Predict Chicago's 2010 population

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by Logsy

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.

^ I don't see anything in your post that explains how you came to the conclusion you made in the very last sentence.

There is no way you can ascertain "desirability" from this data. The figure shown says nothing about property values, household size, or average income. A community can go from 8,000 to 6,500 as, for example, Hispanic families are replaced by high income yuppie singles and couples, and all you would see is the drop from 8,000 to 6,500.

You mention the Near North Side increasing by 8.6%--but bear in mind that Cabrini Green is part of the 'Near North Side' and the tear down of essentially that entire complex probably removed a few thousand residents as well.

Finally, how is Chicago becoming "less" desirable for white collars professionals? I'm curious to see how you arrived at a conclusion that is at odds with what pretty much every body else is claiming.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

How is Chicago becoming "less" desirable for white collars professionals? I'm curious to see how you arrived at a conclusion that is at odds with what pretty much every body else is claiming.

If anything Chicago is ONLY attracting white collar professionals

[Ordoseclorum]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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

Looking at these numbers pretty closely, I think the map that gives us the best idea of what is happening in the city is the heat map displaying the percentage change of white residents. If you use white as a proxy for "high income residents," you can use that as a rubric to understand the rest of the data.

Some communities on the North side, like Lakeview and Lincoln Park, clearly have not suffered in the last decade. If population has declined there, it's due to a decrease in family size. The last of the poor, large family households have been squeezed out.

Same for Logan Square. It's a much stronger neighborhood now than it was in 2000, but the population declined 12%.

Basically, a walkable circle, bisected by the lake with a perimeter from Humboldt Park to Edgewater to Hyde Park, is strengthening. Areas along transit infrastructure heading Northwest and Southwest are strengthening.

Areas of the city that are like a city--even if it's not by the downtown core--are doing well.

[Northsider]

If you use white as a proxy for "high income residents,"

Wait, huh? Somehow I want to be bothered by this statement.

Regardless, the transformation of Chicago into a yuppie city isn't necessarily a good thing. I want diversity and culture...and you don't get that with Starbucks drinking, Potbellys eating, Pabst guzzling suburban transplants for whom Chicago is just a stopover.

Areas of the city that are like a city--even if it's not by the downtown core--are doing well.

There are many definitions of 'city', but I think you mean dense areas supported by transit.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Why? Is the data they have on Portland "smart growth" not accurate?

It is a biased source, highly selective about what they choose to see, discredited by numerous conflicts of interest. Plenty of great, peer-reviewed research has been done that validates the smart growth approach, but you can choose what you want to believe.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by paytonc

It is a biased source, highly selective about what they choose to see, discredited by numerous conflicts of interest.

So can you present me one bias that demographia has on Portland specifically? I looked through some of the articles that demographia has on Portland and I can't see how they manipulated something like the following:

Portland: Outsprawling Los Angeles: At the same time, over the past twenty years, Portland has adopted so-called "smart growth' policies, including an urban growth boundary inside which virtually all urban growth is to occur. Planning and popular literature has been filled with salivating reviews of Portland's success. But, during the 1980s, after adoption of the urban growth boundary, Portland's density of new development trailed that of all major western urbanized areas except Seattle. Further, Portland is a very low density urban area, both in its central city and its suburbs. By 1990, the Portland urbanized area was 3,021 persons per square mile, barely one-half that of Los Angeles

Portland Sprawls Like Phoenix: And Portland? Not only is Portland considerably less dense than Los Angeles, but its density gradient trails below more than 2/3 of the 33 urbanized areas that had a population of more than 1,000,000 in 1990 (ranking 25th in 10 percentile density). In fact, Portland's density profile is strikingly similar to that of Phoenix, known for its sprawling low density. Phoenix ranks 24th, one position above Portland (Table 2 & Figure). The top 10 percentiles of urbanized Phoenix land area are more dense than the corresponding area of Portland

Just me

Plenty of great, peer-reviewed research has been done that validates the smart growth approach, but you can choose what you want to believe.

I choose to believe growth happens (as does shit). Where there are jobs and lower cost of living, good schools, safe streets, people follow...

