Predict Chicago's 2010 population

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by lawfin

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.

No it's my fault. I should have gone directly to the CPS website to check their enrollment numbers. But I was looking for a graph to give a visualization of declining enrollment. Like I said, I didn't realize that charter schools numbers were up to 30-40,000. That's a positive.

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 lived in a middle/working class neighborhood in the city for 36 years. Albany Park went through several stages of good, bad, and indifferent. Right now, it's eastern end is turning around, but on the western end, I think things have gotten worse. Why would I want my children exposed to stupid gang shit that was happening a mere several blocks west of my home? When I used to post more frequently on this forum 8 years ago, I was probably one of Chicago's biggest boosters. Still am in many regards. I don't know how many of us on this forum have a big ole' tattoo of the city skyline and the city flag on their backs

I am not convinced that loosing nearly 200K this time around is such a bad thing.

For me it's a horrible thing, that Chicago has become a place where our poorest citizens cannot either afford to live here, or are in fear of crime within their communities. Furthermore, I am a product of CPS, and now I teach high school in the south suburbs (for the last 12 years). There is no way I was going to send my children to the schools in my community.. specially the high schools. My wife and I contemplated our options, the outer city like Edison Park, or Sauganash were to expensive for the size of the homes and lots, with property taxes that are outrageous. So we felt that the burbs were the best choice for right now. Plus there was an added family component, where my folks moved down here a few years back, and I wanted them to be close to my children (free babysitting ). Who knows we may decide to move back into the city, but sadly it wont be back to my old stomping grounds of Albany Park. If anything, we would live along the lakeshore near the Loop, but that's probably years away.

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.

Gentrification which is good in the sense of economically revitalizing such neighborhoods, is not happening in lightning speed right now as it did a few years ago, and even if it did, places such as Englewood or Austin would take decades for gentrification to reach them, and I believe it wouldn't make sense for developers to target those communities for gentrification. They are isolated and way too far from the Loop for any immediate development imo. Furthermore, you wont have new immigrant fill in those community either.

I think this is much more the case with heavily black poor neighborhoods versus poor hispanic neighborhoods for a number of historical reasons.

Oddly, Hispanic neighborhoods have become more prone to gentrification than African American communities, such as Pilsen Logan Square, West Bucktown, and the eastern end of Humbolt Park, but both have experienced it to certain degree, just as white communities on the Southwest side, and in Bridgeport, and in Dunning have seen an explosion of Hispanics residents.

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

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

Humbolt Park and Uptown have been "gentrifying" for 25 years now. To think that a blighted community some 60 blocks south of the Loop, and miles from the lake would automatically become a target of development because half of it's population empties isn't likely. We are going to have vast tracts of the South and West sides that are/will be basically wasteland.

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

I'm guessing NYC, since they tend to have housing shortage issues, I can see where neighborhood turnover rates occur in a New York minute

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

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

Actually Cook County as a whole growing by 22,000 in just 15 months is pretty darn good compared to the last decade and probably bodes well for the city population being at least more or less the same as census time. In the 2000's Cook County as a whole lost 3.4% mostly because of the city population decline and suburban Cook was pretty much dead even. Let me demonstrate:

City of Chicago; 2000: 2,896,016 2010: 2,695,598 -6.9%
Cook County; 2000: 5,376,741 2010: 5,194,675 -3.4%
Suburban Cook County: 2,480,725 2010: 2,499,077 +0.7%

As you can see the city of Chicago caused Cook County to have a decline in the 2000's and if trends stayed the same for 2010-2011 the county should have LOST about 18,000 people in a year. I don't see how the city of Chicago could be losing the same number of people 2010-2011 as a year typical year in the 2000's. Sure suburban Cook County is probably doing better than the city as is usually the case even in the 1990's but in order for the county to get that kind of increase in just one year with the city still declining there would have to be a fairly massive boom in the suburban Cook populations and I don't see that. So in seeing the Cook County projection for 2011 my prediction is that the city of Chicago's population has either stayed roughly the same from the 2010 census or possibly a small increase. If Chicago really was losing population like in the study you posted there would be virtually no way Cook County could have seen an increase, it would break even at best.

