CHICAGO | General Developments

[denizen467]

Mr Downtown may have some creative thoughts on this. What will likely be the new Apple Store's address? Assuming 401 won't be shared, is there some geometric sleight of hand that could give them 399 ? Do you create a 401A? Or does everybody in 401 now have to change their address to 405 because some poor city planner didn't plan ahead?

I assume "151 Lower East North Water" would be as appealing to them as an iPhone with a trackball and headphone jack.

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Probably, although I don't know what they do with the Nike store (maybe they move across the street to the Crate & Barrel flagship?).

I do hope they allow someone to check out and document Malabry Court before anything is demolished. Fascinating article by Lynn here and photo here.

Malabry Court was demolished a couple years ago.

[marothisu]

Previously I put all the community area population changes in this thread. Just calculated density changes for each community area from 2010 to 2015. Now, for the 2010 numbers, I am going to use the American Community Survey (ACS) instead of Decennial Census. Why? The US Census has a not very well known caveat that they don't adjust numbers for the ACS based on the decennial census. So if one survey says a community area is 2000 people while a few years later it says it's 4000 people, the census then thinks it gained 2000 people regardless of what the 2010 decennial census said. The numbers I posted were Decennial versus ACS, so slightly different than this. Some of the top 10 are the same. Loop is still #1 no matter what, but more like +3500 ppsm if you compare it to the decennial census.

Top gainers of density:
1. Loop: +8646.6 people/sq mi
2. Near North Side: +3522.3 ppsm
3. Near South Side: +2524.1 ppsm
4. Near West Side: +2107.3 ppsm
5. Woodlawn: +1368.9 ppsm
6. Bridgeport: +1119.5 ppsm
7. Washington Park: +1094 ppsm
8. West Elsdon: +1086.5 ppsm
9. Gage Park: +1057 ppsm
10. Oakland: +1012.4 ppsm


Top losers of density:
1. Englewood: -2245.7 ppsm
2. West Englewood: -2082.6 ppsm
3. Auburn Gresham: -1904.7 ppsm
4. Burnside: -1354.4 ppsm
5. South Chicago: -1313.9 ppsm
6. Chatham: -1248.2 ppsm
7. West Garfield Park: -1230.1 ppsm
8. West Pullman: -1167.4 ppsm
9. Roseland: -1069.4 ppsm
10. Edgewater: -1006.3 ppsm


Also, according to my calculations - Near West, Near South, Near North, and Loop combined increased in density by 3363.5 ppsm in the same time period. If you compare to the decennial census then it went up 1473.8 ppsm.

[Randomguy34]

I'm not that surprised seeing Bridgeport, Gage Park, and West Eldson having one of the largest gains in density, since they are already/becoming immigrant hubs of the city. What I'm surprised to see is that Woodlawn, Washington Park, and Oakland on the list, all Mid-South Side neighborhoods. I guess that their population was so bottomed out to begin with that any increase on people is going to result in a larger percentage density gain. However, it should still be surprising because of the fact that they are now increasing on population. This should be expected for Woodlawn given all the investments being put into the neighborhood over the next couple of years, but I want to see how Washington Park and Oakland will continue growing

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I'm not that surprised seeing Bridgeport, Gage Park, and West Eldson having one of the largest gains in density, since they are already/becoming immigrant hubs of the city. What I'm surprised to see is that Woodlawn, Washington Park, and Oakland on the list, all Mid-South Side neighborhoods. I guess that their population was so bottomed out to begin with that any increase on people is going to result in a larger percentage density gain. However, it should still be surprising because of the fact that they are now increasing on population. This should be expected for Woodlawn given all the investments being put into the neighborhood over the next couple of years, but I want to see how Washington Park and Oakland will continue growing

It really depends on what you're comparing to. For example, if you compare to 2010 ACS, then it says Woodlawn grew by over 2800 people. If you compare it to the Decennial it says it grew by just under 500 people. There are some that you don't even know what to make of. Logan Square for example versus the ACS, it lost just over 900 people, but versus the decennial census it gained just over 950 people.

Of course these are estimates, and should be taken with a slight grain of salt I think. If you compare the 2010 ACS with 2010 decennial census, some tracts in the city were estimated spot on as far as population count goes. I think one tract in Jefferson Park was estimted within 2 or 5 people for a tract of something like 5000 or 6000 people which is quite amazing. However, some of them specifically downtown were really far off. There's 3 tracts that make up the Loop for example which were under estimated by 6090 people in the 2010 ACS versus the official census. Nothing in Near North that bad except one tract which was under estimated by about 1100 people.

The issue though in the end is that the Census doesn't adjust anything for the ACS. If the decennial census states that some tract had 2000 people, but the ACS for 2010 said 3000, then the next ACS (2011) wouldn't be adjusted for what they found out to be the actual count. They just go on assuming that it always had 3000 people. Pretty much every news agency in the entire country gets this wrong when they say "X city grew by ____ people between 2010 and 2015" when they compare it to the decennial census. If you ask the Census about that, they'd say to be very careful. Near North Side was under estimated by 4000 people in 2010. Since then, the US Census estimates a population of just over 85,000 people. It is very possible that the real population of Near North Side is closer to 90,000 and not 85,000.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Presumably the obvious practical solution then would be to depress Metra beneath the SCAL, like Ryanrule suggested, which sounds win-win (though expensive).

