will Chicago (city) ever see a population boom again?

[prelude91]

Im sure this topic has been brought up before, but I ask this question, as I am doing some research for a class I am taking (just started Grad School)...

From 1950-2006 Chicago has lost more people than any other city in the country not named Detroit.

Chicago -800,000
Philly -600,000
NYC +400,000
Boston -210,000
DC -215,000
LA +2,000,000
SF -35,000
Detroit -900,000
Baltimore -300,000


New York City and LA will most likely continue to grow. Why can't Chicago keep people like NYC and LA? Considering how cheap it is to live in Chi. Obviously the metro area will continue to grow at a decent pace, but is there any hope of Chicago seeing a population boom?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Im sure this topic has been brought up before, but I ask this question, as I am doing some research for a class I am taking (just started Grad School)...

From 1950-2006 Chicago has lost more people than any other city in the country not named Detroit.

Chicago -800,000
Philly -600,000
NYC +400,000
Boston -210,000
DC -215,000
LA +2,000,000
SF -600,000
Detroit -900,000
Baltimore -300,000


New York City and LA will most likely continue to grow. Why can't Chicago keep people like NYC and LA? Considering how cheap it is to live in Chi. Obviously the metro area will continue to grow at a decent pace, but is there any hope of Chicago seeing a population boom?

I don't see any huge growth in Chicago's population. And while this wouldn't be true of so many cities, especially those that bleed population, Chicago's lack of ability to grow stems from its very financial successes.

Chicago is expensive. It is geared more to single people or married couples without children than for families. You may have more housing units, but fewer residences per unit. Chicago's population figures which are static reflect what in nations we see as a sign of success: low birth rate.

In essence, I don't see many parts of Chicago growing than I do Manhattan or San Francisco.

As for the other aspect of the NYC/LA comparison, I do believe Chicago is fundamentally different from both cities. Of all US cities, i don't believe any provide a transition zone that in most cities woud be considered the inner ring of suburbs and even a ring or two past.

Chicago has no four boroughs removed from Manhattan or the further flung sections of LA like the San Fernando Valley which are a part of LA, but not really "of" it.

Chicago's fringe suburban areas like Sauganash or Forest Glen can not be compared to the NY/LA model.

Global cities become more concerned about who is moving into them than with sheer numbers. The creative, entrependerial, financing (etc.) classes are what fuels the economy in Chgo and cities like it.

I doubt that we will ever look at city populalation again as being that saliant...either in Chicago or in far smaller but highly potent places like Boston and San Francisco.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Chicago is expensive. It is geared more to single people or married couples without children than for families. You may have more housing units, but fewer residences per unit. Chicago's population figures which are static reflect what in nations we see as a sign of success: low birth rate.

I disagree. Chicago is not an expensive city to live in. The avg home price is under $300k. No way is Chicago geared toward single people or people w/out children. Most of the city is single family homes. Most people in Chicago don't live in highrises or along the lake front.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I disagree. Chicago is not an expensive city to live in. The avg home price is under $300k. No way is Chicago geared toward single people or people w/out children. Most of the city is single family homes. Most people in Chicago don't live in highrises or along the lake front.

Although cheaper than both coasts it is by no means an inexpensive city. It's still a good deal by comparison, but not cheap. Also it is becoming more appealing for single folks and empty nesters. That's what fueled the whole central area and adjacent community areas boom over the past decade. Even the mid southside growth communities (Kenwood, Oakland) saw many more singles or married without kids moving into those areas. I am not saying that some families did not move into those areas but, the majority of new residents did not have kids or were single black women with one kid.

[The Urban Politician]

While I don't see a population boom happening (would you consider what is happening in NYC right now a boom? I don't), I do believe Chicago's population will start inching its way up again eventually, if not already. Lets not forget that we really can't trust these Census estimates until we get the full count in 2010.

[WesternburbsTony23]

Chicago is a midwestern city. Let's first all rememeber that and for the midwest, it is an expensive city to live in. The west side out by Austin is depressed as well as many south side area. Yes the near west side has really "boomed," but this has kicked out lots of its residents to Aurora, Maywood, etc.

The burbs have continued to grow and right now are at a standstill with the economic housing crisis, espeically for new construction. Whend the cycle ends look for much growth in Kane, Will, Mchenry counties, far more than Cook and Chicago alone.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I disagree. Chicago is not an expensive city to live in. The avg home price is under $300k. No way is Chicago geared toward single people or people w/out children. Most of the city is single family homes. Most people in Chicago don't live in highrises or along the lake front.

Inner ring Chicago is expensive and Chicago is expensive by non-coastal standards. I'm not suggesting that Chicago doesn't have a large stock of single family homes. Nor do I think the lakefront high rises dominate the city. I am suggesting that the advantages of living in Chicago and to high powered cities like it often accrue more to singles and people married without children. And again, I don't think this is any different from major cities world wide in this respect.

And I do believe as I said that NY and LA are unusual in the sense that they have transitonal zones that Chicago and other cities do not have.

[cbotnyse]

I think we have a great chance of a population boom if we get the games of 2016.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

While I don't see a population boom happening (would you consider what is happening in NYC right now a boom? I don't), I do believe Chicago's population will start inching its way up again eventually, if not already. Lets not forget that we really can't trust these Census estimates until we get the full count in 2010.