Actually, upon further analysis it this information is accurate about Cook County's population it almost certainly means a small increase in Chicago's population. Let me explain; let's assume for a minute that the city of Chicago's population growth was 0 meaning that suburban Cook County alone would have to shoulder the population growth of the whole county. That would mean that suburban Cook County would have grown by 22,405 in just a little over a year (April 1, 2010-July 1, 2011) when suburban Cook County only grew by 18,352 in the previous TEN YEARS (2000-2010)! That would make no sense and thus it makes sense that the city of Chicago must have at least grown a little bit, assuming the census estimate is accurate of course. In order for Chicago to have lost 17,000 people in one year (as the study Chicagogeorge posted said) and for the Cook County population estimates from the census to be accurate at the same time suburban Cook County would have needed to grow by nearly 40,000 people in a little over a year!

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

If Chicago really was losing population like in the study you posted there would be virtually no way Cook County could have seen an increase, it would break even at best.

Actually, upon further analysis it this information is accurate about Cook County's population it almost certainly means a small increase in Chicago's population. Let me explain; let's assume for a minute that the city of Chicago's population growth was 0 meaning that suburban Cook County alone would have to shoulder the population growth of the whole county. That would mean that suburban Cook County would have grown by 22,405 in just a little over a year (April 1, 2010-July 1, 2011) when suburban Cook County only grew by 18,352 in the previous TEN YEARS (2000-2010)! That would make no sense and thus it makes sense that the city of Chicago must have at least grown a little bit, assuming the census estimate is accurate of course.

That certainly is an optimistic way of viewing things, but the reality is that first the city isosing Black residents to the suburbs ( and the South). Secondly, the collar counties are either stagnating or outright losing population too. In my opinion that just means that Cook while still gaining in immigration, is losing less to outward migration. I'm not much of a betting man, but I'm willing to bet that the census estimates come July will show a decrease for the city

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

That certainly is an optimistic way of viewing things, but the reality is that first the city isosing Black residents to the suburbs ( and the South). Secondly, the collar counties are either stagnating or outright losing population too. In my opinion that just means that Cook while still gaining in immigration, is losing less to outward migration. I'm not much of a betting man, but I'm willing to bet that the census estimates come July will show a decrease for the city

It is not just optimism, the census bureau's population estimate for Cook County in 2011 back up my theory quite well, look at my numbers closely. By saying you think the census estimates will show the city declining you are saying that suburban Cook County is having a fairly massive population boom in a recession, the Cook suburbs would have to have grown more in the past year than the entire past decade! I also have no idea where you are getting the notion that the collar counties might be declining, nowhere is there evidence for that. Also the trends you said apply to the 2000's, we have yet to see how things will play out in this decade. Your pessimism seems to run so deep that even statistics from an official source that presumably would be something you would want to hear don't persuade you.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

By saying you think the census estimates will show the city declining you are saying that suburban Cook County is having a fairly massive population boom in a recession,

Yes.

I also have no idea where you are getting the notion that the collar counties might be declining, nowhere is there evidence for that.

I meant the exurban counties like McHenry, DeKalb and Grundy, and Lake County IN. are actually declining. The collar counties are stagnating, which leads me to believe that residents of suburban Cook who were moving to the outer burbs throughout the past decade, are staying put as a result of the high gas prices and the poor economy, but what would cause the city's Black residents to stay put? What would stop young families from choosing the suburbs for better schools than staying put in the city? What would lead me to believe that Hispanics aren't choosing Aurora over Little Village? At the very best, Chicago would see maybe no change since the 2010 census results.

Also the trends you said apply to the 2000's, we have yet to see how things will play out in this decade. Your pessimism seems to run so deep that even statistics from an official source that presumably would be something you would want to hear don't persuade you.

Sorry but I have to ask this. Do you see what is going on? A massive Black population loss, and a once exploding Hispanic population basically reduced to stagnation in a matter of a decade, and a White population that dropped 53,000 even while gentrification was skyrocketing during the last decade. Do you think all of the sudden a one year population forecast is going to change this trend? Why shouldn't I be pessimistic for Chicago's population forecast? Believe me, I hope the city sees a growth of 100,000 in one year!

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Yes.




I meant the exurban counties like McHenry, DeKalb and Grundy, and Lake County IN. are actually declining. The collar counties are stagnating, which leads me to believe that residents of suburban Cook who were moving to the outer burbs throughout the past decade, are staying put as a result of the high gas prices and the poor economy, but what would cause the city's Black residents to stay put? What would stop young families from choosing the suburbs for better schools than staying put in the city? What would lead me to believe that Hispanics aren't choosing Aurora over Little Village? At the very best, Chicago would see maybe no change since the 2010 census results.








