or NY). And style of writing is of a similar juvenile style.

my guess is SL is now using an east coast alias. And one :ohno: can easily grow to :ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

stay tuned.

:ohno:serious question:

didn't silverlake move to NYC? is there a good possiblity that Brooklyn Heights is another screen name? I mean...silverlake, an LA neighborhood, BkynHts, a NY neighborhood. Coincidence? There is such a similarity of comments and the same sort of jealousy of Chicago that makes him make up such nonsense to put down Chicago so he can feel better about his city (be that LA or NY). And style of writing is of a similar juvenile style.

my guess is SL is now using an east coast alias. And one :ohno: can easily grow to :ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

stay tuned.

^ He/she is the same retard who introduced themselves as "David", then said "I'm a female", and when asked about that said "actually my name is Davey".

He/she/it has already landed a coveted spot on my ignore list

^ He/she is the same retard who introduced themselves as "David", then said "I'm a female", and when asked about that said "actually my name is Davey".

He/she/it has already landed a coveted spot on my ignore list

you mean to say you didn't give poor Davida the benefit of the doubt because she does not know how to spell?:)