Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,707 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I know lots of people are annoyed at random pointless numbers, but I'm an accountant - so sue me.

I was just looking online and was curious as to the booms and busts the metro area has gone through since it was founded. I gathered these numbers and did a quick comparison.

CSA:

2010 | 10,138,379 | 9% | 824,124
2000 | 9,314,255 | 11% | 926,868
1990 | 8,387,387 | 01% | 122,897
1980 | 8,264,490 | 02% | 175,069
1970 | 8,089,421 | 12% | 885,223
1960 | 7,204,198 | 20% | 1,192,382
1950 | 6,011,816 | 16% | 844,037
1940 | 5,167,779 | 04% | 175,034
1930 | 4,992,745 | 28% | 1,086,771
1920 | 3,905,974 | 29% | 888,683
1910 | 3,017,291 | 29% | 686,128
1900 | 2,331,163 | 46% | 738,393
1890 | 1,592,770 | 68% | 645,406
1880 |.. 947,364 | 46% | 300,206
1870 |.. 647,158 | 70% | 266,895
1860 |.. 380,263 | 125% | 211,041
1850 |.. 169,222 | 237% | 119,029
1840 |... 50,193 | |

CSA WITHOUT COOK COUNTY (I did this because I was curious about the surrounding suburban areas health without the core county:

2010 | 4,907,754 | 25% | 972,240
2000 | 3,935,514 | 20% | 655,184
1990 | 3,280,330 | 9% | 269,495
1980 | 3,010,835 | 16% | 413,783
1970 | 2,597,052 | 25% | 522,579
1960 | 2,074,473 | 38% | 571,449
1950 | 1,503,024 | 36% | 398,587
1940 | 1,104,437 | 9% | 93,815
1930 | 1,010,622 | 18% | 157,665
1920 | 852,957 | 39% | 240,899
1910 | 612,058 | 24% | 119,630
1900 | 492,428 | 23% | 91,580
1890 | 400,848 | 18% | 61,008
1880 | 339,840 | 14% | 42,648
1870 | 297,192 | 26% | 61,883
1860 | 235,309 | 87% | 109,472
1850 | 125,837 | 151% | 75,644
1840 | 50,193 | |

It's interesting to see how rough the CSA did during the 70's and 80's. It bounced back to a fairly healthy level for the 90's and 2000's - but what do you think the future will hold? I doubt we'll ever see the %'s from the past, but the gross increases of around 1,000,000 are about as healthy as they've ever been.

It's also interesting to see how the outlying counties are growing at gross numbers that are at record highs - and even %'s that haven't been seen since the baby boomers.

I got the 2010 numbers for the outlying areas by taking the total estimate for 2010 (used the 2006 estimate and drew it out to 2010 based on 2000 actuals) by taking the estimated loss for Cook County from 2000 to 2010 and subtracting it from the whole amount for the CSA.

Do you think the loss for Cook is incorrect, or at least overstated? They're predicting a loss of almost 150,000 people. Aren't there quite a few areas left on the fringe of Cook that are growing at the present time? The county housed almost 250,000 more people in 2000 than it did in 1990.

Anyway, just interesting to see all the data going back to the 1840's....it sure grew fast back then!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
^^ will these lines reverse course? I think so huh
Neither likely nor desirable IMO. History has shown in numerous instances that a city's population can reach a critical mass beyond which the disadvantages of urban living begin to overtake the advantages. As to what that actual figure might be for Chicago, I've no inkling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,278 Posts
Do you think the loss for Cook is incorrect, or at least overstated? They're predicting a loss of almost 150,000 people. Aren't there quite a few areas left on the fringe of Cook that are growing at the present time? The county housed almost 250,000 more people in 2000 than it did in 1990.
Thanks for doing the research Chicagoago. Throughout the 90's the US census was estimating losses for Cook and the city of Chicago, and in the end, they gained population. In my opinion, because of rising property taxes throughout Cook, and gentrification (smaller households) within the city of Chicago, we will be hard pressed to make any significant gains. The collar counties (aside from DuPage), are growing at a pretty fast clip. DeKalb is booming, Will is growing extremely fast, and their cheaper homes, and lower property taxes are drawing many from Cook and Chicago. I don't think that we will be much different than the 2000 census though. Give or take 50,000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
I don't think the disadvantages are anywhere near overtaking the advantages in city living right now. no way.

