Predict Chicago's 2010 population

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by rgolch

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

Well he is a smart poster, but he tends to look at the glass half empty.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Well he is a smart poster, but he tends to look at the glass half empty.

Oh, I know. I'm just being a smartass. I actually really appreciate chicagogeorge's posts. He at least has a ton of data to back up his claims, and his predictions could very well come to fruition. I just think that too many people get worked up about dropping to #4 in city and metro population; not that it doesn't bother me at all, I just think they place far too much importance on it.

I guess that leads me to my next question. How important is it if you drop down on the list? I've always sort of thought that the only thing that really matters is having a thriving local economy with lots of high paying white collar jobs, as well as a vibrant, cultured, diverse city. But does dropping to #4 diminish the gravitas of Chicago. Will it be less of a magnet for young talent coming out of the Midwest. Will that really smart kid who grew up in Cedar Rapids or Kalamazoo MI bypass Chicago (thinking it's no longer an endpoint city) and go strait to NY? Will conventioners and tourists lose interest? Will we have a harder time attracting corporate headquarters? Because these are really the ONLY important things to ask. Everything else is just bragging rights on geeky skyscraper forums.

[chicagogeorge]

Chicago hasn't lost it's magnetism for being the center of the Midwest, nor has it lost it's pull for international migration. It's just now, that there is a lot more competition.

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

I honestly don't expect Chicago's population to keep declining, it will probably fluctuate like it always has.

But Chicago's population hasn't fluctuated. It shot straight up until 1950. Since then, other than one single fluke decade it has constantly fallen. At this point I just want it to stabilize. How is that going to happen when we have 180,000 African Americans leaving in a decade, and a Hispanic population which went from growing by over 20,000 a year between 1990-2000, to growing by only 2500 a year between 2000-2010?

Personally, based on the most recent census trends, I think Chicago's population will bottom out around 2.4-2.5 million, and then maybe, hopefully stabilize.

I hate to say it, but even if it becomes a city that only has rich people, that's not really a bad thing.

It won't be a city with only rich people. It's the middle and working class that are leaving.

Chicago's status shouldn't lower because poor people move away.

The poorest of the poor don't have an option to leave.

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.

Are you sure about this? I'd like it to be true.

Chicago actually moved up in the global city rankings in 2010.

Yes we did, but does that mean we have a higher economic output?

Also Chicago George could you be less pessimistic ?

I've lived in Chicago for 36 of my near 40 years. Eventually I will move back to the city I love. My only real pessimism I have for Chicago is without good neighborhood schools, it wont keep the middle class, and with rampant crime in large sections of the Black and Hispanic communities, it wont keep them either. I am pessimistic about it's population ever growing to levels I knew as a kid (3 million).

[Dralcoffin]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

My only real pessimism I have for Chicago is without good neighborhood schools, it wont keep the middle class, and with rampant crime in large sections of the Black and Hispanic communities, it wont keep them either.

I agree with you on this, George. To me, the schools are the single greatest challenge facing Chicago. The tax rate is way high, and immigration is near zilch, but the schools to me is what will make or break the retention of families over the next few decades. A close second is the crime, especially this year, but better policing would help fix that problem, I feel (like New York in the 1990s). However, I have a feeling that a combination of magnet and private schools, like NYC has done, would be enough to retain many families, and I'm confident that Chicago will be growing again, and soon. We just have to break the crime rate, and establish a more robust school system. Those will be titanic challenges, but I don't think I'd be as passionate about Chicago if it didn't have its issues.

Also, Chicago is the fourth largest metro area GDP in the world. It doesn't have the "sexiness" of Tokyo, New York, or (number five) London, but in the global economy it is a huge behind the scene player. When it comes to world futures trading and being a transportation nexis, no city compares to Chicago.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by 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.

First we thought that African Americans would drive Chicago's population growth, nearly reaching 1.2 million in 1980.... Then in 2000 we realized that they started falling, but saw a Hispanic explosion, and thought that they will lead the charge in future growth. Then in 2010 African American ppopulation fell dramatically, and Hispanic growth rates came to a screeching halt. Now we are looking at the yuppies to grow Chicago's population?

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.

Your MSA numbers seem reasonable, but I think you are about 100,000 too high for CSA and as for the city, I'm predicting under 2.6 million.

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.

So you are looking at a New York City style recovery from it's low point in 1980. I don't see that happening, because A) we don't attract enough immigrants which is what propelled NYC back, plus most of the immigrants we do get are bypassing the city and going directly for the suburbs. B) If we are betting on the "Great White Hope" (ie gentrification) to fill the void, that will almost ensure a much smaller population for Chicago in the decades to come.

Houston (limits) and Washington (CSA) are still going to zoom right past us in 15-20 years time though.

Based on our population loss and their growth between 2000-2010, it would still take about 25 years. At the 2000-2010 rates, Houston will have 2.4 million by 2030. Chicago will have 2.3 million by 2030. I don't think Chicago will dip to 2.3 million, and will probably hover above 2.4 million so it may take Houston longer to pass us up. Then again, they may see faster growth rates in the future too.