I moved out of the city for those very reasons. You can't force people to stay somewhere that doesn't provide what I listed above. Zoning off Will, Kane, McHenry will only force people to move out of the region all together, not force them to stay in the city. You can however create a climate that keeps and attracts more people. Chicago lost a huge number of it's whites in the 50's through the 80's for the very same reason why blacks and hispanics are leaving today. It' not Will and Kane County's fault that Chicago doesn't provide the above list and they do. If they continue to attract city residents and people from other parts of the country as well as international migrants, more power to them.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by Ordoseclorum

f you use white as a proxy for "high income residents," you can use that as a rubric to understand the rest of the data.

That would be pretty stupid in general, but particularly in Chicago where there is still a large (if now fast declining) population of working-class whites in the Bungalow Belt.

The population dynamics of the quintessential Bungalow Belt communities of the southwest side and far northwest side are particularly integrating: areas that greeted Martin Luther King with riots are finally integrating, with white residents being replaced by residents of color. Or are they re-segregating? On the flip side, the historic Black Belt neighborhoods of the south lakefront, beyond the South Loop and ringing Hyde Park, are also integrating as it gentrifies.

[Logsy]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

^ I don't see anything in your post that explains how you came to the conclusion you made in the very last sentence.

There is no way you can ascertain "desirability" from this data. The figure shown says nothing about property values, household size, or average income. A community can go from 8,000 to 6,500 as, for example, Hispanic families are replaced by high income yuppie singles and couples, and all you would see is the drop from 8,000 to 6,500.

You mention the Near North Side increasing by 8.6%--but bear in mind that Cabrini Green is part of the 'Near North Side' and the tear down of essentially that entire complex probably removed a few thousand residents as well.

Finally, how is Chicago becoming "less" desirable for white collars professionals? I'm curious to see how you arrived at a conclusion that is at odds with what pretty much every body else is claiming.

I understand and accept the explanation you provided that a community can shrink if, for example, a Hispanic family is replaced with yuppie singles. It is obvious that the downtown area of Chicago has been trying to attract high income singles and couples- that is why all those buildings were constructed in the period from 2000-2008.

The influx of new yuppie residents has not been so significant to offset the population losses that occurred when larger working class families and public housing inhabitants started moving out from the downtown area. I was hoping that population density in near north side would increase more dramatically, particularly since we had a very rapid construction development that lasted several years, and I hope that we all agree that near north side can reasonably absorb way more than 73,5k people that currently reside there.

Someone in this thread mentioned that Chicago feels so sparse west of Wells street. I cannot help but notice this as well, and I wish it was not the case. When Chicago is compared to other major cities of the world, it stacks pretty well on all categories that can be empirically measured. However, when it comes to subjective feeling of the central area of the city, it does not really feel like a major city. That feeling does not stem from the lack of world class museums, innovative theater, molecular cuisine restaurants, inspiring architecture etc., but from the lack or people. I believe that this factor would present a reason why Chicago may be deemed by some as a less desirable place to live.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by Logsy

When Chicago is compared to other major cities of the world, it stacks pretty well on all categories that can be empirically measured. However, when it comes to subjective feeling of the central area of the city, it does not really feel like a major city. That feeling does not stem from the lack of world class museums, innovative theater, molecular cuisine restaurants, inspiring architecture etc., but from the lack or people. I believe that this factor would present a reason why Chicago may be deemed by some as a less desirable place to live.

^ These are your observations and your own, because there is absolutely nothing in this paragraph that I agree with.

[Northsider]

but from the lack or people

The more and more I travel the more and more I sort of agree with this. Chicago is still ahead of the pack along with the other Big 2, no doubt. But Chicago has some sort of energy deprivation. Sometimes I feel Chicago is just going through the motions of being a large international city, but doesn't quite believe it. I feel this has to do with the sterilization of the city. Sure it's cleaner, has nicer neighborhoods, and less crime than 20 years ago...but at a cost. Just an example: Maxwell St. This was a Chicago institution, now gone, or at least neutered and de-fanged. Another example: street art in my neighborhood. There used to be this awesome mural on Montrose and Wolcott. Well, last year the wall was demolished to put in glass windows for a new bar (because, you know, every trendy ass bar needs windows that open to the street to show everyone just how cool you are). This is the story of Chicago. Put some new overpriced bars in the neighborhood, some chain restaurants like Potbellys, Jimmy Johns, with a healthy peppering of Thai restaurants, jack up rent, and remove all ethnic identity and call it a success. It's sterile. Clean and safe, but sterile. Of course, I'm over simplifying, overstating, and generalizing...