Sorry but I have to ask this. Do you see what is going on? A massive Black population loss, and a once exploding Hispanic population basically reduced to stagnation in a matter of a decade, and a White population that dropped 53,000 even while gentrification was skyrocketing during the last decade. Do you think all of the sudden a one year population forecast is going to change this trend? Why shouldn't I be pessimistic for Chicago's population forecast? Believe me, I hope the city sees a growth of 100,000 in one year!

Ironically before you showed me the 2011 census estimate for Cook County I wouldn't have made the argument I did. I still don't think you realize what you are saying by thinking there is a massive population boom in suburban Cook County. Chicago and suburban Cook County don't exist in a vacuum separately, they are both a part of Cook County and if you are claiming a decline in the city you have to explain where and why there is such a large increase in suburban Cook. You are claiming that suburban Cook grew more in one year than in the ten previous years, in other words you are claiming the growth is more than TEN TIMES what it was just a few years ago. I fact you are saying that suburban Cook is growing faster now in the recession than it did in the booming economy of the 1990's. If you want your argument to be rational you have to explain this or state that you think the census estimate for Cook County is wrong.

As far as that map you have to remember that "stagnation" is a relative term. I for instance wouldn't call that one year growth for DuPage County stagnation, that is an increase of about 0.5% in one year or 5% if the trend lasts for 10 years (compared to 1.4% 2000-2010), frankly that is higher than I expected. Overall though that map is good news for centralization of the Chicagoland region, the exurban counties are stagnating , in fact according to that Lake County had a smaller % of growth than Cook and that there is in fact a decent amount of growth in DuPage and Cook Counties. Now that doesn't necessarily translate into good news for the city itself but at least it gives some credence to the idea that the city isn't declining like it was in the last decade because it is nearly impossible for Cook County to get that kind of growth if the city is declining, remember the city of Chicago is 54% of Cook County's population.

As far as the population trends of course I am well aware of them and don't expect a huge change this first year (although the census estimates do point to some) but rather what it could be for the 2020 census. After all look at how different the trends in the 2010 census were from the 2000 census, there is no reason it couldn't change again, I am not saying I know for sure it will but rather that trends in recent decades have not stayed the same. As far as other demographic trends you explained are true to an extent but the region is so vast there are all kinds of examples. For instance it is true that Hispanics might not be moving into Little Village anymore and some are going to Aurora but others are moving to Chicago neighborhoods like Archer Heights and Garfield Ridge as well. It could also be that more white families are staying put because of high gas prices and seeing the cost effectiveness of living in the city in some regards and ironically most of the white flight in the city comes from the more auto-centric areas. You are probably more correct about black families since they often don't have the options that most white gentrifiers have but it is also possible many of them took advantage of very easy to get mortgages in the 2000-2007 era (all races did this but those of lower income were more vulnerable to them) in the suburbs that will be harder to get moving forward thus stalling their suburban movement somewhat even after the economy improves. Also contrary to popular belief for the top 50% of the income spectrum it is actually relatively easy to afford private schooling at Chicago's very extensive Catholic school system, given the amount of money you can save on gas money by driving less and having fewer cars it could be even more economical to send kids to a Catholic school in the city than pay the high property taxes and live an expensive auto-centric lifestyle in a good suburban public school district.

Maybe you haven't been well trained in how to read demography but the recent stats you have been throwing out are actually proving my case and hurting yours. Sure these are only census estimates and we don't have the actual city estimates yet but one can hypothesize on it based on inference from Cook County population as a whole. You are claiming there is unprecedented growth occurring in suburban Cook and on the surface that might make sense to you but you are making the rather amateurish mistake of seeing the city and the suburbs in a vacuum. It isn't optimism that made my case, the census bureau did it for me, the burden of proof is on you to now demonstrate where and how all this massive growth in suburban Cook is occurring or how the census estimates are just plain false.

My prediction is that Chicago just hit the 2.7 million threshold in 2011, which means it had a growth of about 4,400, that still leaves suburban Cook County with 18,000 out of the 22,000 growth for the whole county, really even that is a very conservative estimate, I am still saying the Cook suburbs grew almost as much in one year as it did in the ten previous years. Where is the massive housing boom in suburban Cook occurring? Has there been a massive average household size increase in the Cook suburbs in the past few years, i.e. are there tons of Hispanic immigrants and blacks moving in with relatives in the Cook suburbs after fleeing the city? Even with that there still is room for modest growth in the city.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Ironically before you showed me the 2011 census estimate for Cook County I wouldn't have made the argument I did. I still don't think you realize what you are saying by thinking there is a massive population boom in suburban Cook County.

