Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
since you're interested in a raw number (as opposed to any distribution of people within the city), I'm forced to ask:
What do you want Chicago's population to be in 2015?
Generally speaking, that answer comes in the form of larger, smaller, or the same.
But for each, one still has to ask: why do you want that to happen?
Should I assume that "larger" is the answer we want and that happy predictions see a larger city while the smaller the number goes, the further it plunges into pessimism?
Are there advantages in a smaller city? Should tiny San Francisco with its 800,000 or so souls see itself as some sort of backwater with an embarrassing under-a-million population? Mumbai has a population of 12,478,447; that's an impressive 4.5 million or so bigger than NYC. Should I be impressed?
If we want Chicago bigger in 2012 or in the next census, 2020, should I assume that we will want to see growth continue in 2030, 2040, etc., and we'll never be pleased by anything else?k Is there a turn off switch? Would the turn off switch even work if my city sees other cities grow and decides it needs to counter with its own growth or fall into the category of also-rans?
If we measured population in inches, would it stand out more and be more impressive. "My city is bigger than your city"
Is losing population always a cause for shame?
If the world, through its long history of the human race, hit its first billion in what amounts to....well....yesterday....in comparative time.....about 1800 and hit its second little more than a century later around the time of the Great Depression. But today we see ourselves sitting on a planet with 7 billion, heading for, so we are told, some 10 billion at century's end....
is this a good thing for the human race?
And if we truly are having a tremendous effect on resources and climate (I, for the record, believe we are) so that our "supply" goes down just as the demand gets greater with all those Mumbai's out there growing like crazy in nations that were once "third world" but now are challenging us first world people (particularly in Europe and North America) for the precious resources left, is this a good thing?
I've asked this question many times here. But forgive me if I repeat myself:
the only thing I know that is based on endless growth is cancer, the result of which is it kills its host. Our host is mother earth and we are part and parcel of it, so ultimately i have to ask:
is all this wonderful growth going to kill us in the end (while making our lives miserable before the process is carried to its excruciating conclusion).
Since these times of later stage capitalism are certainly a huge factor in use of resources and population growth, is it truly a model for the future? Or the present? Are all -isms dangerous (communism surely was; is capitalism, too)? If capitalism requires, by definition, endless supplies for endless demands, is it compatible with a finite earth that operates in the realm of reality and within the laws of physics and supply and demand? If capitalism battles mother earth, who's going to win?
Of course, these are mostly questions I have posed here (not answers): you are free to answer them any way you wish or any way that makes you comfortable.
Population rise and fall is not much different than the ebb and flow of the ocean. The experts are currently telling us the cities that experienced significant loss to the suburbs 20-30 years ago are now experiencing a reverse flow back into the city. They cite factors such as cost of travel, distance and empty nesters.
If the experts are right I expect the City of Chicago to gain - but not a great deal. The City is saturated and there is not much room for expansion.
but wasn't the growth of suburbia fueled by the post WWII age of the automobile (and certainly the interstate highway system which didn't only connect us coast to coast, but also made for easy access from inner city to the edges of suburbia).
the economics of that great wave of suburban growth made economic sense at the time.
but what about today?
oil is either at or arguably beyond its peak. running an automobile is an expensive proposition.
If the 1950s-60s economically favored the periphery, does our current era favor the core? the core has excellent public transportation and a degree of centralization of employment that is unavailable elsewhere. No part of metro Chicago is better suited for this brave new world/brave new era than the city of Chicago itself.
Gurnee represents a gas pump as a slot machine.
Isn't there a higher price tag on south and west side real estate, just waiting for the reality to hit, the reality that says "this may be my best economic bet?" And I would imagine that if that were the case (and, yes, I believe it is) that the new growth will not mimic the old gentrification era, but will be more tipped towards affordability and middle class.
Imagine a one car family and that car not even bing used that much. Given the givens, I think that bodes very well for underutilized portions of Chicago.
I think it spells a lot of trouble for sun belt cities that seem to get a lot of praise here....you know, places like Atlanta.....where the transportation infrastructure is only a fraction of Chicago's (even though Atlanta may be well ahead of other southern or western growth centers with MARTA which, I believe, still gets by with only two lines).
And while others may disagree with me (and have), I'll take Chicago's attitude towards taxes and services, the commons, and the hand we all in quality of life over what I see in Sun Belt cities where those issues are not addressed very well.
In the long run, if I were to think of a city that I feel has a rather dim future, given this new era of ours, it would be a place like Houston, definitely not Chicago.
I agree that a bigger population doesn't necessarily mean better. However, without a growing/increasing population, I think people may get the impression that Chicago is falling behind, losing its importance, becoming washed-up, etc. Of course these are all impressions, and they are hard to change, but there is something to be said about impressions...
Population rise and fall is not much different than the ebb and flow of the ocean. The experts are currently telling us the cities that experienced significant loss to the suburbs 20-30 years ago are now experiencing a reverse flow back into the city. They cite factors such as cost of travel, distance and empty nesters.
If the experts are right I expect the City of Chicago to gain - but not a great deal. The City is saturated and there is not much room for expansion.
Except this only happened in NYC, Boston, SF, etc...And that loss started after WWII. While Chicago dropped about 200k people in the last census. Chicago will continue to get nicer in the core and on the north and near west/near south sides...yet the bad areas on the greater west/south sides are going to continue to bleed I think. NYC lost over 1 million people in a few decades, and gained them all back and then some. Chicago has lost over a million people also, but hasn't gained any of them back, and continues to lose. Not to be a pessimist, but it is true.
