Predict Chicago's 2010 population

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Logsy

Is there Census data available for the Central Area?

Tract-level data seems to be out, and probably block-level population data, but I haven't yet succeeded in decoding it from the Census Bureau's FTP site. I don't have a new enough version of Access.

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by Northsider

Does anyone think Chicagoland will someday soon institute some sort of urban growth boundary? All of this sprawling growth in the exurbs can't be a good thing in terms of urban sustainability. I mean, just looking at the map above, if this trend continues throughout the next decades we'll have a dead shell of a city and sprawling suburbs. Kane Co at almost 30% growth?! Sorry but stuff like this just can't be good for the region:

While instituting an urban growth boundary would be the smart thing to do (and, due to low population density, there's plenty areas for internal growth in Cook and DuPage counties, even in Chicago), I don't see that ever happening in the United States, where government is far too decentralized, and -instead of having regional goals and policies- local governments (municipalities and counties) compete with each other for residents, businesses, and state and federal funds. The collar counties and vested property developer interests would fight this and would win. It's the American way, and I don't see it changing, unless there's a massive cultural and paradigm shift in America.

I completely agree that it's an unsustainable waste of land.

[Northsider]

It's just sickening to see this leapfrogging and sprawl. I don't mind so much that Chicago isn't growing...but that the regional growth looks like the screen shot I posted above is nauseating.

I don't see it changing, unless there's a massive cultural and paradigm shift in America.

I thought this shift would come with the recession and failure of the auto industry: people moving closer/in to the city, people driving less, people taking more transit...it seemed like a golden opportunity. Yea, that didn't happen.

I know Portland has instituted a growth boundary, but I haven't read much about it lately.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by Northsider

I thought this shift would come with the recession and failure of the auto industry: people moving closer/in to the city, people driving less, people taking more transit...it seemed like a golden opportunity. Yea, that didn't happen.

I know Portland has instituted a growth boundary, but I haven't read much about it lately.

These massive shifts take time. The events you mention above started at most 3 years ago. Do you think its easy for 200k+ people to sell their hte ouse in the burbs and relocate to the city in the span of 3 years (especially when they are underwater with their mortgage)? I'm somewhat optimistic that over the long-term (10+ years) our society will reorient itself towards more urban lifestyle, if for no other reasons than high fuel prices.

[skyduster]

Sukwoo,

I guess we're surprised -and disappointed- because we thought that the exodus of people from Chicago (and the suburban sprawl) had been reversed much longer than 3 years ago. The city gained people during the 1990s, which is why this hit comes as a shock. We thought that the urban renaissance was well underway, not that it was still in its infancy.

But in retrospect, there are some things that explain what's going on here:

The older suburbs (Cook County suburbs, DuPage, southern and eastern Lake, for example) didn't grow much, and many even shrank. However, we saw massive growth in the exurbs...Aurora, Naperville, Will and McHenry Counties, places like that, and we all remember the exurban deveopment boom of the past decade. This speaks volumes about our lack of regional policy and competing local governments. We can criticize Chicago and Cook County all we want (taxes, schools, etc), but in such a hostile environment with such anti-urban state and federal policies (supported by a majority-suburban nation), the cards are stacked against Chicago being able to do the things it needs to do in order attract and keep residents. I mean, it's just sad that America's 3rd largest city looks and feels so bare west of Wells Street.

The good thing is that affluent places like the city core and Lincoln Park have atracted more residents over the past decade. The bad thing is that poorer people, mostly African-American, have left. Perhaps this points to a new worrying trend: reorganized socioeconomic segregation. Instead of the old order (suburbs were middle class and city was poor), there's a new order where segregation still exists, but in a reorganized way: North side and city core are middle class and rich, south and west sides are poor; some suburbs are middle class while others are poor.

But they say now that with the real estate crash in recent years, the exurbs are hurting the most. So, hopefully the city will see gains in the decade that just started.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Northsider

I know Portland has instituted a growth boundary, but I haven't read much about it lately.

Portland's smart growth policies have for the most part been a bust
http://www.demographia.com/dbx-por.htm

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

These massive shifts take time. The events you mention above started at most 3 years ago. Do you think its easy for 200k+ people to sell their hte ouse in the burbs and relocate to the city in the span of 3 years (especially when they are underwater with their mortgage)? I'm somewhat optimistic that over the long-term (10+ years) our society will reorient itself towards more urban lifestyle, if for no other reasons than high fuel prices.

