Predict Chicago's 2010 population

[rgolch]

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the city is going to continue lose population for the next 8 years. It might, it might not. But they do have to make communities on the south side safer.

[chicagogeorge]

I think the city population will fall even at a faster rate, especially if the economy picks up and people become more mobile. At this stage, Chicago's African American community will probably lose an additional 200,000 people, most settling in the suburbs but many will continue the migration to the South. I foresee the white population losing fewer people by 2020 than the last decade becuse at this point basically the white middle class in the Southwest side has been already replaced by Hispanics, and the white middle class in the Nothwest side will probably loose fewer residents being offset by gentrification in the inner city near the Loop. Maybe 100,000 or fewer. The thing is that the Hispanic population will probably see it's first ever population decline by 2020. Maybe 25,000-50,000. The suburbs are becoming the port of entry for an ever growing number of Hispanic newcomers bypassing the city all together. Birth rates in the city alone wont be able to offset Hispanic migration from Chicago to suburbs such as West Chicago, Elgin, Aurora, Wheeling and Waukegan. All this would translate to a total population of maybe 2,450,000

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I think the city population will fall even at a faster rate, especially if the economy picks up and people become more mobile. At this stage, Chicago's African American community will probably lose an additional 200,000 people, most settling in the suburbs but many will continue the migration to the South. I foresee the white population losing fewer people by 2020 than the last decade becuse at this point basically the white middle class in the Southwest side has been already replaced by Hispanics, and the white middle class in the Nothwest side will probably loose fewer residents being offset by gentrification in the inner city near the Loop. Maybe 100,000 or fewer. The thing is that the Hispanic population will probably see it's first ever population decline by 2020. Maybe 25,000-50,000. The suburbs are becoming the port of entry for an ever growing number of Hispanic newcomers bypassing the city all together. Birth rates in the city alone wont be able to offset Hispanic migration from Chicago to suburbs such as West Chicago, Elgin, Aurora, Wheeling and Waukegan. All this would translate to a total population of maybe 2,450,000

Everything your saying may be plausible, and I don't deny that you scenario could be realized. But all of these forums are a bit manic depressive, getting too excited about good news, and speaking the word of doom with bad news. Only time will tell.

But to be devils advocate, let me ask another question. What difference does it really make? I mean, I care about the total city population too, but I have to be honest. I care very little (in a personal sense) about if people flee the worst parts of the city. Mentally, and physically, I am very much rooted in the central area. I have no need, or interest to go to Lawndale or Englewood. For my own purposes, those areas play no part in my relationship to Chicago, other than to become depressed about reading about all the horrible crimes that happen in those neighborhoods.

I wonder if us Chicagoans are clinging to something that hasn't existed for a long time, that being the notion of the "big three." I think there was a time when there was such a thing, especially when Chicago was the 2nd largest city, and LA was very much a lifestyle player in the minds of Americans. But I wonder if that time has long past. I'm not trying to say that to soften the blow of a probable shift to the 4th largest city in the coming decade or two. I'm being serious. I'm not really sure if anyone else in the country thinks there are 3 major cities in the US. It's more just NY and LA, west coast vs. east coast, with a sprinkling of DC. And then there's other major cities, which we are clearly the biggest.

Ask yourselves, do you think most educated Americans can tell you the 3rd largest city in Brazil, or China? How about the 3rd largest city in western europe? Russia? You get my point. I say that because what will define the success of Chicago in the future won't be a particular population number, or where it's placed in a list of largest cities in the US. It will be more about still having a beautiful, and interesting downtown; about having great Universities, restaurants, and museums. And most importantly, having a continued influx of high paying, white collar jobs into the downtown area.

As a Chicago booster, I care about total population. And I think it's woven into the Chicago psyche to a degree. But I don't think it makes that much of a functional difference. Even if the city population dropped to 2M, I don't think it would stop the conventioners and tourists from coming. And I hope it wouldn't stop the city from being a magnet for highly educated talent coming from the Midwest, and other parts of the country.

TL;DR- The city may drop in population, and that would suck. But I don't think it really makes Chicago less great, not in any real sense.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Everything your saying may be plausible, and I don't deny that you scenario could be realized. But all of these forums are a bit manic depressive, getting too excited about good news, and speaking the word of doom with bad news. Only time will tell.