Washington/Baltimore CSA will pass Chicago's CSA within 10 years.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Are you sure about this? I'd like it to be true.

Yeah, look at the economic output numbers for 3 and 4 on this list - http://www.theatlanticcities.com/job...ld/109/#slide4

I just think that too many people get worked up about dropping to #4 in city and metro population

ding ding ding, we have a winner. You just hit the nail on the head, until I was on this forum, I had no idea about this. Do you think people are talking about NYC and Chicago's changing population numbers on the streets of London ? NO. The only people that care about this stuff is people on this forum. Like I have always said, money is power, and Chicago has a lot of money, and therefore a lot of power.

If I have learned anything in my life, it's to expect the unexpected. We can study the data, and it may give us the most possible outcome, but that's all an estimation. Chicago George may be right, or the people who say Chicago will have 3 million by 2040 may be right, its all guessing, because no one knows the future!

Also, Chicago's world status won't change at all because of population drop. Why ? Because no one outside of these forums cares about that. Some people on this forum may say Chicago's best times are behind it, well that's just blind hate, and is proven wrong statistically.

So this all turns into a bunch of people upset about Chicago only being one of the top 4 most powerful cities in the world, which to me is pretty funny.

Another thing people say is that Chicago isn't bordered by an ocean, it's just a lake. Well they forget something very important, all the great lakes are connected, and the great lakes are connected to the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, you don't lose the sea trading aspect. You can take a ship, full of lets say supplies, from Chicago to any port in the world.

Anyways, sorry for rambling on. I was just covering a few different points.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Yeah, look at the economic output numbers for 3 and 4 on this list - http://www.theatlanticcities.com/job...ld/109/#slide4

Ok thanks. I couldn't tell if those economic output numbers were for the cities themselves, or for the metro areas. They must be just for the city, since I did not see LA anywhere in the top 10.

Economic Power is measured as economic output or gross regional product.

How is this different than the GMP?

If I have learned anything in my life, it's to expect the unexpected. We can study the data, and it may give us the most possible outcome, but that's all an estimation. Chicago George may be right, or the people who say Chicago will have 3 million by 2040 may be right, its all guessing, because no one knows the future!

That's true, but I like to study the trends. Not that those trends can't dramatically change. What makes me even more bearish about any major turnaround in Chicago's population in the near term, is the locations of the most recent loss in people. When we had white flight during the 70's and 80's many of those communities were quickly replaced with Black or Hispanics. Now where there is middle/working class Black flight in some of the most crime ridden areas of the city, I don't see a revitalization, or re-population by any group anytime soon.

[Dralcoffin]

I know Chicago is going to dip in the short term, but a population loss does not equal a declining city. We've lost a quarter of the city's population since 1950, a similar ratio to Boston or Washington, D.C. And while both cities are growing, they're not far off from Chicago's current state, the difference being that Boston doesn't have the vast collapsing ghettos or DC being flooded with government growth. The cities that I would be "bearish" on are the likes of Detroit and St. Louis, where half the population since 1950 has disappeared and much of the city simply has no hope of revival. In Chicago, that area is a small fraction of the city.

As well, I would be more concerned with places like Phoenix and Houston. Sprawl will not continue forever, and there are signs that my generation (I am 20) will prefer urban cores to subdivisions way out in cornfields. If that shift continues, here in the Midwest there will be one clear winner -- Chicago. Our central core is much more well preserved than just about anywhere between the coasts. I see Philadelphia as the best predictor of Chicago's future. Philadelphia in 2000 was still a crumbling city with vast poor areas and a shrinking population. Now, it's gaining again and gentrification has meant a revitalized, thriving urban core. Philadelphia and Chicago are near matches demographically (besides the obvious size difference). As Philly goes, so will go Chicago. We will never reach our old 1950 peak, but neither will Boston nor DC. Yet both those cities are doing fine, and Chicago is much closer to them than it is to Baltimore or Buffalo.

In short, I believe in Chicago. This town will never die, and its current reinvention will produce a better, wealthier, healthier, more stable city. I even have hope that we'll see a shift from the likes of Kane and Will Counties back to the center. Chicago, and the Midwest, will endure. Is there room for pessimism? Of course. But I would rather be optimistic.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

That's true, but I like to study the trends. Not that those trends can't dramatically change. What makes me even more bearish about any major turnaround in Chicago's population in the near term, is the locations of the most recent loss in people. When we had white flight during the 70's and 80's many of those communities were quickly replaced with Black or Hispanics. Now where there is middle/working class Black flight in some of the most crime ridden areas of the city, I don't see a revitalization, or re-population by any group anytime soon.

^ But white flight and black flight were 2 different processes, and that is why "white flight" lead to all black neighborhoods overnight, whereas "black flight" doesn't seem to be producing a similarly opposite effect.

White flight occurred because blacks were moving into areas that were initially white, and induced a panic among whites who moved out in droves, often spurred on by realtors who made a ton of money buying cheap property from panicked white families and selling them at a higher price to black ones.