Obviously we won't see wholesale changes in 3 short years. But the auto bailout was definitely a buzzkill to any sort of transit momentum that we could have had. New policies could have been written stimulating transit usage, more walkable neighborhoods, and a trend back into the city. No. Instead the industry gets bailed out, transit is business as usual (or lack thereof), and exurbs record huge increases in population. Instead of seeing a move back into the city that has been a decade and a half in the making...we see the opposite happening with the new data.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by Northsider

Obviously we won't see wholesale changes in 3 short years. But the auto bailout was definitely a buzzkill to any sort of transit momentum that we could have had. New policies could have been written stimulating transit usage, more walkable neighborhoods, and a trend back into the city. No. Instead the industry gets bailed out, transit is business as usual (or lack thereof), and exurbs record huge increases in population. Instead of seeing a move back into the city that has been a decade and a half in the making...we see the opposite happening with the new data.

It roughly 50 years from peak nadir for Chicago, it wouldn't surprise me if it takes 50 more years to reverse these trends. I'm hoping to be alive to see it all take place.

[mohammed wong]

Originally Posted by skyduster

Sukwoo,

I guess we're surprised -and disappointed- because we thought that the exodus of people from Chicago (and the suburban sprawl) had been reversed much longer than 3 years ago. The city gained people during the 1990s, which is why this hit comes as a shock. We thought that the urban renaissance was well underway, not that it was still in its infancy.

But in retrospect, there are some things that explain what's going on here:

The older suburbs (Cook County suburbs, DuPage, southern and eastern Lake, for example) didn't grow much, and many even shrank. However, we saw massive growth in the exurbs...Aurora, Naperville, Will and McHenry Counties, places like that, and we all remember the exurban deveopment boom of the past decade. This speaks volumes about our lack of regional policy and competing local governments. We can criticize Chicago and Cook County all we want (taxes, schools, etc), but in such a hostile environment with such anti-urban state and federal policies (supported by a majority-suburban nation), the cards are stacked against Chicago being able to do the things it needs to do in order attract and keep residents. I mean, it's just sad that America's 3rd largest city looks and feels so bare west of Wells Street.

The good thing is that affluent places like the city core and Lincoln Park have atracted more residents over the past decade. The bad thing is that poorer people, mostly African-American, have left. Perhaps this points to a new worrying trend: reorganized socioeconomic segregation. Instead of the old order (suburbs were middle class and city was poor), there's a new order where segregation still exists, but in a reorganized way: North side and city core are middle class and rich, south and west sides are poor; some suburbs are middle class while others are poor.

But they say now that with the real estate crash in recent years, the exurbs are hurting the most. So, hopefully the city will see gains in the decade that just started.

There was a very good discussion in city data forum chicago about this.
SF had a population drop in 70s/80s before it rebounded.....
This could be something like that.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

demographia.com

::rolleyes::

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by paytonc

::rolleyes::

Why? Is the data they have on Portland "smart growth" not accurate? Or is it that you don't like Demographia's motto:

Demographia is "pro-choice" with respect to urban development.
People should have the freedom to live and work where and how they like.

There are many sources which prove that Portland's policies have been less than successful

Portland, Oregon, Adjusts as Experiment with Smart Growth Goes On
Creating more jobs proves a major challenge


For example, housing prices in the central city surged as a result of zoning laws, demographics and an influx of educated, creative high-earners. Traffic congestion increased as the share of people using public transport fell in the 1990s. (Use of buses and light-rail has picked up this decade.) And despite all the efforts, Portland’s outskirts remain dominated by car-dependent communities of single-family houses and strip malls.

Portland’s policies have raised some skepticism. Economist and former resident Randal O’Toole has made exposing smart growth’s faults his lifetime mission. Ken Dueker, professor of urban studies and planning at Portland State University, said smart growth may work better in older central cities than in new suburban developments and that setting strict population density limits does not necessarily promote a shift to alternative modes of transportation or a quality development pattern.

http://www.america.gov/st/business-e...0.3590357.html



and this isn't recent news either....

from 1999

Portland: Smart Growth's Bad Example

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba305

[skyduster]

It appears that the problem in Portland stems partly from the decentralization, low-density NIMBYism, and lack of central regional authority that I was talking about.