[Northsider]

Portland: Outsprawling Los Angeles

Comparing Portland, a mid sized city to the 2nd largest urban area, and most densely populated urban area in the USA? What the hell does that prove?

Portland Sprawls Like Phoenix

Hmm, I have to disagree here. Yes, Phoenix is suburban hell. Yes Phoenix has low density if you look at the numbers alone. However, much of the Phoenix urban area is densely built, if not densely populated. It's all single family homes, but they are close together and there is relatively little leapfrogging development that you see in Chicago. I'm being overly general (of course there is leapfrogging in Phoenix, but everything is still densely built)...but I think the comparison is weak.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Northsider

Comparing Portland, a mid sized city to the 2nd largest urban area, and most densely populated urban area in the USA? What the hell does that prove?

It proves that you don't need zoning and "smart growth policies to become the densest urbanized area in North America (excluding Mexico City).

Hmm, I have to disagree here. Yes, Phoenix is suburban hell. Yes Phoenix has low density if you look at the numbers alone. However, much of the Phoenix urban area is densely built, if not densely populated. It's all single family homes, but they are close together and there is relatively little leapfrogging development that you see in Chicago. I'm being overly general (of course there is leapfrogging in Phoenix, but everything is still densely built)...but I think the comparison is weak.

It's not just about L.A. and Phoenix....

What about the following sentences.?

And Portland? Not only is Portland considerably less dense than Los Angeles, but its density gradient trails below more than 2/3 of the 33 urbanized areas that had a population of more than 1,000,000 in 1990 (ranking 25th in 10 percentile density).

This data is 20 years old. Let's see what Portland looks like in 2010 compared with other area.

[Northsider]

It proves that you don't need zoning and "smart growth policies to become the densest urbanized area in North America

If Portland and LA were similar cities, I'd agree with you in part. But it's silly to argue with this reasoning... LA is LA, totally different geography, totally different influx of residents, etc.

but its density gradient trails below more than 2/3 of the 33 urbanized areas that had a population of more than 1,000,000 in 1990

It's been a few years since urban planning school. What exactly is density gradient? Honestly this is the first time I've heard (maybe I had really shitty teachers). It sounds like a grand slam statement, but what does it mean?

I'm not saying the article is wrong (I honestly don't follow the smart growth in Portland very much), but the arguments could be better.

[PointDuSable]

Originally Posted by Northsider

The more and more I travel the more and more I sort of agree with this. Chicago is still ahead of the pack along with the other Big 2, no doubt. But Chicago has some sort of energy deprivation. Sometimes I feel Chicago is just going through the motions of being a large international city, but doesn't quite believe it. I feel this has to do with the sterilization of the city. Sure it's cleaner, has nicer neighborhoods, and less crime than 20 years ago...but at a cost. Just an example: Maxwell St. This was a Chicago institution, now gone, or at least neutered and de-fanged. Another example: street art in my neighborhood. There used to be this awesome mural on Montrose and Wolcott. Well, last year the wall was demolished to put in glass windows for a new bar (because, you know, every trendy ass bar needs windows that open to the street to show everyone just how cool you are). This is the story of Chicago. Put some new overpriced bars in the neighborhood, some chain restaurants like Potbellys, Jimmy Johns, with a healthy peppering of Thai restaurants, jack up rent, and remove all ethnic identity and call it a success. It's sterile. Clean and safe, but sterile. Of course, I'm over simplifying, overstating, and generalizing...

I'm getting a little off-topic here, but I'll post anyway...

Northsider -

I feel very much the same way. While I believe that only New York surpasses Chicago in the U.S. as far as pedestrian vibrancy is concerned, my biggest fear/concern (and it has manifested itself over past several years) is that recent new buildings/construction/development will render the city sterile or plain. Taylor Street/Little Italy is perfectly indicative of this trend. Yes, while the area had its issues, recent housing and commercial construction (and plans) along Taylor & Racine can best be described as generic, if not downright ugly.

