Chicago. Isn't the loss of population, especially when compared to other big American cities, a clear sign of decline? (Time: neighborhoods, stats)

[grozny101]

Chicago. Isn't the loss of population, especially when compared to other big American cities, a clear sign of decline?

Per the US Census 2010 data between 1950 and 2010 Chicago lost almost a million of residents, a whopping 25% of it's population while the other big cities, both NYC and LA considerably grew and were never as densely populated and populous as today. Isn't that a sign that Chicago is showing signs of decline? What do you think and why? Please use some verifiable data to support your opinions on the subject. Thank you.

Data:

Chicago
Historical populations
Census Pop. %±
1840 4,470
—
1850 29,963 570.3%
1860 112,172 274.4%
1870 298,977 166.5%
1880 503,185 68.3%
1890 1,099,850 118.6%
1900 1,698,575 54.4%
1910 2,185,283 28.7%
1920 2,701,705 23.6%
1930 3,376,438 25.0%
1940 3,396,808 0.6%
1950 3,620,962 6.6%
1960 3,550,404 −1.9%
1970 3,366,957 −5.2%
1980 3,005,072 −10.7%
1990 2,783,726 −7.4%
2000 2,896,016 4.0%
2010 2,695,598 −6.9%


New York City:
Historical populations
Year Pop. *%±
1698 4,937 —
1712 5,840 18.3%
1723 7,248 24.1%
1737 10,664 47.1%
1746 11,717 9.9%
1756 13,046 11.3%
1771 21,863 67.6%
1790 33,131 51.5%
1800 60,515 82.7%
1810 96,373 59.3%
1820 123,706 28.4%
1830 202,589 63.8%
1840 312,710 54.4%
1850 515,547 64.9%
1860 813,669 57.8%
1870 942,292 15.8%
1880 1,206,299 28.0%
1890 1,515,301 25.6%
1900 3,437,202 126.8%
1910 4,766,883 38.7%
1920 5,620,048 17.9%
1930 6,930,446 23.3%
1940 7,454,995 7.6%
1950 7,891,957 5.9%
1960 7,781,984 −1.4%
1970 7,894,862 1.5%
1980 7,071,639 −10.4%
1990 7,322,564 3.5%
2000 8,008,288 9.4%
2010 8,175,133 2.1%

LA:
Historical populations
Year Pop. *%±
1850 1,610 —
1860 4,385 172.4%
1870 5,728 30.6%
1880 11,183 95.2%
1890 50,395 350.6%
1900 102,479 103.4%
1910 319,198 211.5%
1920 576,673 80.7%
1930 1,238,048 114.7%
1940 1,504,277 21.5%
1950 1,970,358 31.0%
1960 2,479,015 25.8%
1970 2,816,061 13.6%
1980 2,966,850 5.4%
1990 3,485,398 17.5%
2000 3,694,820 6.0%
2010 3,792,621 2.6%

[Justabystander]

No, Just a sign of gentrification, and a loss of public housing and african americans, who comprise almost 100 percent of the recent decline. Many areas are better now than ever.

[2Easy]

Nope. It's replacing quantity with quality. The quantity will come again too, but not as quickly as it might have in previous generations due to falling birth rates.

In general urban cities like LA, NY, Chicago, SF, etc are going to have to build like crazy just to not lose population because families are being replaced with households with no, or at least fewer, kids.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by grozny101

Chicago. Isn't the loss of population, especially when compared to other big American cities, a clear sign of decline?

Not necessarily.

It could mean that people are leaving the outlying neighborhoods while the downtown core itself is actually growing.

We've seen a lot of that in the 2010 Census where cities are either growing slowly or have shrank since 2000 but their downtown populations have soared during the same time period.

[Smtchll]

Originally Posted by Justabystander

No, Just a sign of gentrification, and a loss of public housing and african americans, who comprise almost 100 percent of the recent decline. Many areas are better now than ever.

No not really. I'm not sure about Chicago alone, but Cook County had a 3.4% decline in population from 2000-2010. The white population declined by 11%, the black population declined by 9%. The Hispanic & Asian populations grew by 16 & 24 percent though.