I'm not making any argument here. I am just stating what two population estimates say. One, the US census, which sated Cook County grew by 17,000. The other according to this study which says the city fell by 33,600.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...es-in-the.html

If correct that would mean that suburban Cook grew by 50,000 in one year. That would be quite large but not unheard of. Especially seeing that the collar counties have dramatically slowed down or reversed in growth.

Chicago and suburban Cook County don't exist in a vacuum separately, they are both a part of Cook County and if you are claiming a decline in the city you have to explain where and why there is such a large increase in suburban Cook. You are claiming that suburban Cook grew more in one year than in the ten previous years, in other words you are claiming the growth is more than TEN TIMES what it was just a few years ago. I fact you are saying that suburban Cook is growing faster now in the recession than it did in the booming economy of the 1990's.

Are you saying that suburban Cook cannot grow and the city of Chicago cannot shrink at the same time?

[IMG]http://i46.************/289asjq.png[/IMG]

If you want your argument to be rational you have to explain this or state that you think the census estimate for Cook County is wrong.

If you look at the chart above, you can see how Cook County can grow while the city falls. Even when the city falls dramatically as it did between 1980-1990 (by 225,000), suburban cook still grew (by 75,000), but not enough to offset the loss sustained by the city. Again it's not "my argument" it's an estimate posted by an online database.

As far as that map you have to remember that "stagnation" is a relative term. I for instance wouldn't call that one year growth for DuPage County stagnation, that is an increase of about 0.5% in one year or 5% if the trend lasts for 10 years (compared to 1.4% 2000-2010), frankly that is higher than I expected.

DuPage County may benefit from exurban or far suburban stagnation. DuPage didn't boom this past decade like Kane, Will, DeKalb, Kendall, in fact they only grew by 12,000 between 2000 and 2010. That means at this rate by 2020 DuPage may grow 5 times faster than it did during the previous decade.

Now that doesn't necessarily translate into good news for the city itself but at least it gives some credence to the idea that the city isn't declining like it was in the last decade because it is nearly impossible for Cook County to get that kind of growth if the city is declining, remember the city of Chicago is 54% of Cook County's population.

Look at what happened to Cook and Chicago during the 1960's and 1970's. Granted suburban Cook was wide open back then for development.

Maybe you haven't been well trained in how to read demography but the recent stats you have been throwing out are actually proving my case and hurting yours.

Well these aren't stats I made up. If you don't agree with the source I cited, that's fine. They may indeed be wrong. We will have to wait until July for the Census estimates for the city.

My prediction is that Chicago just hit the 2.7 million threshold in 2011, which means it had a growth of about 4,400, that still leaves suburban Cook County with 18,000 out of the 22,000 growth for the whole county, really even that is a very conservative estimate, I am still saying the Cook suburbs grew almost as much in one year as it did in the ten previous years.

We will see. I would prefer you to be right, but I am very pessimistic. I see a loss of at least 15,000 since 2010 if not the 30,000 stated by that website. Just look how surprised we all were when the 2010 census came out. Chicago was the only city in the top 10 to lose population, and it was a huge loss. The city can't even come back with a decent challenge to the census because officials know the numbers are right. I remember back in the 1990 census city officials said there was a 60,000 undercount, this time they challenge a measly 2600 people

Where is the massive housing boom in suburban Cook occurring? Has there been a massive average household size increase in the Cook suburbs in the past few years, i.e. are there tons of Hispanic immigrants and blacks moving in with relatives in the Cook suburbs after fleeing the city? Even with that there still is room for modest growth in the city.

During the 1990's the majority of the growth was in the city, and not in suburban Cook. In the past 10 years, Chicago lost about 200,000 residents and Cook County was down by 182,000, which means that suburban Cook grew by nearly 20,000, all the while the outer suburbs were siphoning off residents from both. We now know that most immigrants settling the area, are bypassing the city, and that African Americans, who are leaving the city are either settling in south suburban Cook or going down South. I still expect the vast majority of growth to occur in the suburbs (just not the exurbs) this decade.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Are you saying that suburban Cook cannot grow and the city of Chicago cannot shrink at the same time?

[IMG]http://i46.************/289asjq.png[/IMG]

The numbers for Chicago in 1990, 2000, and 2010 are off by a few hundred or a few thousand than official numbers and I used the latter for these calculations.