This is true to certain extents on the Northside as well, Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Streeterville, Lincoln Square, Bucktown etc, as previous post-war, traditional Chicago housing and commercial buildings are replaced with this new spate of uninspired development: you know the buildings I'm talking about -- the 3 story condo buildings lining Clybourn or parts of Sheffield. Don't even get me started on what happened to Rush Street. Yes, the Elysian is fine, but the faux rich, Upper East Side-wannabe 33 West Delaware and the building across the street ruined the character of the streetscrape, and so did the Barneys and Citibank on Oak Street. These streets had wonderful, old, rowhouses -- many of them occupied by world-class boutiques and shops (remember the Bang & Olefson?), and now they're gone. Replaced with what: urban big-boxes and big-condos?

Don't get me wrong: I'm no NIMBY and not against high rises -- I just want them be of high architectural quality (and I'm not talking Lucian, here) and in the right place and have a good pedestrian footprint. Trump, Elysian, 300 LaSalle, and even EnV are all solid examples.

Part of makes a city world class is heritage and history, and I think some Chicago developers have shown themselves to willing to destroy this part of our city in the name of urbanization. Urbanization without planning is no plan at all...

[PointDuSable]

Originally Posted by Logsy

Someone in this thread mentioned that Chicago feels so sparse west of Wells street. I cannot help but notice this as well, and I wish it was not the case. When Chicago is compared to other major cities of the world, it stacks pretty well on all categories that can be empirically measured. However, when it comes to subjective feeling of the central area of the city, it does not really feel like a major city. That feeling does not stem from the lack of world class museums, innovative theater, molecular cuisine restaurants, inspiring architecture etc., but from the lack or people. I believe that this factor would present a reason why Chicago may be deemed by some as a less desirable place to live.

Are you talking Wells and Jackson? Okay, maybe, but not west of Wells & North, for sure. I'm fairly well-traveled myself, and I'd be curious to know what U.S. cities, outside of New York, can boast as much foot-traffic as Chicago. Boston? No. San Fran -- has foot-traffic, but certainly not on the scale of Chicago. And btw, lower Manhattan isn't exactly a walker's paradise come the weekends, or even weekday evenings. Yes, they have some residential buildings there, but it is still pretty creepy dead after dark, same goes for nearby Battery Park, Chelsea, and even Greenwich when you get close to the piers and other parts along the Hudson.

If you go international, I might be able to agree with you on handful of (Asian) cities: Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, but Europe gets fuzzier. Sure Paris is world-class, but outside of Arrondissement 8-ish, I wouldn't put it up again River North, Lincoln Park, or Gold Coast on a Friday night, from a pure people's frolicking perspective. London's got it's parts, but that city shuts down way early! And it sprawling parts are not exactly bumping either. You might be tempted to throw in Amsterdam, Prague, Rome, but none of those cities can compete with Chicago in a commercial/business sense.

So the question remains: what global, international business center outside of Asia and with a top 10 metro GDP can compete with Chicago in a live-ability sense?

[ChitownCity]

^I wouldn't even call most of it urban...

[Northsider]

I'd be curious to know what U.S. cities, outside of New York, can boast as much foot-traffic as Chicago

From my experience, not many. SF I would put very high on the list, but definitely below Chicago simply because it's such a small city. Same with Boston. Same with Portland and Seattle, both much smaller cities. Philly? You said it best: on the scale of Chicago. Many cities certainly have very walkable districts and relatively high foot traffic...but Chicago has so many of them. Chicago is like 3 Bostons, 3 SFs. I was truly surprised how many parts of NYC are totally unwalkable and bleak...especially after dark.

London? I have to disagree. London is untouchable. Are we comparing foot traffic or the complete package? Because I'd say numerous EU cities beat Chicago with foot traffic and pretty much ALL South American cities beat Chicago on foot traffic and scale. I've always argued that Chicago is the perfect complete urban package...but foot traffic isn't one category Chicago holds outside of the US. It's still very much an automobile-city

[PointDuSable]

Originally Posted by Northsider

London? I have to disagree. London is untouchable. Are we comparing foot traffic or the complete package? Because I'd say numerous EU cities beat Chicago with foot traffic and pretty much ALL South American cities beat Chicago on foot traffic and scale. I've always argued that Chicago is the perfect complete urban package...but foot traffic isn't one category Chicago holds outside of the US. It's still very much an automobile-city