What do you mean by the city is saturated? It definitely isn't, it was 3.6 million at one point in a smaller city limits before the airport and NW side expansion. There are also former rail lines not even in use.
NYC had it's century peak population in 1950, bottomed out in population in 1980, and now is at an all time high population and has gained over 1 million people since then.
SF also had it's century peak population in 1950, bottomed out in 1980, and is at an all time high since then currently.
Boston also had it's century peak population in 1950, bottomed out in 1980, and while not back to it's all time high, has had steady *increases* in population since then.
Chicago is not like the same population curves as those cities. Chicago had it's century peak population in 1950, but has had steady decreases in all census numbers except one, which was probably an anomaly, hence why you get an over 200k drop in this last one. Chicago has yet to even bottom out, people are still leaving, and the south and west sides if you drive through them look more desolate by the year.
Again, not to be a pessimist, I am a realist, these cities are doing something else that Chicago isn't... the obvious ones are better job market, higher end and better paying jobs, better educational institutions, and a significantly lower crime problem. I'm sure there are others, but those are obvious.
Again, not to be a pessimist, I am a realist, these cities are doing something else that Chicago isn't... the obvious ones are better job market, higher end and better paying jobs, better educational institutions, and a significantly lower crime problem. I'm sure there are others, but those are obvious.
When you say "these cities are doing something else....", I have to wonder. I don't see much "doing" going on anywhere. Given the realities of today's economy, cities have trouble offering anything more than basic services, and really aren't doing well in those areas either.
Better educational systems? How? Do Boston, New York, or San Francisco public schools work? Hardly. And if educational systems are to mean higher education, then Chicago is hardly out of the loop by any measure. It is a higher education giant. It's top tier. Chicago doesn't take a back seat when it counters U of C and NU to Boston's Harvard and MIT, San Francisco's Stanford and Cal, and New York's Columbia and NYU.
Better job market? Do you really think there is any sense of reality in NYC's job market? It is so heavily based on finance, once a mere 7% of our economy (you know, back when the US actually worked) to a whooping 35% today. That finance is so out of whack to day is a huge reason this nation is in so much trouble. New York offers the most unsustainable economy imaginable because the smoke and mirrors that have held up finance as it has been so greedily and irresponsibly carried out can not be sustained. Detroit was the result of the collapse of industrial America which was built on solid ground (we shot ourselves in the foot when we allowed this golden egg to fade away); the economy that replaced that era, one of inequities and greed, finds NYC as its poster child....who is say that NYC won't face a similar fate?
The problem with charting different directions for New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago is that they are all in the same boat: a sinking American one. We are a nation and the health of our parts affect the whole. New York can't be healthy with a failed Detroit. Indeed, New York functioned at its prime, some half century back, far better because Detroit was robust at the time.
I'm sorry, but I don't see much doing the right thing going on in any of our cities nowadays; the capacity to do so isn't even there in with the austerity they create. And they get so tilted for towards the wealthy that that hardly brings success. I love San Francisco (as much as I love any city) and know it intimately, but SF's lack of economic diversity is no plus; it, too, is built on unreality and cannot be sustained.
It's fascinating to look at the 2010 census maps. They show you the exact rate of growth or decline of a tract's population, as well as its demographics.
I was amazed by the depopulation happening on the West and South Sides - a lot of neighborhoods losing 20-30% of their population in the last decade. But even more amazing was the growth of the population downtown, with some areas increasing by over 100%.
I know these general trends already, but it's interesting to see them graphically spelled out.
Except this only happened in NYC, Boston, SF, etc...And that loss started after WWII. While Chicago dropped about 200k people in the last census. Chicago will continue to get nicer in the core and on the north and near west/near south sides...yet the bad areas on the greater west/south sides are going to continue to bleed I think. NYC lost over 1 million people in a few decades, and gained them all back and then some. Chicago has lost over a million people also, but hasn't gained any of them back, and continues to lose. Not to be a pessimist, but it is true.
What do you mean by the city is saturated? It definitely isn't, it was 3.6 million at one point in a smaller city limits before the airport and NW side expansion. There are also former rail lines not even in use.
NYC had it's century peak population in 1950, bottomed out in population in 1980, and now is at an all time high population and has gained over 1 million people since then.
SF also had it's century peak population in 1950, bottomed out in 1980, and is at an all time high since then currently.
Boston also had it's century peak population in 1950, bottomed out in 1980, and while not back to it's all time high, has had steady *increases* in population since then.
Chicago is not like the same population curves as those cities. Chicago had it's century peak population in 1950, but has had steady decreases in all census numbers except one, which was probably an anomaly, hence why you get an over 200k drop in this last one. Chicago has yet to even bottom out, people are still leaving, and the south and west sides if you drive through them look more desolate by the year.
Again, not to be a pessimist, I am a realist, these cities are doing something else that Chicago isn't... the obvious ones are better job market, higher end and better paying jobs, better educational institutions, and a significantly lower crime problem. I'm sure there are others, but those are obvious.
Chicago had 3.6 million in an area minus the airport ohare neighborhood and what nw side neighborhoods? What was the land area in square miles before the annexation of those areas?
There are a lot of variables but I wouldn't expect much of a positive or negative change in population by 2015. Maybe a slight gain but probably not much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