Suburban Cook County population by decade 1950-2010:

1950: 887,730
1960: 1,579,321 +691,591
1970: 2,125,412 +546,091
1980: 2,248,583 +123,171
1990: 2,321,341 + 72,758
2000: 2,480,725 +159,384
2010: 2,499,077 + 18,352

Sure suburban Cook County can grow while the city declines in fact those suburban areas as a whole have never declined as I expected. There is also a precedent for the Cook County suburbs to grow at a rate of 50,000+ a year but it was so long ago and under such different circumstances it is like comparing apples and oranges.

So in order for your prediction to be correct you are saying that suburban Cook County is experiencing a population boom it has not seen since the 1950's and 1960's when there was wide open land for development and a post-war housing boom. Where are these massive subdivisions currently going up in suburban Cook County? Are there tons and tons of families doubling and tripling up in suburban Cook County housing after fleeing the city? I am sure the later might be happening to some degree but the scale would have to be epic to get those kinds of numbers and examples of random subdivisions going up here and there on the fringes of suburban Cook County will not compare to the scale of 1950-1970.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

The numbers for Chicago in 1990, 2000, and 2010 are off by a few hundred or a few thousand than official numbers and I used the latter for these calculations.

Suburban Cook County population by decade 1950-2010:

1950: 887,730
1960: 1,579,321 +691,591
1970: 2,125,412 +546,091
1980: 2,248,583 +123,171
1990: 2,321,341 + 72,758
2000: 2,480,725 +159,384
2010: 2,499,077 + 18,352

Sure suburban Cook County can grow while the city declines in fact those suburban areas as a whole have never declined as I expected. There is also a precedent for the Cook County suburbs to grow at a rate of 50,000+ a year but it was so long ago and under such different circumstances it is like comparing apples and oranges.

So in order for your prediction to be correct you are saying that suburban Cook County is experiencing a population boom it has not seen since the 1950's and 1960's when there was wide open land for development and a post-war housing boom. Where are these massive subdivisions currently going up in suburban Cook County? Are there tons and tons of families doubling and tripling up in suburban Cook County housing after fleeing the city? I am sure the later might be happening to some degree but the scale would have to be epic to get those kinds of numbers and examples of random subdivisions going up here and there on the fringes of suburban Cook County will not compare to the scale of 1950-1970.

You are also forgetting that throughout any decade you can have one year that sees a much larger increase or decline than the next. What we are doing here is just taking averages over a 10 year period. True, it would be very shocking if suburban Cook saw that large of an increase, but let's also remember that it seems as if the collar and Exurban counties have ceased to be siphoning off Cook's population (at least for the time being). I would also argue, that adding 50,000 to a population the size of Cook doesn't mean that their needs to be some massive housing development underway. Seems to me, that middle class people are just staying put riding out this recession. Again, I did not publish any statistic, and I would be more than happy to see the city itself gain thousands of residents. I am very pessimistic about that given what has happened to the African American population which has gone into a free fall (but at least it's stable in suburban Cook so far), and the sudden and unexpected stagnation of Chicago's Hispanic population which only grew by a mere 2,500 a year during the 2000's, which during the 1990's grew by 20,000 a year!

Either way, come July, we will find out what the official Census estimates are for the city.

Have three cocktails in me already, and I can still write fairly coherently! Cheers.

[Jay]

wow, chicago has rebounded in the past, hopefully it will in the future, im not liking those numbers

[iloveclassicrock7]

Although population decline is hardly ever a good thing, I am sort of wondering why it is a bad thing in this case. From what I hear, it sounds like the Loop is booming, and that the poorer neighborhoods are losing population, while Chicago is gaining people with higher incomes. Chicago's metro continues to grow also. So people with lower income are moving to the suburbs, wouldn't this just mean that prices are too high, and the major loss is because of the recession, not because Chicago is losing it's world class status. Coming from someone who doesn't live near Chicago, and is unbiased, I can tell you it's still a world class city, in fact if you go by the GAWC rankings, Chicago went from an alpha city in 2008 to a Alpha + city in 2010, probably because of Chicago having the 3rd highest economic output in the world, ahead of even London! Metro is what matters, Chicago will be considered a mega city, a city with a metro population of 10mil+, in about a year or two. Good times are ahead for Chicago, especially with the building boom going on. Just thought I would let you know what someone on the outside thinks.