What is happening now is different. Black families with the means are moving to the suburbs, and they were largely able to do that in the early 2000's because it was easy as shit to get a mortgage. They didn't move away in a panicked frenzy, they did so for the same reason many people do--for safer neighborhoods and better schools. This is a process that is probably still going on, but at a much slower pace.

The question that remains is what will eventually happen to the city neighborhoods that they leave behind. My guess is that the ones that are well-positioned to gentrify and with a good housing stock will attract new residents, while others will probably continue to struggle. Tract level growth from 2010's census show some promising results for areas such as the south lakefront. Those areas saw explosive growth in whites and Asians. I do not believe that has ended, but I do believe that process has slowed down mostly because of the economy and difficulties in getting a mortgage.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Chicago hasn't lost it's magnetism for being the center of the Midwest, nor has it lost it's pull for international migration. It's just now, that there is a lot more competition.

I think this is a really important point. Truth be told, Chicago is probably a better city now than it was 100 years ago. But everything is relative. A century ago, there were only a few major cities in the US that dominated all of manufacturing and other forms of commerce. That time is long past, and I'd say any city with a metro area of more than 5 million is, in a sense, a major city. But even acknowledging this fact, I'm still really optimistic about our future, and our ability to compete.

[urbanpln]

I'm cautiously optimistic but it will take a major mindset change from our political leaders in the city and region. This will be very difficult to do.

The Organization Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) assessment of the Chicago region revealed some troubling trends that have to be addressed. The assessment revealed that the region's GDP and labor productivity are below the national average. The City has been under performing economically for years which equates to lower job growth. The region, especially the city, has not kept pace with the nation in job growth for decades. This is occurring in most economic sectors. This is one of the reasons population growth is somewhat sluggish. We will fall further behind if we don't address our economic problems. How to address these issues is going to be challenging.

I am a big fan of the City and always will be but, I do realize that we have some major challenges. The city and the state can't afford to elect uninformed, backwards politicians anymore. Rham Emanuel and Toni Preckwinkle have been good so far but, more smart people are needed. Lets hope this is a new trend.

[GenericUser]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Chicago hasn't lost it's magnetism for being the center of the Midwest, nor has it lost it's pull for international migration. It's just now, that there is a lot more competition.





But Chicago's population hasn't fluctuated. It shot straight up until 1950. Since then, other than one single fluke decade it has constantly fallen. At this point I just want it to stabilize. How is that going to happen when we have 180,000 African Americans leaving in a decade, and a Hispanic population which went from growing by over 20,000 a year between 1990-2000, to growing by only 2500 a year between 2000-2010?

Personally, based on the most recent census trends, I think Chicago's population will bottom out around 2.4-2.5 million, and then maybe, hopefully stabilize.



It won't be a city with only rich people. It's the middle and working class that are leaving.



The poorest of the poor don't have an option to leave.



Are you sure about this? I'd like it to be true.



Yes we did, but does that mean we have a higher economic output?





I've lived in Chicago for 36 of my near 40 years. Eventually I will move back to the city I love. My only real pessimism I have for Chicago is without good neighborhood schools, it wont keep the middle class, and with rampant crime in large sections of the Black and Hispanic communities, it wont keep them either. I am pessimistic about it's population ever growing to levels I knew as a kid (3 million).

Sigh...I wish I was optimistic like everyone else, but like you, I just wish it would at least stability at this point. I'm also unsure of this though, since it has been declining consistently for so long

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

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.

Turns out you were right according to the 2011 estimate A 10,000 increase over the census is a plus. At this rate we will be back to 2.8 million by 2020. Now who actually believe that?


http://www.census.gov/popest/data/ci...EST2011-3.html


NYC continues to grow beyond all expectations....





Los Angeles is still doing it's thing, albeit a bit slower....





Houston is still closing in on us....





Just remember, the estimates did not place Chicago 200,000 below the estimates in 2009, so take these with a grain a salt. They are just guesses. But let's toast to the renewed population gain.

[stephen_g]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

I would be more concerned with places like Phoenix and Houston. Sprawl will not continue forever, and there are signs that my generation (I am 20) will prefer urban cores to subdivisions way out in cornfields. If that shift continues, here in the Midwest there will be one clear winner -- Chicago. .

New to the forum, was looking up facts about Chicago and even though this is an old thread I figured I would chime in. I currently live in Houston but am looking to get out as soon as possible. The sprawl has been out of control for a long time and is something I can no longer tolerate. In addition (or consequently) outside of a few very small spots it is a "dead city" in terms of vibrancy.

In reality it is a large (over 600 square miles) collection of suburbs with a line drawn around them. You can't truly compare populations unless you draw a 600+ square mile circle around some of the other cities this thread has been discussing.

[sloopchi]

A lower population isnt terrible. Its just the city readjusting itself. The plan of transformation for the CHA occurred during this past decade which probably caused a large decline in the black population. Next 10-15 years is where the city needs to set itself for future growth.

1) CPS: Needs a new plan
2) Jobs: Tech, finance, etc.
3) Added density in areas where people want to live.