True only time will tell but all the indicators at the moment spell for further significant population loss.

But to be devils advocate, let me ask another question. What difference does it really make?

It doesn't because the populations that are currently leaving the city are not the revenue generators

I mean, I care about the total city population too, but I have to be honest. I care very little (in a personal sense) about if people flee the worst parts of the city. Mentally, and physically, I am very much rooted in the central area. I have no need, or interest to go to Lawndale or Englewood. For my own purposes, those areas play no part in my relationship to Chicago, other than to become depressed about reading about all the horrible crimes that happen in those neighborhoods.

The only issue with what you stated above is that population decline is happening throughout the city aside for certain near downtown districts that have recently been converted to residential areas. In fact 60 of the 77 Chicago neighborhoods lost population

I wonder if us Chicagoans are clinging to something that hasn't existed for a long time, that being the notion of the "big three." I think there was a time when there was such a thing, especially when Chicago was the 2nd largest city, and LA was very much a lifestyle player in the minds of Americans. But I wonder if that time has long past. I'm not trying to say that to soften the blow of a probable shift to the 4th largest city in the coming decade or two. I'm being serious. I'm not really sure if anyone else in the country thinks there are 3 major cities in the US. It's more just NY and LA, west coast vs. east coast, with a sprinkling of DC. And then there's other major cities, which we are clearly the biggest.

You are right Chicago's Second City status fell by the wayside long ago, and its current third runner up maybe challenged too. More importantly, the slowdown in population growth for the entire metro area is key, and that is not a good sign for the vitality of "Chicagoland". We are still an "Alpha" city, extremely influential in world finance and the likes, but our political leaders are letting this title slip through our hands.

Ask yourselves, do you think most educated Americans can tell you the 3rd largest city in Brazil, or China? How about the 3rd largest city in western europe? Russia? You get my point. I say that because what will define the success of Chicago in the future won't be a particular population number, or where it's placed in a list of largest cities in the US. It will be more about still having a beautiful, and interesting downtown; about having great Universities, restaurants, and museums. And most importantly, having a continued influx of high paying, white collar jobs into the downtown area.

Here is where I disagree a little. Yes, it is very important to have a thriving CBD (even though Chicago is rapidly decentralizing) with world class amenities but that reminds me of urbanization during the Gilded Age. Gold on the surface, but really rotten on the inside.

As a Chicago booster, I care about total population. And I think it's woven into the Chicago psyche to a degree. But I don't think it makes that much of a functional difference. Even if the city population dropped to 2M, I don't think it would stop the conventioners and tourists from coming. And I hope it wouldn't stop the city from being a magnet for highly educated talent coming from the Midwest, and other parts of the country.

TL;DR- The city may drop in population, and that would suck. But I don't think it really makes Chicago less great, not in any real sense.

Well I don't entirely disagree with you, but like I said above, a grow population is usually a healthy signal for a city and an urban area.

[3521usa]

I think all these doomsday scenarios about the city's population dropping to 2mil are just laughable. The chances of the city population dropping below 2.5mil even are very slim, in my educated opinion. Then again, these are just opinions and no one knows for sure what will happen a decade or two from now no matter how much research is done.

I bet these same people who are predicting the city's huge population decline were also the same people predicting the population swelling to 3.2mil by 2020. And the same people who were jumping on the bandwagon when they read those numbers from these "researched studies" that said the city would be at 3.2mil are now also the ones predicting the doom.

Also, I highly doubt Houston will pass Chicago in population in the next decade or so, or ever. L.A became the second largest city because besides the good weather, they have hollywood which is a big draw for people not only in this country but the world. I think Houston has a lot to offer but not enough to overtake Chicago in population. And if that were to happen, so what? There would be some bruised egos but Chicago would still remain a global and higher tiered city. For example, Philly is much bigger than San Francisco but no one would honestly rank Philly over San Francisco, no offense to Philly.

I think Chicago is headed in the right direction under Rahm so far. Some people still have a bad tatse left in their mouths from the Daley years but people need to realize that things don't change overnight. I've always said Daley stayed about a term too long. His last term in office is when things really started going south. I'm glad he's gone though because although he'd done lots of good things, he also fucked a lot of things up, especially in his last few years as mayor. He was mayor for over 20 years and barely did anything to increase or imrpove public transit in the city. Under his administration there were never any real efforts made to combat crime, he just took status quo measures. He also tried revamping the school system but without much success.