[Dralcoffin]

Not to sound too brash, but honestly the people Chicago is losing right now are people the city can afford to lose, and will leave the city better off in the long term, considering that they tend to use more city funds and services then they support through taxes. I'd rather have a gentrifying city of 2.5 million with shrinking ghettos then a city of 3.0 million with large poor areas.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Not to sound too brash, but honestly the people Chicago is losing right now are people the city can afford to lose, and will leave the city better off in the long term, considering that they tend to use more city funds and services then they support through taxes. I'd rather have a gentrifying city of 2.5 million with shrinking ghettos then a city of 3.0 million with large poor areas.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, thanks.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Not to sound too brash, but honestly the people Chicago is losing right now are people the city can afford to lose, and will leave the city better off in the long term, considering that they tend to use more city funds and services then they support through taxes. I'd rather have a gentrifying city of 2.5 million with shrinking ghettos then a city of 3.0 million with large poor areas.

I believe the city is losing people we need to keep. Many of the African Americans who are leaving are young and educated and, middle class families. The younger A.A's. are finding places in the southern U.S. to be more affordable with more opportunity. Middle class professionals, like their white counterparts, are also leaving in droves. They don't want their kids to be expose to the criminal b.s. and bad public schools. These are the two groups we need to keep in the city.

IMHO the impoverished population is not leaving as fast. I live on the south side and ride public transportation quite a bit on weekends. I'm also African American. Most of the time the ride on the L from the the central area to 95th Street is an awful and discouraging adventure. On this route you will see the effect that segregation and concentrated poverty have on a group of people. You will have the same experience on many of the bus routes.

The only good thing about this exodus of people from some communities is that segregation is breaking up but, if no one replaces those who are leaving we will probably continue to lose population and the city will not be better off.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

I believe the city is losing people we need to keep. Many of the African Americans who are leaving are young and educated and, middle class families. The younger A.A's. are finding places in the southern U.S. to be more affordable with more opportunity. Middle class professionals, like their white counterparts, are also leaving in droves. They don't want their kids to be expose to the criminal b.s. and bad public schools. These are the two groups we need to keep in the city.

IMHO the impoverished population is not leaving as fast. I live on the south side and ride public transportation quite a bit on weekends. I'm also African American. Most of the time the ride on the L from the the central area to 95th Street is an awful and discouraging adventure. On this route you will see the effect that segregation and concentrated poverty have on a group of people. You will have the same experience on many of the bus routes.

The only good thing about this exodus of people from some communities is that segregation is breaking up but, if no one replaces those who are leaving we will probably continue to lose population and the city will not be better off.

I wouldn't worry too much, Metro population is what really matters, and Chicago's metro is on the rise. Which means all of this shouldn't be a huge deal. It just means people are living in Chicago's suburbs, because it's cheaper. That's part of living near a big city. Most of the time prices are high, so people live in the suburbs, then commute to Chicago for work. If this was happening in my city, I wouldn't be worried. Population fluctuates. Outside of America, people don't even go by city population, its all about the metro. Going by metro, Chicago is about to become a mega city, which means it will join this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity.

[chicagogeorge]

Chicago's CSA grew by 43,000+ in a one year estimate.... If maintained for a decade, this would result in around 440,000 growth. At this rate Chicago's CSA won't crack the 10 million mark until about 2017-2018. On the otherhand, Chicago's metro growth was way worse in the 1970's and 1980's

1950-1960=1,282,383
1960-1970=885,223
1970-1980=175,069
1980-1990= 120,907
1990-2000=926,858
2000-2010=373,766

Even if we just use this 1 year estimate, that would translate to adding 430,000 in 10 years, and will push the Chicago CSA to over 10 million before 2020. That's actually better than the 2000-2010 numeric growth of 373,766. Obviously not as good as the boom decade of the 1990's when the Chicago metro area added 926,858.


By extrapolating the estimated growth rate based on just 2011 DC/Baltimore will surpass Chicago's CSA soon... That's what happens when you expand government jobs


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

4 - Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV --- 8,718,083 --- 8,572,971 --- 1.69% --- 145,112


If the growth rates remain constant, and no additions are added to either CSA, Washington-Baltimore will pass Chicago in 10 years:

2021:

Washington-Baltimore: 10,168,000

Chicago: 10,167,865


DC/Baltimore recently surpassed Chicago's CSA Gross Metropolitan Product. Remember, Baltimore is 30 miles away from DC.