No, I don't consider NYC as having a boom, but it is growing in population. I hope your right about the The Census. It would really annoy me if that, over 10 years Chicago looses 85,000 people, or some stupid number like that

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

Although cheaper than both coasts it is by no means an inexpensive city. It's still a good deal by comparison, but not cheap. Also it is becoming more appealing for single folks and empty nesters. That's what fueled the whole central area and adjacent community areas boom over the past decade. Even the mid southside growth communities (Kenwood, Oakland) saw many more singles or married without kids moving into those areas. I am not saying that some families did not move into those areas but, the majority of new residents did not have kids or were single black women with one kid.

Well, considering Chicago is a fine world class city, I think it is cheap. I can't think of a city that is a better bargain than Chicago, considering what it has to offer.
Even with the "central area boom", I would wager that the population of that area is about the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Inner ring Chicago is expensive and Chicago is expensive by non-coastal standards. I'm not suggesting that Chicago doesn't have a large stock of single family homes. Nor do I think the lakefront high rises dominate the city. I am suggesting that the advantages of living in Chicago and to high powered cities like it often accrue more to singles and people married without children. And again, I don't think this is any different from major cities world wide in this respect..

A good chunk of our Major Cities are on the coast, so I think that makes Chicago inexpensive. Even so, leave the inner ring Chicago, and the prices of a home are very cheap (by anybody standards).
Families keep moving to LA and NY, I hate using that comparison, but how are they different for families than CHicago?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I think we have a great chance of a population boom if we get the games of 2016.

I don't understand the relationship between winning the Olympics and a population boom in Chicago?

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I don't understand the relationship between winning the Olympics and a population boom in Chicago?

Simply because winning the bid is a ton of worldwide advertising for Chicago. We will get enormous amounts of tourisits from all over the country and world, and some might like what they see.

I'm not saying its a certainty, but it wouldn't hurt.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

Simply because winning the bid is a ton of worldwide advertising for Chicago. We will get enormous amounts of tourisits from all over the country and world, and some might like what they see.

I'm not saying its a certainty, but it wouldn't hurt.

I definitley agree that it will be great for the city. I just don't see a couple hundred thousand people moving to the city simply b/c of the Olympics.

I think a more realistic concept, maybe be the Olympics will help revitalize portions of the South Side, making the area more attractive to families???

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I definitley agree that it will be great for the city. I just don't see a couple hundred thousand people moving to the city simply b/c of the Olympics.

I think a more realistic concept, maybe be the Olympics will help revitalize portions of the South Side, making the area more attractive to families???

Sure, but can you point to anything that would make a couple hundred thousand people move here?

My hope is the Olympics will revitalize many aspects of the city such as infrastructure and transportation. Things that will directly facilitate in the city's growth.

[svs]

I wouldn't bet on the Olympics making much of a difference but as the price of Gas and heating oil increases, multifamily dwellings and higher density housing closer to the city core is going to look a lot more attractive. As more high rises are built in the city center, Chicago's population is likely to rise. I don't think too many people are going to want to commute from Rockford.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by svs

I wouldn't bet on the Olympics making much of a difference but as the price of Gas and heating oil increases, multifamily dwellings and higher density housing closer to the city core is going to look a lot more attractive. As more high rises are built in the city center, Chicago's population is likely to rise. I don't think too many people are going to want to commute from Rockford.

c'mon, svs, we all know you have been trying to correct that mistake of leaving heaven-on-the-lake to head to the-land-of-fruits-and-nuts for an eternity now and that buying that 2 bedroom ranch in Rockford is now your only opporutnity to get into the Chicagoland real estate game. you know it's just killing you not to have the opporunity to sit by the faux fireplace with its paper "flame" from December through February will the snow, wind, and cold air rustle outside your cozy door.

[edsg25]

Who cares what the population of Chicago is. Chicagoland's 9 million or so residents are a pretty large and potent mix. Do urbanities living in Evanston or Oak Park not add to Chicago's urban nature? What does it really matter where city limits are drawn. If we're not "in" Chicago, we sure are a part of it.

[prelude91]

Are you saying it doesn't negativley effect Chicago that thousands of people flee the city for the suburbs? Bottom line is Evanston and Oak Park (which are only 2 of many suburbs) are still SUBURBS. Families who leave Chicago for Oak Park or Evanston or Hinsdale or wherever, HURT the city.

The census data is used to distribute federal funds for different programs such as Transportation. A higher U.S. Census Bureau estimated population count can result in an increase in federal funding.

Not to mention the abandoned neighborhoods that are left to sit with tons of empty lots. Walk through Roseland, Inglewood, Riverdale, or basically any Far South or West Side Neighborhood. They are all dead neighborhoods. Good thing the city can hide behind its nice skyline

[svs]

Originally Posted by edsg25

c'mon, svs, we all know you have been trying to correct that mistake of leaving heaven-on-the-lake to head to the-land-of-fruits-and-nuts for an eternity now and that buying that 2 bedroom ranch in Rockford is now your only opporutnity to get into the Chicagoland real estate game. you know it's just killing you not to have the opporunity to sit by the faux fireplace with its paper "flame" from December through February will the snow, wind, and cold air rustle outside your cozy door.

You know Ed I was just back in Chicago around the beginning of the month certainly enjoying the crisp brisk Chicago air and all that white stuff on the ground. What do you call it? We don't have too much of it in Santa Monica.

You're right as I look out on my garden seeing the roses come into bloom and the blossums on the fruit trees in back back yard, gazing at the San Gabriel mountains in the background and watching the Sun set in the Pacific I realize all that I have been missing from Chicago. Mufflers, galoshes, snow tires, mittens, frostbite. I will have to forego the cozy ranch in Rockford and settle for my little three bedroom, streamside, canyon home here in the West. Think I am going to go outside and pick couple of oranges to drown my sorrow.