Finally, the 2 biggest issues facing the city right now are crime and education. I hate to say this but the crime wave that took place in the 1st quarter of this year was probably necessary in order to get city hall's attention. I just hope crime fighting is something that is constantly on Rahm's agenda and not something he pushes to the side and only thinks about when we have a few violent months. If Rahm can cut down on crime and improve education, I don't see any reason why the city's population can't grow. A lot of people are still moving to this city. I'm meeingt new people from all over the country who have moved here all the time so if we can drastically slow or stop people from living then the population should stabilize or start to grow again. But those 2 problems I've mentioned above have to be taken care of. The fact that I know he's working on these issues make me hopeful and believe things well turn around.

[BorisMolotov]

Don't forget in 2050 (when people say Houston will eclipse Chicago or so) the US southwest will face severe water shortages and everyone will have to relocate or adapt to living with little water. It's an issue I think many people are forgetting.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I think the city population will fall even at a faster rate, especially if the economy picks up and people become more mobile. At this stage, Chicago's African American community will probably lose an additional 200,000 people, most settling in the suburbs but many will continue the migration to the South. I foresee the white population losing fewer people by 2020 than the last decade becuse at this point basically the white middle class in the Southwest side has been already replaced by Hispanics, and the white middle class in the Nothwest side will probably loose fewer residents being offset by gentrification in the inner city near the Loop. Maybe 100,000 or fewer. The thing is that the Hispanic population will probably see it's first ever population decline by 2020. Maybe 25,000-50,000. The suburbs are becoming the port of entry for an ever growing number of Hispanic newcomers bypassing the city all together. Birth rates in the city alone wont be able to offset Hispanic migration from Chicago to suburbs such as West Chicago, Elgin, Aurora, Wheeling and Waukegan. All this would translate to a total population of maybe 2,450,000

If I were a bettin' man, my predictions would be similar to yours. I see the massive decline in the Black population continuing, if not accelerating. The White and Hispanic populations will remain relatively stable though, maybe small declines or small gains. The Asian population will increase: how significant the increase is anyone's guess. What's notable that no media outlet has covered was that 2011 was probably the first year in history where Asians made up the largest component of immigrants into the US.

http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/.../yearbook.shtm

Originally Posted by 3521usa

Also, I highly doubt Houston will pass Chicago in population in the next decade or so, or ever. L.A became the second largest city because besides the good weather, they have hollywood which is a big draw for people not only in this country but the world. I think Houston has a lot to offer but not enough to overtake Chicago in population. And if that were to happen, so what? There would be some bruised egos but Chicago would still remain a global and higher tiered city. For example, Philly is much bigger than San Francisco but no one would honestly rank Philly over San Francisco, no offense to Philly.

Hollywood alone isn't enough to explain how LA went from a western outpost in the shadow of San Francisco to the second largest city and urban area in the country. LA's big draw before WWII was the oil industry, and after WWII it was defense and aerospace thanks to Cold War defense spending. It also helps to be the primary port of entrance for the vast majority of goods from Asia. If any other Sunbelt city has such a massive industrial, infrastructure, and geographic advantages over its peers, it's Houston. That's not saying that Houston will see the absolutely obscene growth rates LA had from 1945 to 1990, but if any city in the Sunbelt will have that type of growth in the future, it certainly won't be Dallas, Atlanta, or Miami.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by 3521usa

I think all these doomsday scenarios about the city's population dropping to 2mil are just laughable. The chances of the city population dropping below 2.5mil even are very slim, in my educated opinion. Then again, these are just opinions and no one knows for sure what will happen a decade or two from now no matter how much research is done.

No one expected Chicago to lose 200,000 in this past decade because no one had foreseen a sudden massive population shift in the African American population, and also no one saw how the increased Hispanic bypassing Chicago for the suburbs would create situation where the Hispanic population went from growing by 27% between 1990-2000 to just 3% between 2000 and 2010. Now I don't think Chicago will ever fall below 2 million, but I could see a situation where the population stabilizes somewhere around 2.3-2.5 million.

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

If I were a bettin' man, my predictions would be similar to yours. I see the massive decline in the Black population continuing, if not accelerating.