As of now:


Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...5-oc0zhsAo5KjQ

PHP Code:

Rank..........City..................................GMP (in billions)

1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA ...1,282.6
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA ...................737.9


3 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ....................531.4
4 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VAMD-...............426.1

19 Baltimore-Towson, MD ..................................144.4 


As for Cook, if a growth of 22,000 is sustained annually for the entire decade, that would push Cook County's population to over 5.4 million which is more than it's 2000 census figure. Cook County's historical maximum population was reached in 1970 at 5.5 million people. But here is the problem:

STUCK IN THEIR HOMES'







When Jill and Paul Syftestad's oldest daughter was ready to start school four years ago, they put their South Loop townhouse on the market and planned to move to the suburbs.
One offer fell through at the last minute and a second was well below their asking price. “We had our hearts set on moving,” says Ms. Syftestad, an IT project manager at a nursing association. “We were devastated. We pulled it off the market and decided to stay.”
The recession dramatically slowed the number of people making the trek to the suburbs for bigger houses, safer neighborhoods and better schools. Unable or unwilling to leave the city, a small but growing group of middle-class families are turning to Chicago's public and private schools, a development that holds both potential and peril for Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his efforts to improve the school system.
“I've had lots of clients who thought they would be able to sell their condo and can't. So they are now trying to make it work” in city schools, says Christine Whitley, an education consultant who helps families through the Chicago Public Schools selection process. “They bought their condo way before they had kids and didn't really factor schools into the equation. They figured they could sell and move to a better neighborhood or move to the suburbs. Now they can't sell it, so they're trying to figure out options” in the city.

The total number of people staying in the city who otherwise would have moved isn't huge: perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 a year over the past few years. But it's a big change in the trend line: CPS enrollment dropped significantly in the middle of the last decade but largely has been stable at about 400,000 since 2007-08, when the recession hit. Enrollment at the 10 largest suburban districts, which had been growing quickly, also generally has been flat since the recession began, according to data from the Illinois Board of Education.

During the last quarter-century, thousands of people flooded annually into suburban DuPage and Will counties, making them among the fastest-growing jurisdictions in the country. But when the recession hit, housing prices fell and job losses rose.
The number of people leaving Cook County for the collar counties dropped by an average of 35 percent between early 2007 and 2010, according to Internal Revenue Service data.
From the real estate market peak in 2005-06 until 2009-10, those moving from Cook to DuPage dropped by 25 percent, according to IRS data compiled for Crain's by Geoffrey Hewings and Chenxi Yu of the Regional Economics Application Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Movement to Kane County dropped by 37 percent, Lake County 38 percent, Will County 53 percent, McHenry County 54 percent and Kendall County 56 percent. After nearly quadrupling from 1997 to 2007, enrollment at Plainfield Schools in Will County flattened out, then dropped the past two years.
“People still want to move” to the suburbs, says Larry Reedy, an agent at L.W. Reedy Real Estate in Elmhurst. “But there are a lot of people stuck in their homes. For a large chunk of people, they just can't bring money to the closing table” to cover the difference between their loan amount and the lower sales price on their house.
There also is an increase in residents who want to stay in the city. Chicago, like other big cities, saw its population rise from 1990 to 2000 as 20- to 29-year-olds moved in search of nightlife, jobs and short commutes. But Chicago was the only one of the 10 largest U.S. cities to see its population fall between 2000 and 2010, dropping by 6.9 percent, Brookings Institution researcher William Fry said last week. Many big urban counties in the U.S. regained momentum at the end of the decade, outgrowing nearby suburban areas as the recession hit. The same general pattern can be seen for Cook County, though suburban growth here still remained slightly higher at the end of the decade.
“I have always said we'd stay in the city so long as the schools were working,” says Julie Kraft, a banker who works downtown and lives on the North Side and whose children go to Louis J. Agassiz School in Lakeview. “At this point, I could see myself staying in the city throughout their education. We never said outright that as soon as they go to school we'd have to be in the suburbs.”
Parochial schools are benefiting, too. Enrollment at Catholic elementary schools in Chicago is up in each of the past two school years, the first time that's happened since 1965. Suburban enrollment fell by 5.3 percent over two years, according to the Archdiocese of Chicago, mirroring a national decline in Catholic school enrollment.
One of the fastest-growing schools is Old St. Mary's in the South Loop, where the Syftestads' daughter Olivia is a third-grader. She started kindergarten in a CPS school but transferred because of large class sizes, Ms. Syftestad says, highlighting one of the challenges facing the mayor.
“We're OK through elementary school. We'll stay in the city as long as we can, provided we can navigate through CPS” for high school, she says. “If not, we'll have to make the move. It's a question we talk about all the time. We have about three years to figure it out.”

