Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year, (Elmwood Park, Paris: house, taxes)

[MassVt]

I think that Chicagoland's Asian population is underestimated. It's quite large, and growing..

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by MassVt

I think that Chicagoland's Asian population is underestimated. It's quite large, and growing..

The Asian population is the fastest growing racial group in Chicago (perhaps the only one growing? Well White might be growing, but pretty low actually). Downtown actually has a pretty sizable Asian population now.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by AtlasTraveler

It all comes full circle. Look at Oakland and Brooklyn. Once in absolute decline and now they're the bell of the ball. Look at SF... Was in absolute decline and now it's the most expensive place in the U.S.

Chicago is a great city with amazing transportation. It is still a World City, etc.

Today in a meeting at my company in SF, one of our VPs was mentioning how Chicago is a steal. I have to agree. Economic exuberance always runs out and people become rational. Chicago real estate is an absolute steal and those buying it up will have their day.

I think that depends on where you buy. We have 77 Community Areas in this City. I informally just counted 29 that middle class and upper middle class people move to in any number. And I'm counting some of the NW side bungalow belt neighborhoods like Portage Park, which many feel are in decline, as well as tony areas which have always been desirable and are now extremely expensive, such as Lincoln Park and the Near North Side. Take those out of the mix and neighborhoods which are actually "turning around" are very few.

I think Chicago has a good future but there are no doubt challenges. Right now, it's not per se gloomy, but the optimism is limited to too few areas. Most of the south and west side are escaping reinvestment. Hopefully that changes.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I think that depends on where you buy. We have 77 Community Areas in this City. I informally just counted 29 that middle class and upper middle class people move to in any number. And I'm counting some of the NW side bungalow belt neighborhoods like Portage Park, which many feel are in decline, as well as tony areas which have always been desirable and are now extremely expensive, such as Lincoln Park and the Near North Side. Take those out of the mix and neighborhoods which are actually "turning around" are very few.

I think Chicago has a good future but there are no doubt challenges. Right now, it's not per se gloomy, but the optimism is limited to too few areas. Most of the south and west side are escaping reinvestment. Hopefully that changes.

The bungalow belt has ALWAY remained in good shape. The old Chicago notion has always been.... if a neighborhood has none whites there... it has declined. Portage Park even if it became ALL Latino? Does not mean in looks or vitality.... it has declined.

When I lived in Chicago in the 80s you were judged by how far north and west you lived. As Chicago has a great numbering system consistent throughout. Also if a neighborhood no longer hedged their sidewalk and front Lawn.... it was in decline too. That criteria is loooong over. But there is no reason... to call it declining if Latinos move in.... if crime greatly increased? Perhaps.

Compared to some Eastern cities of Row homes Big and Small. Chicago's majority of neighborhoods, LOOK GREAT YET.

Also one has to realize... the Bungalow belt DOES NOT GENTRIFY. Its too quasi-suburban to Young urban Professionals. They want the oldest and densest housing stock around the core and mass transit.

[edsg25]

Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year?

so, why the "only"? is it a negative that the city didn't grow? would it automatically be a negative if the city actually lost population? is perpetual growth a good thing? would Chicago be a better city if it grew to be 4,000,000 instead of 3,000,000? .Karachi, Pakistan, has a metro population of 20,000,000. since growth is great and growth must be constant, would it be great for Chicago when it reaches 20,000,000.

if there is a pissing contest going on and only NY and LA can outpiss us, should we worry about the day when Houston can, too?

are "bigger" and "taller" words that automatically convey a positive connotation?

Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year.
Should I (we) be hanging my (our) head(s) in shame?

we are currently well into the fifth mass extinction in earth's history, caused largely by our (mankind's) endless desire for bigger, taller, better, more, more more), so I have to wonder if in 100 or 150 years or so if any human is still alive, what will they think of our endless desire for growth, our concept of endless supplies for endless demands. indeed...what would they think of a statement like "Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year?"

[marothisu]

We should worry more about economics.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year?

so, why the "only"? is it a negative that the city didn't grow? would it automatically be a negative if the city actually lost population? is perpetual growth a good thing? would Chicago be a better city if it grew to be 4,000,000 instead of 3,000,000? .Karachi, Pakistan, has a metro population of 20,000,000. since growth is great and growth must be constant, would it be great for Chicago when it reaches 20,000,000.

if there is a pissing contest going on and only NY and LA can outpiss us, should we worry about the day when Houston can, too?

are "bigger" and "taller" words that automatically convey a positive connotation?

Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year.
Should I (we) be hanging my (our) head(s) in shame?

we are currently well into the fifth mass extinction in earth's history, caused largely by our (mankind's) endless desire for bigger, taller, better, more, more more), so I have to wonder if in 100 or 150 years or so if any human is still alive, what will they think of our endless desire for growth, our concept of endless supplies for endless demands. indeed...what would they think of a statement like "Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year?"

Well, if that's your angle, so long as this country is growing, better a city like Chicago, New York, or SF, where people can live without requiring as many resources as they would in the growing sunbelt cities.

Plus, pensions. Restructuring the pensions becomes more manageable if city, and tax base, is growing.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Well, if that's your angle, so long as this country is growing, better a city like Chicago, New York, or SF, where people can live without requiring as many resources as they would in the growing sunbelt cities.

Plus, pensions. Restructuring the pensions becomes more manageable if city, and tax base, is growing.

Yes, but there's also other factors. Property taxation for example - if you had 100 people move to the city and build $600K homes (valued at more than that actually), and you lost 150 people who had houses valued at $200K, you'd still be getting more tax revenue even though there's a net loss of 50 people.

[BRU67]

It also has to do with demographics. This has been said on here several times but I'll just say it again. In general, the more affluent households in our present economy tend to be small. So, when a low-moderate income family in Humboldt Park sells to a young yuppie couple and moves to Elmwood Park, and a similar thing is repeated several times in the same area (as will tend to happen), the population of the City will go down. That's not cause for panic but, rather, a simple representation of a changing reality.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BRU67

It also has to do with demographics. This has been said on here several times but I'll just say it again. In general, the more affluent households in our present economy tend to be small. So, when a low-moderate income family in Humboldt Park sells to a young yuppie couple and moves to Elmwood Park, and a similar thing is repeated several times in the same area (as will tend to happen), the population of the City will go down. That's not cause for panic but, rather, a simple representation of a changing reality.

Yeah, and at the same time it doesn't mean that the city will get less money from taxes or anything. The replacement people could merely spend more money on goods and services that are taxable than the family. You know - who knows how often it happens but it's definitely a reality in some senses.