And mind you, Black population loss has occurred in a decade that saw continuing declining crime rates within most African American neighborhoods. There literally is nothing to stop or slow down this bleeding artery. It's the 1960 and 1970's all over again, except this time it's Black flight.

The White and Hispanic populations will remain relatively stable though, maybe small declines or small gains.

I think we might see one more decade of a large white population loss. Maybe an additional 100,000 residents, and then we would see a bottoming out, before we begin to see it climb slowly back up.

As for Hispanics, the only areas I see for potential growth in Chicago's Southwest sides, which is where the last of the "White Flight" is still taking place. Unlike what has happened in Los Angeles, there is not enough immigration to Chicago for Hispanics to fill in the vacant areas of the declining Black communities on the South and Westsides (well maybe there would be if not for Hispanics immigrants bypassing the city for the suburbs). Hispanics have actually declined in population on the SOutheast sides as the are increasingly choosing to live in Northwest Indiana as it is much cheaper. Hispanic working class are being priced out of many Northside neighborhoods aside for areas northwest of Humbolt Park around Belmont Craigan, Hermosa, Avondale, Albany Park where they will probably continue to grow, but only at the expense of the traditional gateway communities. Personally, I foresee a population loss for Hispanics as a whole by 2020.

The Asian population will increase: how significant the increase is anyone's guess.
.

Asian immigration will continue, but there will be little impact for the city as a result, as the bulk of Asian immigrants have traditionally bypassed Chicago for the suburbs.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

We are still an "Alpha" city, extremely influential in world finance and the likes, but our political leaders are letting this title slip through our hands.

^ I am not sure I agree with this.

Generally, indicators (including the most recent AT Kearney global city index) have shown that Chicago is holding pretty steady as a global city, and that particular report also suggests that NY, DC, and Chicago are increasing in importance relative to the nation in which they reside (the United States)--while this seems counterintuitive to the mood of the day, with unemployment and job losses still fresh in our minds, they obviously drew this conclusion based on some data analysis which most of us haven't seen. My guess is that many Chicago companies are investing overseas in markets that are doing much better than our own, CME group is an example that very recently has shifted their focus to growth abroad.

In addition, I would argue that this is one area where Chicago's leaders (Daley, and now Rahm) are doing something right. I largely blame Chicago's leadership for allowing the deterioration of the industrial south and west side into hopeless ghettos, but when it comes to promoting downtown and the "global city" side of Chicago, they have done a fantastic job. Rahm, if anything, is perhaps a bit better than Daley (so far) in focusing a bit less on downtown and paying a bit more attention to the needs of the neighborhoods.

I still think Chicago's population will continue to decline for the forseeable future, but I don't think the story ends there. These declining neighborhoods will, eventually, serve a new role down the road.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

In addition, I would argue that this is one area where Chicago's leaders (Daley, and now Rahm) are doing something right. I largely blame Chicago's leadership for allowing the deterioration of the industrial south and west side into hopeless ghettos, but when it comes to promoting downtown and the "global city" side of Chicago, they have done a fantastic job. Rahm, if anything, is perhaps a bit better than Daley (so far) in focusing a bit less on downtown and paying a bit more attention to the needs of the neighborhoods.

What exactly could Chicago's leader's do to prevent the deindustrialization of the West and South sides? Those jobs were going overseas or to non-union South no matter what. Once the jobs left, the rise of the socio-economic pathologies was near inevitable. Maybe the Mayor could tinker a bit around the edges, but there's only so much you can do in the face of large-scale economic and historic trends.

[The Urban Politician]

^ It's not so much Chicago's leadership, but the State as a whole.

I blame unions for most of this.

[Northsider]

I blame unions for everything.

[Chicagoago]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I think the city population will fall even at a faster rate, especially if the economy picks up and people become more mobile. At this stage, Chicago's African American community will probably lose an additional 200,000 people, most settling in the suburbs but many will continue the migration to the South. I foresee the white population losing fewer people by 2020 than the last decade becuse at this point basically the white middle class in the Southwest side has been already replaced by Hispanics, and the white middle class in the Nothwest side will probably loose fewer residents being offset by gentrification in the inner city near the Loop. Maybe 100,000 or fewer. The thing is that the Hispanic population will probably see it's first ever population decline by 2020. Maybe 25,000-50,000. The suburbs are becoming the port of entry for an ever growing number of Hispanic newcomers bypassing the city all together. Birth rates in the city alone wont be able to offset Hispanic migration from Chicago to suburbs such as West Chicago, Elgin, Aurora, Wheeling and Waukegan. All this would translate to a total population of maybe 2,450,000

I think earlier you had stated Chicago lost 30% of its white population, it was actually only around 5%, or a little over 50,000. Most of that was from the southwest sides, which have become much more hispanic. I don't think there will be much change in the white population in 2020, as its mostly centered now on the north side, where it's stable/growing.