From the America.gov article:

For example, the proposal to add a south-north route to the city’s light-rail network was rejected by popular vote in one of the counties involved.

...the city decided to encourage developers through tax and other financial incentives to build more affordable, family-oriented housing units in North Pearl. But nothing has created more tensions and controversies than attempts to “densify” the existing neighborhoods of single-family homes by adding apartment blocks. There even was an attempt by Oregonians in Action, a civic group, to strip Metro, the regional government, of its power to set density standards. A 2002 ballot initiative intended to achieve this lost, but gained enough support to give credence to the group’s claim that the region and city are overregulated and their planning system unnecessarily complex and heavy-handed.

Part of the problem, it appears, is that the central city was made more desirable both by investment in public transit as well as a vibrant public sector. The city then attempted to densify by changing its zoning laws (raising the density limit) and getting developers to build mixed-unit developments. But low-density NIMBYs put a stop to this, which limited the amount of people who could live in the city, which made the city expensive to live in, keeping many people away from the city and in the suburbs. And with suburban counties not cooperating on regional public transit investments, the city was at this alone. This is a similar situation to the one Chicago finds itself in. In order for American cities to fully rebound, it would require a paradigm shift in American culture, as well as more centralized urban planning and/or -and this may come of as radical- giving metro areas autonomy by consolidating the core counties and seceding metro areas from their respective states.

Originally Posted by mohammed wong

There was a very good discussion in city data forum chicago about this.
SF had a population drop in 70s/80s before it rebounded.....
This could be something like that.

Yeah, but Chicago had major declines in the 70s/80s too, and so did all of the older American cities (Chi, SF, NYC, DC, Boston, Philly, Detroit), if not perhaps sunbelt cities too (LA, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta) at the expense of their suburbs.

I mean, I hope you're right. I really can't say what will happen in the future. One thing that does look certain, is that the city has had a net gain of affluent people and single young people. This is definitely a good thing, but middle class families and the poor shouldn't be forced to leave. It's not a success when city can't provide opportunities and a safe haven for everyone, and too many people fail to see that our state and national policies (on everything from education to overemphasis on highway spending) have played a major role in this exodus out of central cities.

And is San Francisco a good role model for Chicago? It seems that SF has become -basically- a big Lincoln Park/Lakeview, as opposed to a municipality that includes everyone, poor, middle class, and rich alike. Is my stereotype of SF wrong?

[Northsider]

And is San Francisco a good role model for Chicago? It seems that SF has become -basically- a big Lincoln Park/Lakeview, as opposed to a municipality that includes everyone, poor, middle class, and rich alike. Is my stereotype of SF wrong?
__________________

Hmm, I only spent a few days in SF, but I don't think I would relate it to LP/LV. It seems much more, hmm, alive (?) than LP/LV. SF seemed much more hip, artsy, culturey...much less boring-yuppie than is exemplified in Lincoln Park. I dunno, I didn't see a whole lot of the city though. I definitely saw lots of poor and mid class though... it's hard to really compare because SF is so expensive

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by skyduster

In order for American cities to fully rebound, it would require a paradigm shift in American culture, as well as more centralized urban planning and/or -and this may come of as radical- giving metro areas autonomy by consolidating the core counties and seceding metro areas from their respective states.

This will never happen in a million years. In Illinois at least there is an emphasis on self determination of communities not consolidation.
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1979/ii790126.html

Even if such a metropolitan body existed, I couldn't possibly see the core counties finding common ground on most issues.

and I don't necessarily believe consolidation would benifit the region. If anything people are living Chicago (and Cook County btw) because of it's oversized government, corrupt in it's very nature and ever rising cost of living and doing business there.



