What is your favorite US city that is not located in....

[Xusein]

Even if it's "tiny", it's nowhere near the point of being built out. There is plenty of land to develop and sprawl on.

[Dralcoffin]

The Twin Cities see a similar pattern:



Still, I think this past decade will go down as the demographic turning point for Chicago, where the old impoverished districts finally broke down but the influx of yuppies had yet to reach critical mass like Boston and New York. I expect less than a two percent change in either direction for 2020, and then the start of a slow growth beyond then. (Especially if peak oil finally makes the suburbs unsustainable.) Zooming in on the city, you can see a close collaboration between poverty and population loss, and the city's average income is spiking upwards as gentrification takes an increasingly broad effect.

[Xusein]

Don't see any discernible pattern in my ends, more like a patchwork.

[Dralcoffin]

New York:

[Somnifor]

One of the most noticeable thing about the map of population change in the Twin Cities is that large swathes of the established suburbs posted population declines. This is driven by demographic change - fewer families and more old people.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Xusein

Even if it's "tiny", it's nowhere near the point of being built out. There is plenty of land to develop and sprawl on.

Are there any zoning regulations to speak of in Connecticut? I know New Jersey has created a sort of a "green zone" or rather a "agricultural zone" in between the suburbs of NYC in the north and the Philly suburbs in the south, and elsewhere.

http://www.njlandlaw.com/


We don't have anything like that here.

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Still, I think this past decade will go down as the demographic turning point for Chicago, where the old impoverished districts finally broke down but the influx of yuppies had yet to reach critical mass like Boston and New York. I expect less than a two percent change in either direction for 2020, and then the start of a slow growth beyond then.

See, 2020 is too soon. Before you have Chicago's population growing again, you have to stabilize it. By 2020, there will probably be an additional 200,000 African Americans exit the city, but also we will probably see for the first time in the city's history the Hispanic population contract. Maybe by 25,000+. There is nowhere near enough gentrification going on to off set those losses. Mark my words Chicago's population will be under 2.5 million in 2020. I say stabilization will happen but not until the city flattens out at around 2.3 million.

(Especially if peak oil finally makes the suburbs unsustainable.) Zooming in on the city, you can see a close collaboration between poverty and population loss,.

Peak oil isn't going to change anything, and it probably wont even come. First and foremost, most of the job growth today are not happening in the city center to begin with. As with most of the population, most of the jobs are in the suburbs. If you think about it, gas prices nearly doubled this past decade and that didn't stop sprawl.

and the city's average income is spiking upwards as gentrification takes an increasingly broad effect

You can have a smaller more affluent and gentrified city with higher revenues. This is the model Chicago city politicians are banking on. Stupidly.

[Dralcoffin]

See, we have completely different views of the city, so I doubt we'll ever agree on a model of Chicago's future. I may be too optimistic, but I feel you are far too pessimistic. It's easy to say the city is crumbling from the suburbs. Chicago will never drop to below 2,500,000. We won't see 3,000,000 in my lifetime (and I'm twenty) but we're close to bottoming out.

[diablo234]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

You can have a smaller more affluent and gentrified city with higher revenues. This is the model Chicago city politicians are banking on. Stupidly.

It worked wonders for New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC all of which gained population according to the 2010 census.

Wealthy people and singles don't tend to use many services compared with those with families so the city gains more revenue.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by diablo234

FYI: Miami's biggest tourist attraction is also a mall (known as Sawgrass Mills).

I seriously doubt that.

First, they self-report their statistics, and have a strong incentive to brag about high numbers, so they probably fudge them.

Second, malls usually count everyone who enters, not just tourists. A teenybopper might be 100 visits per yer by herself.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by diablo234

It worked wonders for New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC all of which gained population according to the 2010 census.

Wealthy people and singles don't tend to use many services compared with those with families so the city gains more revenue.

One decade of growth doesn't signify a long term trend (DC), and Chicago from 1990-2000. Boston and San Fran are small compact cities, that wont see huge fluctuations. NYC's population growth has slowed dramatically when compared to 1990-2000. Who's to say that there wont be a drop in population in 2020? Plus, NYC had the immigrant pull along with the gentrification factor much larger than Chicago.