The number of occupied housing units in the city decreased by less than 1%, or around 10,400 households. Transit ridership is up since 2000, school enrollment is basically the same. The number of households receving mail isn't down in the past 10 years, residential garbage collection hasn't decreased in areas that counted upwards of a 35% population loss.

I tend to think there was a pretty massive undercount, especially among the south and west sides. There are countless stories of census workers not wanting to mess with it and pounding on doors in those areas and just sat around getting paid without doing any counting. It was a problem that came out after the fact when entire apartment complexes would be counted with zero people, when in fact there were hundreds living there. The workers needed to be paid based on answers they got from houses, not just how many hours they put in.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Chicagoago

I think earlier you had stated Chicago lost 30% of its white population, it was actually only around 5%, or a little over 50,000. Most of that was from the southwest sides, which have become much more hispanic. I don't think there will be much change in the white population in 2020, as its mostly centered now on the north side, where it's stable/growing.

You are correct. Sorry I was quoting this article.

The white population fell even more drastically, by 29.7 percent to 854,717

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/...own-7-percent/

I think that 29.7% may represent the share of white population?l Then again I don't think that's right either. Nevertheless, if 53,000 whites left the city according to the 2010 census, then I foresee a similar loss in 2020, like you said mainly from the southwest side. There after, we may see stabilization or slow positive growth. Btw, the white population decline between 1990 and 2000 was 150,000, so a decline of "only" 53,000 these last 10 years is a good sign that the end is near for white flight. On the other hand, African Americans only lost 5000 in the 2000 census, and in 2010 there decline swelled to 180,000.

The biggest decline was among African-Americans, whose numbers dropped by about 182,000 as the city tore down public housing high-rises, the foreclosure crisis left swaths of South Side and West Side communities vacant and blacks moved to the suburbs. The white population also fell, by nearly 53,000. Meanwhile, the number of Latinos rose by about 25,000. The Asian population grew by more than 20,000

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...aries-aldermen



Here is a hypothetical. Say that by 2020, the White population manages to stay steady and not lose a single soul. Also, say that both Hispanics and Asians grow by the same raw numbers as that of the 2010 census, but the African American population sinks by the same figure of the 2010 census. The end result would be a total population of 2,558,000. This might be very close to reality.

The number of occupied housing units in the city decreased by less than 1%, or around 10,400 households.

But the number of people per occupancy may be falling significantly.

Transit ridership is up since 2000,

I don't think that statistic is very relevant.

school enrollment is basically the same.

Actually enrollment is down by 72,000 students in the Chicago Public Schools since 2000.






After years of decline, the Archdiocese is seeing stabilization of enrollment.

After more than a decade of enrollment declines at Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago schools, officials hope the rebound at some schools is more than an isolated trend. Spokesman Ryan Blackburn said the country's largest Catholic school system this year educated nearly 90,000 students at 215 elementary and 40 high schools in Cook and Lake counties, a 4 percent drop over 2008-09 enrollment. But a recent spike in inquiries could spell the end of the slide

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...e-schools-gain


Check out the African American population in CPS. As a check against the census numbers showing a huge drop in Black population in Chicago, these are the enrollment figures, which show a -18.5% drop that mirrors the -17.2% drop in total Black population in Chicago in the 2000-2010 period.

The number of households receving mail isn't down in the past 10 years, residential garbage collection hasn't decreased in areas that counted upwards of a 35% population loss.

I tend to think there was a pretty massive undercount, especially among the south and west sides. There are countless stories of census workers not wanting to mess with it and pounding on doors in those areas and just sat around getting paid without doing any counting. It was a problem that came out after the fact when entire apartment complexes would be counted with zero people, when in fact there were hundreds living there. The workers needed to be paid based on answers they got from houses, not just how many hours they put in.