“I think after the recession ends, migration picks up again, but it won't be as exuberant as it was the previous decade,” says Ken Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire who spent several years at Loyola University Chicago. “This is an advantage for the city right now.”

Read more: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...#ixzz1rI8xTojr

[The Urban Politician]

^ Chicago's metro growth is pretty healthy for an older, mature, diversified metro. On a percentage basis it grew faster than New York's from 2000-2010, and was only slightly below LA's.

I agree with a lot that is written in those articles you posted: this is a golden opportunity for Chicago to keep the middle class in town by improving the CPS (or at least opening up more magnet/charter schools and private schools) so that when the economy picks up, the city will retain more residents who otherwise plan to leave.

Regarding the DC/Baltimore comparison, yeah I get it, they are one giant metro. DC boosters love to use that to their advantage, but the reality is, I lived in DC and there was really nothing when I lived there to suggest that they behaved like one giant metro. I and most people I knew never went to Baltimore for anything, and it never even crossed anybody's mind because it was often viewed as the "rust belt", crime-ridden, more decayed of the 2 cities. The presence of Johns Hopkins was perhaps the singular reason anybody went to Baltimore for pretty much anything.

The same goes for the Bay Area. Again, the population is there, but where does that population congregrate? Where do "great things" happen? Napa valley? San Jose? San Francisco? Berkeley? Really these are multicentered regions that have been slapped together by the census bureau.

Chicago, on the other hand, really is the undisputed gravitational center of the metro. When in NW Indiana or Kenosha, you know that when you are going to the city, you are going to none other than the big boss.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

^ Chicago's metro growth is pretty healthy for an older, mature, diversified metro. On a percentage basis it grew faster than New York's from 2000-2010, and was only slightly below LA's.

I agree with a lot that is written in those articles you posted: this is a golden opportunity for Chicago to keep the middle class in town by improving the CPS (or at least opening up more magnet/charter schools and private schools) so that when the economy picks up, the city will retain more residents who otherwise plan to leave.

Regarding the DC/Baltimore comparison, yeah I get it, they are one giant metro. DC boosters love to use that to their advantage, but the reality is, I lived in DC and there was really nothing when I lived there to suggest that they behaved like one giant metro. I and most people I knew never went to Baltimore for anything, and it never even crossed anybody's mind because it was often viewed as the "rust belt", crime-ridden, more decayed of the 2 cities. The presence of Johns Hopkins was perhaps the singular reason anybody went to Baltimore for pretty much anything.

The same goes for the Bay Area. Again, the population is there, but where does that population congregrate? Where do "great things" happen? Napa valley? San Jose? San Francisco? Berkeley? Really these are multicentered regions that have been slapped together by the census bureau.

Chicago, on the other hand, really is the undisputed gravitational center of the metro. When in NW Indiana or Kenosha, you know that when you are going to the city, you are going to none other than the big boss.

I honestly don't expect Chicago's population to keep declining, it will probably fluctuate like it always has. I hate to say it, but even if it becomes a city that only has rich people, that's not really a bad thing. Chicago's status shouldn't lower because poor people move away. What really matters is the money, and Chicago's economy continues to grow. Currently, Chicago has the 3rd highest economic output in the world! Let me explain what that means, only NYC and Tokyo are ahead of Chicago. Even London is behind.

Chicago actually moved up in the global city rankings in 2010. Also Chicago George could you be less pessimistic ?

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Also Chicago George could you be less pessimistic ?

Yea, we gotta talk the poor guy off the ledge....

[Dralcoffin]

Personally I cannot wait until I get through school and call Chicago (the urban core, not the suburbs) home. I feel that Chicago is at that awkward stage where gentrification is just shy of critical mass, and the ghettos have finally dropped off the edge of the cliff population wise. That means short term the city proper population will still dip, but it will be recovering sooner than the pessimism merits. I'm going to go out on a limb and say 2020 shows a city proper population of 2,750,000 and a metro population (MSA/CSA) of 9,850,000/10,250,000.

I also believe that I will see Chicago's city limits population hit 3 million again. It will be several decades, but Chicago will get there. Houston (limits) and Washington (CSA) are still going to zoom right past us in 15-20 years time though.