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

See, we have completely different views of the city, so I doubt we'll ever agree on a model of Chicago's future. I may be too optimistic, but I feel you are far too pessimistic. It's easy to say the city is crumbling when you flee to the suburbs.

I lived in Chicago for 36 years, and have studied it's trends. I'm not being pessimistic. I'm being realistic.

Chicago will never drop to below 2,500,000.

I wish we could place a wager on that

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I lived in Chicago for 36 years, and have studied it's trends. I'm not being pessimistic. I'm being realistic.

Then the suburbs probably are the place for you. What would a New Yorker in 1981 have said about their city's future, with a city in worse shape than Chicago is now?

[Aaronj09]

Anchorage

[diablo234]

Originally Posted by mhays

I seriously doubt that.

First, they self-report their statistics, and have a strong incentive to brag about high numbers, so they probably fudge them.

Second, malls usually count everyone who enters, not just tourists. A teenybopper might be 100 visits per yer by herself.

You could be correct but from what I have seen the visitor statistics from other websites including the FDIC, states the same exact info I mentioned earlier.

http://www.fdic.gov/about/jobs/work_se.html

More than 25 million visitors flock to the area each year to experience nearby Sawgrass Mills Mall, the state's second-most popular tourist attraction after Walt Disney World.

Also keep in mind that Miami and Houston tend to attract alot of Latin American and European visitors/tourists precisely because of the amount of shopping opportunities available here since most goods in the US tend to be cheaper here than in their own countries.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Then the suburbs probably are the place for you.

Well yeah. I have two small children and want them to get a good education, and a safe environment. Chicago is much more dangerous than NYC (per capita).

What would a New Yorker in 1981 have said about their city's future, with a city in worse shape than Chicago is now?

NYC was not in worse shape even in 1981 (in terms of it's population flux) and really there is no comparison. NYC had only 2 decades in the last 50 years that saw a population loss.




while Chicago had only one decade with a population gain in the last 50 years.

[Dralcoffin]

This argument is going nowhere. I'm out. Let Chicago die and let's see what 2050 brings, when Chicago looks like a big Detroit with a shinier downtown, and the suburbs reach Kankakee and Rockford.

[Somnifor]

Isn't this thread specifically not about cities like Chicago (or New York)?

[Dralcoffin]

Philadelphia

Center City's boom and North East growth just cancels out the bleeding out of North and West Philly.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Yes, think of the children. They are the future after all, and our big cities clearly have no future compared to the sanctuary of the suburbs. I'm out. Let Chicago die and let's see what 2050 brings, when Chicago looks like a big Detroit with a shinier downtown,

Go tell that to the nearly 200,000 African Americans who left Chicago (and for good reason) this past decade. Or do you give them a pass for exiting the city that failed to provide a decent living environment. They had a reason to move out, but I didn't? What about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that are now bypassing the city all together for the suburbs? Are they at fault too?

No, I should sit there and expose my children to the same shit I was exposed to growing up... Why? Just to say they won't abandon the neighborhood? F that. I fought the good fight for 36 years. Sorry, I had enough. Most schools suck. I should know, since I am a teacher. Property taxes way too high for the real estate. City fees getting out of hand. Crime, not as bad as when I was young, but still unacceptably high.

and the suburbs reach Kankakee and Rockford.

Suburbs have already reached Kankakee. It's part of the CSA. Rockford in about 10-20 years.

[Dralcoffin]

I really don't care any longer, George. You win. Maybe I'll just settle for New York; there's a city that people are proud to live in.

[chicagogeorge]

Good luck to you. May I ask, do you have kids? And, what part of the "heart of the city" do you reside in?

I'll just settle for New York; there's a city that people are proud to live in.

No, I'm not at all proud to be from Chicago.




But, pride is put aside when it comes to the best interests of your family. Maybe this kind of thinking comes with age. I'll be 40 this year.