This editorial illustrates pretty much why I moved to Bourbonnais last December (after living in east Albany Park for 36 years). I actually was pissed off. I almost felt as if I was forced to move. The rising propery taxes and risks for raising a family (my oldest son is of school age now), even though I lived 3-4 blocks away from Blago, didn't give me hope in staying there..... I waited over 3 decades hoping that Albany Park would turn around..... It has a little, but definitiely not enough for me to see my children grow up there. Then I looked at homes in Edison Park, Sauganash, Norwood Park, and neighborhoods near Midway airport on the Southside (Downtown wasn't an option as my wife and I have no desire in living in a cramp condo with two little kids). Nope. Homes to small for the price, and taxes way too high. Finally we said we will move close to where my parents moved. We both have family who have moved to the south suburbs over the last few years.

Last to leave Chicago, turn out the lights

Neil steinberg nsteinberg@suntimes.com Feb 20, 2011 02:11AM
ShareE-MailPrint

Now I feel bad.

Had I known, when I left the city in 2000 to move my family to the leafy suburban paradise of Northbrook, that 200,000 of my fellow Chicagoans would follow clumping after us, fleeing en masse to the surrounding region, according to the United States Census, well, I might have given it a second thought.

OK, that’s not true. It wasn’t my fault. People left Chicago over the past decade for a variety of reasons — some were public housing residents who had their homes demolished out from under them. Some lost their jobs in the Great Recession and had to seek work elsewhere. And yes some — 20,000? 40,000? the number is unknowable — were middle class wage slaves like myself (OK, lower upper middle class wage slaves, to borrow George Orwell’s term) who couldn’t bring themselves to fling their darling children into the stormy chop of the Chicago public school system and couldn’t make the nut at a private school that might not deign to accept them anyway, whatever the price.

And yes, there are good Chicago public schools, and yes, it is possible to get one’s children into them, or so I’m told. But the question was: Is this a risk you’re willing to take? We weren’t.

Sure, there were other factors. Our boys rode their Big Wheels around and around the dining room table, because it was too much of a hassle for them to find an adult to escort them down the flight of stairs, out the three, count ’em, three locked doors, to finally the busy street and tiny, dog-piss murdered patch of blasted grass, with its anemic locust tree, that served as their playground. A backyard was a plus, or would have been, had they ever put their video games down. But it was there.

This is not to criticize the city — Geez, hold your fire. People seem to have this bellyful of vindictiveness, boiling in their guts, and are scanning the horizon, desperate to find somebody, anybody, for them to spew it onto. Look! A guy who fled to the suburbs! The treachery of betrayal! He’s dissing our city! Get him!

Chicago’s population loss is ominous — first, because a city needs people. Detroit had a population of 2 million in 1950; it has 800,000; just 40 percent of that, now, and it’ll be interesting to see whether our elephant step in Detroit’s direction over the past 10 years will tarnish Mayor Daley’s legacy, the central leg of which is that we didn’t become Detroit under his watch. It isn’t the same if you tack “yet” at the end, “We didn’t become Detroit yet.”

Yes “we.” Because the concerns of Chicago are the concerns of Northern Illinois, which rises or falls with it, and while the bowl haircuts Downstate would like to cut off the city, out of prejudice and parochialism, and the city would like to disown suburbanites like me, out of pure spite, the truth is we are all bound together, sink or swim.

Frankly, I’m not expecting a lot of attention to the population loss story. Like global warming, it’s just too grim for many people to accept or think about. Population loss is connected to every urban problem. How to get those people back? Well, fix the schools, cut crime, create jobs, lower taxes. That’s a start.

My guess is that, when Mayor Daley does his victory lap this spring, basking in the glow of being — everybody, all together now: “the best mayor in the best city in the whole world!” — the incredible shrinking population will be barely a footnote, the throat clearing in between listing his various glories and accomplishments (which were? Oh right, sparing us the fate of Detroit, so far).

Heck, maybe this can be spun as new, edgy thinking. The old concept — that a city is only as strong as its residents — that’s so 20th century. Maybe Chicago can be recast as a brand, an icon on your iPhone. Maybe the city can collect royalties and clicks. If Chicago can have 3 million friends on its Facebook page, maybe it won’t matter how many people actually live here. Nobody really lives in Farmville, do they? Chicago can assume a disembodied online identity: “Click Chicago.” We could be pioneers in this regard. It sounds like something Mayor Daley would hear about on one of his visits to France and get behind.

