Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year, (Nashville, Kansas: versus, oil)

[Vicman]

I notice people are arguing over what social class people left and how many whites left, etc.

I'm wondering if there were some European immigrant holdouts (by Midway?) and/or remaining middle class areas at the edge of the city that are becoming poorer?

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Vicman

I notice people are arguing over what social class people left and how many whites left, etc.

I'm wondering if there were some European immigrant holdouts (by Midway?) and/or remaining middle class areas at the edge of the city that are becoming poorer?

Used to be Polish Highlanders by Midway, thus the restaurant on Archer.

There are likely a handful of stragglers but probably very few left, relatively speaking.

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by thefallensrvnge

Well if it's anything like some of the other Right-to-Work states I've lived in, you get paid little to live in cheap, crappy housing with most of your taxes not going towards benefits or infrastructure. Most of it goes towards paying off the taxes incentives businesses used to relocate and build there which they horde and refuse to invest in city infrastructure. So basically you begin to a get a city that looks like unzoned suburbia that grows through annexation because it lack the structural density to grow any other way.

Not to say that Chicago is doing it perfectly either, cause it's not. But the "miracle of the Sun-belt" has been one large screw-over for the American worker imo.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by compactspace

I would agree with this.

If Chicago can get its fiscal house in order, rein in its NIMBYs and fend off suburban-themed developments then it should see a renaissance. That said, it needs people. Soon.

The city has such great potential for vibrancy and street-life. It's reasonably priced and largely very urban. And there's so much beautiful housing stock, well-connected to transit, that's lying fallow. Much of it would be perfect for law-abiding working class and creative class people looking for the urban life that's so rare in the States. (Sunbelt cities are not the pattern to follow. Right-wingery scares off talented people.)

Make it happen, Chicago.

What? right wingery scares off talented people? So conservative regions like Texas and Salt Lake City aren't doing well? Not that case.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by compactspace

I would agree with this.

If Chicago can get its fiscal house in order, rein in its NIMBYs and fend off suburban-themed developments then it should see a renaissance. That said, it needs people. Soon.

The city has such great potential for vibrancy and street-life. It's reasonably priced and largely very urban. And there's so much beautiful housing stock, well-connected to transit, that's lying fallow. Much of it would be perfect for law-abiding working class and creative class people looking for the urban life that's so rare in the States. (Sunbelt cities are not the pattern to follow. Right-wingery scares off talented people.)

Make it happen, Chicago.

What? right wingery scares off talented people? So conservative regions like Texas and Salt Lake City aren't doing well? Not the case.

[compactspace]

Originally Posted by DougStark

What? right wingery scares off talented people? So conservative regions like Texas and Salt Lake City aren't doing well? Not the case.

Words like 'all' and 'none' are not much use in sociology. But I draw your attention to NYC, Boston, SF, LA, Seattle and DC. What place in supply-side America has anything like the creative or productive output of these? These places attract and retain the best because of, not despite, their liberal values.

They've been bleeding off disgruntled, tax-hating conservatives for decades. This has neither benefited supply-side America, nor hurt the liberal cities. SF's tax money, moreover, goes to help the poor in Kansas along with its own poor.

And Texas, despite its billionaires, huge cities and immense oil wealth, barely breaks even with contributions to the Union versus draining the federal coffers.

Red states lose their best and brightest to liberal powerhouses. If it wants to attract and keep talent Chicago needs to look to those cities, not conservative America.

Losing people who hate moochers and unions hasn't hurt NY and if the city acts strategically, it won't hurt Chicago.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by compactspace

Words like 'all' and 'none' are not much use in sociology. But I draw your attention to NYC, Boston, SF, LA, Seattle and DC. What place in supply-side America has anything like the creative or productive output of these? These places attract and retain the best because of, not despite, their liberal values.

They've been bleeding off disgruntled, tax-hating conservatives for decades. This has neither benefited supply-side America, nor hurt the liberal cities. SF's tax money, moreover, goes to help the poor in Kansas along with its own poor.

And Texas, despite its billionaires, huge cities and immense oil wealth, barely breaks even with contributions to the Union versus draining the federal coffers.

Red states lose their best and brightest to liberal powerhouses. If it wants to attract and keep talent Chicago needs to look to those cities, not conservative America.

Losing people who hate moochers and unions hasn't hurt NY and if the city acts strategically, it won't hurt Chicago.

LOL. And they just all happen to be coastal metropolises.

I'm not sure the fact that you can't recreate NYC in Nebraska is proof of NY's superior politics.

[TheSunshineKid]

Originally Posted by compactspace

Words like 'all' and 'none' are not much use in sociology. But I draw your attention to NYC, Boston, SF, LA, Seattle and DC. What place in supply-side America has anything like the creative or productive output of these? These places attract and retain the best because of, not despite, their liberal values.

They've been bleeding off disgruntled, tax-hating conservatives for decades. This has neither benefited supply-side America, nor hurt the liberal cities. SF's tax money, moreover, goes to help the poor in Kansas along with its own poor.

And Texas, despite its billionaires, huge cities and immense oil wealth, barely breaks even with contributions to the Union versus draining the federal coffers.

Red states lose their best and brightest to liberal powerhouses. If it wants to attract and keep talent Chicago needs to look to those cities, not conservative America.

Losing people who hate moochers and unions hasn't hurt NY and if the city acts strategically, it won't hurt Chicago.

What are these liberal values you speak off?

What's "right-wingery" and what makes it so scary that "the best and the brightest" are afraid of such a place"? I thought liberals were brave people exploring the unknown and known.

[compactspace]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

LOL. And they just all happen to be coastal metropolises.

I'm not sure the fact that you can't recreate NYC in Nebraska is proof of NY's superior politics.

Coastal has nothing to do with it. Politics and demographics have everything to do with it. For a smaller, non coastal example, look at Minneapolis. Growing and retaining the right people.

[compactspace]

Originally Posted by TheSunshineKid

What are these liberal values you speak off?

What's "right-wingery" and what makes it so scary that "the best and the brightest" are afraid of such a place"? I thought liberals were brave people exploring the unknown and known.

Slim-to-nonexistent public services like healthcare for the poor. Conservative social policies on abortion and discrimination. Lack of workplace rights. Rejection of public amenities that lift the whole city, like public transit, in favour of lower taxes. A presumption of car-driven suburbia (SFHs with grass) as the default urban design, despite its catastrophic environmental impact and unsustainability.

Most importantly, and pervasively, a belief that public spaces are unimportant, which leads to ugliness, blight, sterility and the entrenchment of cultural wasteland.

As I said, people who prefer the Phoenix model have been moving to Phoenix for decades. No loss for any liberal city, including Chicago.

If, on the other hand, Chicago caves into the supply-siders and turns itself into Indiana or Kansas, then people will flee to where the politics matches their own. Worse, over the long term, the talent of the Midwest chasing the urban life will shrug and simply move to NYC. Because why choose Chicago when it's no different than Indianapolis?