I was thinking in terms of the "complete package," so to speak, which for me includes: business/financial importance, walkability/foot traffic, AND nightlife. You're right, London does have a lot of foot traffic during the day, which I do not dispute, and it is of course a huge financial/business center (though it's metro GDP is actually less than that of Chicago's interestingly enough), but I found the nightlife horribly lacking. The late-night bars that do exist, from my experience, did not tend to be clustered in certain corridors, like Rush & Division, Riv. North, but were instead scattered throughout the city (perhaps on purpose) and thus necessitated taxi-ing or busing, and outside of maybe Piccadilly, did not get the sense of night-time vibrancy I've seen in other cities, but then again, the few times I did visit London was always in the winter time...? But then again, that doesn't really slow down Chicago or New York either, so...?

I can't comment on the South American cities, but none of them even comes close to anything in the Northern Hemisphere from a business perspective. Sao Paulo is up-and-coming supposedly, but for now it is tied with Philadelphia for metro GDP.

If one is talking about pure, dense, congested foot-traffic at all hours of the day and night in a thriving global business center, I don't think any cities can rival what's going on in Asia: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo put even London to shame, in my opinion. I wouldn't have believed it had I not witnessed it with my own eyes, and even Bangkok and Seoul are incredible in this regard. Singapore is absolutely booming right now, and it is 2/3 of London proper's population in area 1/3 of the size. If you don't believe it, go East and you'll see what I'm talking about. Nonetheless, it is difficult to enjoy the trappings of these cities (even London and Paris, etc.) on even a middle-class income, and the housing options are severely limited as well (no real detached single-family to speak of). So again, I firmly believe that from a liveability (including economic opportunities, housing, quality of life w/varied, high-quality entertainment and cultural options, etc.), it is difficult to beat Chicago. Everyone's definition will be different/subjective, but that's just my 2 cents.

[Northsider]

the few times I did visit London was always in the winter time...? But then again, that doesn't really slow down Chicago or New York either, so...?

This is most likely the reason, I've been to London during both seasons. ...and I would say it holds true for Chicago too at least. Chicago goes into a sort of hibernation. Not full on though, there's still plenty of people outside. Once 70s degrees hits for the first time, Chicago explodes...there's no denying that.

he late-night bars that do exist, from my experience, did not tend to be clustered in certain corridors, like Rush & Division, Riv. North, but were instead scattered throughout the city (perhaps on purpose) and thus necessitated taxi-ing or busing

You have to compare apples and apples. I would say maybe SoHo is most like River North or Rush St. Now, I'm not really a bar-goer or clubber but SoHo definitely seems like what you are talking about...and the city definitely has more of a sprinkling throughout (really any major street has dozens of pubs). There's just no city as 'downtown-oriented' as Chicago, anywhere...

I can't comment on the South American cities, but none of them even comes close to anything in the Northern Hemisphere from a business perspective. Sao Paulo is up-and-coming supposedly, but for now it is tied with Philadelphia for metro GDP.

Yes, Sao Paulo would be the only city that comes close from a GDP perspective.

If you don't believe it, go East

Don't worry, I've seen it! :-D

[Logsy]

I think there are many cities in Europe that feel more lively than Chicago, and I am not talking strictly Paris or London here. For example, last summer when I was in Greece, I spent a couple of days in Athens. My subjective impression is that that city felt busier than Chicago. According to Wiki, Athens has 750k people in the city proper and 4 million people in the metropolitan area. That is significantly less than Chicago`s population of 2.7 million in the city, 9.8 million in the metro area.

When you consider financial importance, cultural offerings (theater, opera, museums), urban infrastructure (bars, restaurants, entertainment) Chicago is among the most important cities in the world. Chicago`s peers in that category are London, Paris, NYC, Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong, yet I suspect that Chicago feels significantly more sparse than any of those cities. (I cannot provide a personal account of this as I have never been to any of the above referenced cities situated in Asia) .

I am not claiming here that Chicago does not feel urban, far from it. However, for some reason Chicago does not feel as lively as many other cities that have even less inhabitants. This is why I posted the initial comment stating that it is disappointing that the central residential area of Chicago grew by only 8.6% in the past decade. I think that higher density in the urban core will help enhance Chicago`s walkability/foot traffic, and help it become even better and more desirable than it currently is.