edit: not even close actually, this city has a lot of room to grow.
Whoever suggested otherwise?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
The trend will more than likely continue. The city is no doubt better than it was 20 years ago, but that is due to more of the middle/upper classes moving back into the city. Gentrification has helped in a lot of areas, but it has led to a decrease in density in many of the neighborhoods. The same three flat currently housing 5 people that went condo five years ago might have housed 10 to 15 people in apartments in the mid-80s. We have significantly added to the housing stock in terms of total square feet of living space, but the additional square footage is offset by the amount of living space each person uses.

So the neighborhoods within 5 miles of downtown are probably about the same.

The loss is coming in the poorer neighboorhoods--esp in the west side, south side, and some of the interior suburbs. For every growing suburb within Cook County, you've got a Harvey that is in decline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
well nobody, but I thought you were suggesting that if the lines on the graph reversed (Chicago's population increased) you would think its neither likely nor desirable. I disgree, I think its both likely and desirable. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
No apology necessary. I was thinking outside the graph suggesting that population growth considered in abstracto and for its own sake might not prove desirable in the end. Only speculative musings aka hot air. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,862 Posts
why did the population of chicago start to fall around 1950? seems intersting to me because im sure the city of chicago will grow to bigger than that in the future.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
why did the population of chicago start to fall around 1950? seems intersting to me because im sure the city of chicago will grow to bigger than that in the future.
One anwser is White flight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

Luckily Chicago did not experience this to the degree of Detroit, otherwise...



effects of the phenomenon have been significant, particularly in the cities of Atlanta Philadelphia, Detroit, Memphis, Miami, Houston, Kansas City, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and New Orleans, all of which lost more than half of their white populations; but it has affected every metropolitan area in the United States.

The reverse of this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Not only white flight, but black flight is taking place as we speak. I know many individuals who have moved out to Aurora who use to live around the United Center, but when real estate prices started creaping up back in early 2000 had to leave because they could not afford it.

Also, when at O'Hare look at a map of Chicago 2030, the western burbs are practically in Dekalb. Oswego is going to be big, my wife and I just moved from Aurora to Sugar Grove, pop to reach around 60K in 2030, right now at around 9K. It sounds crazy, but in the last 5 years I think it has grown around 7K.

Most of the western and northwestern far suburbs, from Yorkville up to Huntley are kinda in a real estate recession. But in about 2 years things will change.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
why did the population of chicago start to fall around 1950? seems intersting to me because im sure the city of chicago will grow to bigger than that in the future.
i believe that Chicago's population decline is a meaningless statistic. It did not really break the most important trend in the history of both city and metro:

GROWTH OCCURS CHIEFLY ON THE PERIPHERY AS THE CITY SPREADS OUTWARD IN CONCENTRIC CIRCLES.


For much of the city's early history (19th century), those added concentric circles were in the city itself as areas north, west, and south grew and suburbs like Edison Park, Austin, or Rogers Park were annexed. When Chicago's growth solid growth hit the brick walls of Evanston and Oak Park, it was inevitable that the city population would decline because the periphery was now permanently outside of city limits.

The growth of auto usage after WWII aided the periphery in Chicago and all American cities. As auto usage becomes more impractical, it will be interesting to see that effect on the city. It will,no doubt, be significant, but I don't think it will be overwhelming. I can't forsee a massive back-to-the-city movement.

Let's not assign more importance to the governmental functions of the city. Chicago is more meaningful as a metropolitan area than as a city and the metro area has shown nothing but steady growth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I believe Chicago will rise again to about the 3,200,000 mark. Then kinda top off. The south loop alone is expected to grow by 300,000 in the next 10 years.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top