San Francisco vs. Chicago vs. New York (living, compared, places)
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.
The boundaries of the census track do not correspond to the size of the downtown, and the placement of city hall is arbitrary, therefore the data can't be accurate. Couple this with people not agreeing on where downtown starts and ends over multiple cities and you are kind of in a weird zone, especially when trying to determine such small stats such as 50,000 new residents vs 40,000 new residents...
For all we know, NYC might have had more growth in an around their DT, and what DT are we talking about? NY City Hall is next to the World Trade Center... yeah, not many people living down there...
The boundaries of the census track do not correspond to the size of the downtown, and the placement of city hall is arbitrary, therefore the data can't be accurate. Couple this with people not agreeing on where downtown starts and ends over multiple cities and you are kind of in a weird zone, especially when trying to determine such small stats such as 50,000 new residents vs 40,000 new residents...
Granted, we can still collect data that gives a really good idea of population growth any downtown area based on the growth rates of individual census tracts, regardless as to how differently people disagree on exact borders.
I saw several articles around the time 2010 census data was released touting downtown growth across the country based on census tract data. It's not unheard of.
Granted, we can still collect data that gives a really good idea of population growth any downtown area based on the growth rates of individual census tracts, regardless as to how differently people disagree on exact borders.
I saw several articles around the time 2010 census data was released touting downtown growth across the country based on census tract data. It's not unheard of.
Not unheard of, but that particular release has discrepencies. Would be better to agree on an area and do it by hand.
Its not out of the question that Chicago pulled the greatest numbers, as there were more than 180 residential towers built within downtown from 2000-2010. Miami's numbers include a lot of towers outside downtown, (not to mention Miami has more of a problem filling its towers) and NYC's numbers include a greater percentage of office and hotel towers. I suppose someone could go on skyscraperpage.com and figure that out, but who's going to do it? And even if you undertake that task, it doesn't necessarily coincide with actual population growth.
Its not out of the question that Chicago pulled the greatest numbers, as there were more than 180 residential towers built within downtown from 2000-2010.
I think it's out of the question. NYC built roughly 4-5 times as much housing as Chicago during the same time period.
Even if we are to assume that a higher percentage of NYC housing is built outside the core (which is definitely true), Manhattan alone has permitted more units than the entire city of Chicago in recent years.
New York's mayor just came into office and has no record for us to judge compared to the other 2.
As far as SF, one thing I admire about Ed Lee is his focus on real estate development and giving tax incentives to businesses that keep them in town. Perhaps it's been too successful as high profile companies like Twitter and Salesforce are bringing a bunch of highly paid workers who are moving in and increasing the cost of living in The City, and affordability which was already a major issue in SF, is now even worse. That said, there are far worse predicaments for SF to be in.
So as far as business development and creating jobs, I give Ed Lee an A grade.
I don't know enough about how Rahm Emanuel to say how he's done, perhaps a Chicago former could inform us.
I think it's out of the question. NYC built roughly 4-5 times as much housing as Chicago during the same time period.
Even if we are to assume that a higher percentage of NYC housing is built outside the core (which is definitely true), Manhattan alone has permitted more units than the entire city of Chicago in recent years.
That boom has also slowed down dramatically in recent years. There's only been 5 or so residential towers completed since 2013 in downtown Chicago.
Is it leading to any interesting economic or cultural developments? I would think the ability to get relatively reasonable living expenses in a big, historic city would be good at nurturing new ideas.
I would suggest asking this on the Chicago forum. There are some posters there who are seemingly on top of all the new developments in the city, and they could give you a more in-depth response than I could.
I will say, on the positive side, that there has been a trend of companies moving their offices back into Chicago, which has been going on for awhile now, the unemployment rate is coming back down, and, from a cultural aspect, the construction on Maggie Daley Park (northern edge of Grant Park) has been ongoing in the Loop.
Besides that, the only other things coming up off the top of my head are the renovations, and possible expansion, of the L system, and the fact that the $500 million renovation of Wrigley Field got approved.
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.