There definitely was a population undercount, but no larger or smaller than that of the 2000 or 1990 census. If anything this census was supposed to be more accurate than prior census counts. It is what it is. Chicago is losing population decade after decade, and 2000 was an anomaly. Actually take a look at what the city officials are challenging the Census for an undercount

. The city says Census workers undercounted Chicago’s population by 2,350 people.

http://progressillinois.com/posts/co...nsus-challenge

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I posted this in the US urban forum.... The city of Chicago is bleeding residents....

Are these figures from the Census Bureau? I don't think it is because usually there estimates have a date of July 1 and are released 6-9 months later. April 1, 2012 is only a few weeks ago, the census bureau doesn't release information that quickly. Even census estimates are known for being wildly inaccurate so why should I trust some other less vetted and known source as gospel truth? I am not saying the figures are utterly impossible and if they are true then the discussion about the implications have merit but we are very far from establishing the validity of whatever this is. If anything I am curious as to what the census bureau says about July 1, 2011 Chicago city population. Given the estimates for Illinois I would be surprised if a census estimate would give validity to this. I think the population is probably roughly where it was two years ago and hasn't gone up or down by an significant margin. When the census bureau releases its 2011 estimate for Cook County then we will have a better idea.

Upon looking at these articles more closely I am even more suspect. It says it examines "trends since 2000" to come up with it's predictions. There are many dangers in projecting past trends into the future with demography. For instance think of how foolish it would have been for someone in 2002 to predict Chicago's population by examining "trends since 1990". I haven't done an audit of their methodology or anything but given what little I have seen it seems kind of sloppy to me. Chicago's population trends if anything are probably harder to predict than NYC, LA or many cities, each of the past three decades have had different trends. The 1980's saw decline (following trend since 1950), the 1990's an increase, and the 2000's a decrease again. Until there is better data it is anyone's guess, prediction seems a rather futile move right now.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Are these figures from the Census Bureau? I don't think it is because usually there estimates have a date of July 1 and are released 6-9 months later.

No they aren't from the census, and I can't vouch for their accuracy.

April 1, 2012 is only a few weeks ago, the census bureau doesn't release information that quickly. Even census estimates are known for being wildly inaccurate so why should I trust some other less vetted and known source as gospel truth?

You don't have to trust them. I don't necessarily believe they are completely accurate either. Many people don't even trust the census.

If anything I am curious as to what the census bureau says about July 1, 2011 Chicago city population.

I will bet a population loss.

Given the estimates for Illinois I would be surprised if a census estimate would give validity to this.

Why would the population estimate of Illinois matter? Even if it did, Illinois population is up only 39,000 from the 2010 census. Very minimal gains when compared to other states.

When the census bureau releases its 2011 estimate for Cook County then we will have a better idea.

The results are already out for counties. Cook County is up at 5,217,080 from a population of 5195,000 in 2010. I think that growth is all in the suburbs.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea...tes_slides.pdf


Also the CSA numbers are in for 2011, the greater Chicago area grow by 43,800. I highly doubt that any of the small gain occurred in the city proper.

3 - Chicago, IL --- 9,729,825 --- 9,686,021 --- 0.45% --- 43,804

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Actually enrollment is down by 72,000 students in the Chicago Public Schools since 2000.






After years of decline, the Archdiocese is seeing stabilization of enrollment.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...e-schools-gain


Check out the African American population in CPS. As a check against the census numbers showing a huge drop in Black population in Chicago, these are the enrollment figures, which show a -18.5% drop that mirrors the -17.2% drop in total Black population in Chicago in the 2000-2010 period.






There definitely was a population undercount, but no larger or smaller than that of the 2000 or 1990 census. If anything this census was supposed to be more accurate than prior census counts. It is what it is. Chicago is losing population decade after decade, and 2000 was an anomaly. Actually take a look at what the city officials are challenging the Census for an undercount


http://progressillinois.com/posts/co...nsus-challenge

Your numbers are wrong re school enrollment in CPS. First enrollment is over 400K source: http://www.cps.edu/About_CPS/At-a-gl...and_facts.aspx

Additionally, the number of charter schools in Chicago has increased since 2000 and they enroll something on the order of 30-40K. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/us...pagewanted=all

You undermine your credibility by 1. misrepresenting numbers and 2. vascilating wildly in you assessment of Chicago's fortune. One word: reactionary.