It could be a completely different story in the city of Chicago, but I highly doubt that African Americans were responsible for nearly 100% of the decline. Clearly a higher percentage of whites left Cook County than blacks

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com

[kidphilly]

Also household size has impacted many cities. And has been stated the composition of the city is changes; while some areas are in decline others are prospering more than ever before.

The short answer to the question is no it is not. Taken to a neighborhood by neighborhood level the answer will vary.

[chikid]

Originally Posted by thePR

Gonzo, don't you get tired of trolling? I know, mommy finally let you have access to a computer!

No worries. He will ignore what everyone said, ignore how dominant the polls are against what he is saying and continue to blab on.

He better hurry up and login to his other screen names and vote because he is not looking too good. Probably be able to add three votes with his three other names.

[grozny101]

Originally Posted by Justabystander

No, Just a sign of gentrification, and a loss of public housing and african americans, who comprise almost 100 percent of the recent decline. Many areas are better now than ever.

Can you quote / point to any data supporting this claim?

[west336]

The core of the core is fine, it's the rest (South and West Side) of the city that is declining, and THAT is real.

[chikid]

Originally Posted by grozny101

Chicago. Isn't the loss of population, especially when compared to other big American cities, a clear sign of decline?

Per the US Census 2010 data between 1950 and 2010 Chicago lost almost a million of residents, a whopping 25% of it's population while the other big cities, both NYC and LA considerably grew and were never as densely populated and populous as today. Isn't that a sign that Chicago is showing signs of decline? What do you think and why? Please use some verifiable data to support your opinions on the subject. Thank you.

Data:

Chicago
Historical populations
Census Pop. %±
1840 4,470
—
1850 29,963 570.3%
1860 112,172 274.4%
1870 298,977 166.5%
1880 503,185 68.3%
1890 1,099,850 118.6%
1900 1,698,575 54.4%
1910 2,185,283 28.7%
1920 2,701,705 23.6%
1930 3,376,438 25.0%
1940 3,396,808 0.6%
1950 3,620,962 6.6%
1960 3,550,404 −1.9%
1970 3,366,957 −5.2%
1980 3,005,072 −10.7%
1990 2,783,726 −7.4%
2000 2,896,016 4.0%
2010 2,695,598 −6.9%


New York City:
Historical populations
Year Pop. *%±
1698 4,937 —
1712 5,840 18.3%
1723 7,248 24.1%
1737 10,664 47.1%
1746 11,717 9.9%
1756 13,046 11.3%
1771 21,863 67.6%
1790 33,131 51.5%
1800 60,515 82.7%
1810 96,373 59.3%
1820 123,706 28.4%
1830 202,589 63.8%
1840 312,710 54.4%
1850 515,547 64.9%
1860 813,669 57.8%
1870 942,292 15.8%
1880 1,206,299 28.0%
1890 1,515,301 25.6%
1900 3,437,202 126.8%
1910 4,766,883 38.7%
1920 5,620,048 17.9%
1930 6,930,446 23.3%
1940 7,454,995 7.6%
1950 7,891,957 5.9%
1960 7,781,984 −1.4%
1970 7,894,862 1.5%
1980 7,071,639 −10.4%
1990 7,322,564 3.5%
2000 8,008,288 9.4%
2010 8,175,133 2.1%

LA:
Historical populations
Year Pop. *%±
1850 1,610 —
1860 4,385 172.4%
1870 5,728 30.6%
1880 11,183 95.2%
1890 50,395 350.6%
1900 102,479 103.4%
1910 319,198 211.5%
1920 576,673 80.7%
1930 1,238,048 114.7%
1940 1,504,277 21.5%
1950 1,970,358 31.0%
1960 2,479,015 25.8%
1970 2,816,061 13.6%
1980 2,966,850 5.4%
1990 3,485,398 17.5%
2000 3,694,820 6.0%
2010 3,792,621 2.6%

Quick question Gonzo. Going back to your stats, what exactly happened in the decade between 1990-2000 (I highlighted it in bold for you, cause I know you have difficulties). Their your stats, so is that a negative or positive number? Please answer it, I really want to see what you say.