Daley hasn’t yet said what he’s doing after he retires, has he? Besides giving expensive speeches. He’ll still live in Chicago, right? That’ll be something, to bump into him in line for bagels at the Eleven City Diner.

Maybe we’ll rub elbows. Because as useful as the suburbs have been — really, very nice people, if you can find them — the boys are teenagers, soon college-bound. Then, having done my duty, I plan to move back to the city. (“What about me?” my wife asks. “You’re invited,” I say). That’s where all the fun is.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinbe...he-lights.html




I too, will move back into the city when my kids are off to college in 15-20 years...

[Mr Downtown]

Tract-level changes for the city, from today's Chicago Tribune:

[chicagogeorge]

Wow only 20 of the 77 communities in Chicago gained population! And aside for the downtown area, most gains were quite minimal.


I take it Chicago will barely be above 2.5 million by 2020, with maybe half of the black population Chicago had in 1980..... if trends continue.... and given the fact that the Hispanic growth almost stopped these last 10 years in the city, I could imagine the Hispanic population will be seeing a net loss this coming decade, and the city's population could be under 2.5 million. Christ....


The NIPC is probably scartching their heads having no idea what to do. They predicted 3.26 million in the city by 2030.

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/



and this is a scary thought.... if not for the recession things could have been worse.

Chicago and Cook County’s declines would have been bigger if not for the worst recession since the Great Depression, said Kenneth Johnson, a former professor at Loyola University Chicago who studies the region as a demographer at the University of New Hampshire.

Recession Effect

“The recession had the effect of freezing people in place due to their reluctance to try to sell homes or change jobs because of the difficult economic situation,” he said.

The Chicago metropolitan area grew 4 percent during the decade and is now home to 9.7 million, Johnson said.

While Chicago’s suburbs grew, Illinois’s population increased just 3.3 percent, the ninth-lowest rate among states and less than any of its bordering states. Nationwide population growth was 9.7 percent during the decade.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...sus-shows.html


and now the liar Pat Quinn, who said he would veto an income tax increase anything over 4% is now pushing for a graduated tax in this state. He already signed into law corporate taxes going up from 4.8% to 7%...... Good bye, businesses and I could see our population as a state shrinking by 2020.... Waste and spend assholes. Can they get it threw their thick skulls why people and busniess are reluctant to stay in Chicago or Illinois for that matter! It's not just the damn weather that drives people away

[Northsider]

That's a sad looking map of supposedly one of the US's premier cities. It's interesting W Garfield Park: more than 100% increase in white population?!

Another thing has popped into my mind. Had Daley known about this population (and popularity) loss Chicago would receive? Had he ditched the boat before it sank?

[The Urban Politician]

Mr. D's graph does have a lot of very interesting info.

Asians are moving into many core neighborhoods of the city at a rapid rate, both north and south. Also, I'm impressed by 1) the large growth of whites on the south side and 2) the large growth of blacks on the far north side. It's not entirely a picture of "black flight".

It is very important to get a nuanced view of what is happening in the city, and not to take a "doom and gloom" perspective out of the 200k loss.

Take it for what it's worth, but this data is clear evidence that Chicago is becoming a bit less segregated.

[CITYofDREAMS]

Originally Posted by skyduster

Yeah, but Chicago had major declines in the 70s/80s too, and so did all of the older American cities (Chi, SF, NYC, DC, Boston, Philly, Detroit), if not perhaps sunbelt cities too (LA, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta) at the expense of their suburbs.

LA has yet to see a decline in their census since it's inception... if it does in the 2010 it will be it's first.

[Logsy]

The loss of 200k people most of whom resided on the south/west sides of the city over the past 10 years is really worrisome, but this tract level data shows that most of the gains are very minimal as well.

Areas like Lincoln Park and Lakeview grew by less that a half percent, and those two are supposed to be hip and cool neighborhoods where all the affluent professionals and young families want to reside.

Near North side`s population increased by 8.6%. That is an incredibly modest gain, provided that this where a majority of the buildings of the biggest construction boom in Chicago`s history were built. Back in 2008. there were talks that Near North Side was approaching the level of 100k residents. Reading these numbers makes me believe that Chicago is becoming less desirable not only for the working class (which is a proven fact), but also to the white collar professionals and the upper classes, as well.