Enrollment is indeed down over the intervening 10-12 years however current to do an apples to apple comparison you need to include charters which your number do not. And they do not because you are trying to drive a point ---- ie the demographic flight from Chicago. Numerical accuracy be damned.

Ok maybe I should have tempered my comments since you did title your graph "district run school" and charters are not techinically "district run schools" --- but they underlying idea remains the same.


And to people who claim you cannot raise a family in the city ---- nonsense. I know plenty that do and they are not "rich". There are plenty of affordable nice neighborhoods outside of the lakeview-lincoln park nexus. The city is much more than these two neighborhoods.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Your numbers are wrong re school enrollment in CPS. First enrollment is over 400K source: http://www.cps.edu/About_CPS/At-a-gl...and_facts.aspx

Additionally, the number of charter schools in Chicago has increased since 2000 and they enroll something on the order of 30-40K. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/us...pagewanted=all

I did not intentionally leave out charter school enrollement. I actually didnt think the numbes were that high to begin with. I take your source at face value. As for CPS first enrollement numbers at 400k I also accept their figures. Still Catholic school enrollment is down, and according to the CPS website that you linked, public school enrollement would then be down by about 25,000 since 2000.

You undermine your credibility by 1. misrepresenting numbers and 2. vascilating wildly in you assessment of Chicago's fortune. One word: reactionary.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you don't think we should be a little reactionary when the city drops 200,000 people when should we then be?

Enrollment is indeed down over the intervening 10-12 years however current to do an apples to apple comparison you need to include charters which your number do not. And they do not because you are trying to drive a point ---- ie the demographic flight from Chicago. Numerical accuracy be damned.

Ok maybe I should have tempered my comments since you did title your graph "district run school" and charters are not techinically "district run schools" --- but they underlying idea remains the same.

The chart that I posted wasn't mine. I did not create it, and the total number of school age children is down in the city irregardless of charter schools, and the African American student population is falling like a rock...

And to people who claim you cannot raise a family in the city ---- nonsense. I know plenty that do and they are not "rich". There are plenty of affordable nice neighborhoods outside of the lakeview-lincoln park nexus. The city is much more than these two neighborhoods.

I'm not arguing that point either. I chose to move to the suburbs 2 years ago because this is where I think my children would have a better quality of life. All I am saying is that Chicago is declining in population. About 200,000 according to the last census which was a total shock to almost every Urbanophile. Simple as that really.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I did not intentionally leave out charter school enrollement. I tak your source at face value. As for CPS first enrollement numbers at 400k I also accept their figures.



I'm not misrepresenting anything.




The chart that I posted wasn't mine. I did not create it, and the total number of school age children is down in the city irregardless of charter schools, and the African American student population is falling like a rock...




I'm not arguing that point either. I chose to move to the suburbs 2 years ago because this is where I think my children would have a better quality of life. All I am saying is that Chicago is declining in population. About 200,000 according to the last census which was a total shock to almost every Urbanophile. Simple as that really.

Ok. Sorry if I misconstrued the graph as an attempt at driving home a point that seemed focused on demographic decline. I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to data accuracy in these types of discussions; and sometimes come on a bit strong.

Yeah my comment re families was not directed at you specifically but at the general 'common' wisdom that one cannot raise a middle class family in the city. Most of the people I know are very solidly middle class and most with families live here an do OK. None of them live in the lincoln park - lakeview nexus that all too often is seen as the only viable option.

I am not convinced that loosing nearly 200K this time around is such a bad thing. The englwoods each lost over 10K if I recall....there are parts of the city that need to effectively empty out before they will be seen as viable options for gentrification redevelopment. I think this is much more the case with heavily black poor neighborhoods versus poor hispanic neighborhoods for a number of historical reasons.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I am not convinced that loosing nearly 200K this time around is such a bad thing. The englwoods each lost over 10K if I recall....there are parts of the city that need to effectively empty out before they will be seen as viable options for gentrification redevelopment. I think this is much more the case with heavily black poor neighborhoods versus poor hispanic neighborhoods for a number of historical reasons.

^ My problem with this logic is the assumption that a really bad neighborhood will empty out and that this will be followed by gentrification.

Is there precedent where this has happened before, in the United States? I'm not arguing, I'm just curious.