Not sure what can be done here practically. You can't depress anything here because of the Red Line subway.

Elevating the Rock Island might work - it's passenger-only, and you could build new underpasses as part of the project. But you might run into a conflict with the elevated Orange Line tracks at 18th.

Probably the most obvious solution is to elevate the SCAL, but you'd need to elevate for probably 1/2 mile on either side of the crossing, which means the construction would go all the way to Indiana on the east and Canal on the west. Plus it would require a new river bridge at a higher elevation.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Not sure what can be done here practically. You can't depress anything here because of the Red Line subway.

Elevating the Rock Island might work - it's passenger-only, and you could build new underpasses as part of the project. But you might run into a conflict with the elevated Orange Line tracks at 18th.

Probably the most obvious solution is to elevate the SCAL, but you'd need to elevate for probably 1/2 mile on either side of the crossing, which means the construction would go all the way to Indiana on the east and Canal on the west. Plus it would require a new river bridge at a higher elevation.

Elevating SoCal from Indiana, means going up and over Red Line.. That seem like a steep climb for a line that still carries some freight....
Rather begin an elevation of the Rock Island metra just north of 18th. And bring it over CN/SoCal. After all it's the Rock Island that needs to be moved west away from Clark. Might as well put the infrastructure $$ on that line. Like MrDT said, CN wont be a willing partner on this junction project.

[Randomguy34]

I'm surprised this wasn't posted

Sterling Bay completes deal for massive Finkl Steel site

Real estate developer Sterling Bay has wrapped up its long-expected purchase of the former A. Finkl & Sons steel property, taking a major step toward what could be one of the largest North Side real estate developments in generations.
...
An exact price could not yet be found in Cook County property records, but it is believed to be well above $100 million. The approximately 22-acre site is along Cortland Street and the eastern edge of the Chicago River.
...
35 ACRES AND COUNTING

Including the Finkl deal, Sterling Bay has assembled about 35 acres of land along the river, from Cortland to Webster Avenue about a half-mile north, and is believed to be eyeing other sites.

The Chicago developer has yet to unveil specific plans for the massive development, which could cost more than $1 billion. In September, Managing Director Andy Gloor said the firm plans a “moderately dense” mix of commercial, retail and residential space, while also looking to extend the 606 elevated trail onto the riverfront site....

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale..._medium=Social

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Elevating SoCal from Indiana, means going up and over Red Line.. That seem like a steep climb for a line that still carries some freight....

I think you mean the Green Line. You're right, I had forgotten about that.

Rather begin an elevation of the Rock Island metra just north of 18th. And bring it over CN/SoCal.

This isn't really feasible either. You have to descend from +25' to 0' in 1100' of length in order to fit under the Orange Line viaduct at 18th. That's a grade of 2.3% which is well over the standard for mainline rail.

Unfortunately it may not be possible to grade-separate this junction due to the knot of CTA lines to the east, south, and directly below... If freight was removed from the SCAL permanently and it was converted to electrified operation with lightweight, high-performance rolling stock, then maybe you could elevate the SCAL with steeper grades.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

Malabry Court was demolished a couple years ago.

Didn't know that. Well that sucks - demo away, I guess.

----
2016 Rice - 8 units

[the urban politician]

Surprised nobody posted Greg Hinz's article about ACS data for Chicago's population.

Props to Marothisu for posting it first, but lots of great stuff there.

Central area population growth is actually accelerating, and is now double the rate that it was 2000-2010. Craziness, although not surprising

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Surprised nobody posted Greg Hinz's article about ACS data for Chicago's population.

Props to Marothisu for posting it first, but lots of great stuff there.

Central area population growth is actually accelerating, and is now double the rate that it was 2000-2010. Craziness, although not surprising

Yep. Some of us data nerds in the area crunching these numbers. I was looking at some median household income data - change from 2014 to 2015 in some tracts look not very trustworthy? Or just hard to believe. There were a few handfuls of tracts which increased their median household income by like $20K - $30K in a year, and some that lost around that much too (maybe not as many that gained). Kind of crazy. Am curious as of the mean household income gains in those tracts.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yep. Some of us data nerds in the area crunching these numbers. I was looking at some median household income data - change from 2014 to 2015 in some tracts look not very trustworthy? Or just hard to believe. There were a few handfuls of tracts which increased their median household income by like $20K - $30K in a year, and some that lost around that much too (maybe not as many that gained). Kind of crazy. Am curious as of the mean household income gains in those tracts.

Doing the math from Hinz's article, there was a net gain of 14,221 people...?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Doing the math from Hinz's article, there was a net gain of 14,221 people...?

Somewhere around there... basically the areas like Englewood, West Englewood, GGC, Auburn Gresham, etc are erasing the gains of the central area/north side. It's completely a tale of two cities. According to my calculations, the north side and central area together, with a population over 1.3 million people has increased 3.6% in population since 2010. That's about 1% less than all of NYC and a little less than Indianapolis. Not amazing, but certainly not terrible. On the flip side, the big area that is Englewood et al decreased by a little over 9% which is bad. That area has a population of about 485,000.

[the urban politician]

So Chicago's core, already the fastest growing in the country from 2000-2010, is now growing double as fast? And incomes going up?

I wish the media would talk about this instead of all the negatives all of the time.

[emathias]

Nice leprechauns ...

Originally Posted by spyguy

...
2016 Rice - 8 units

...

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yep. Some of us data nerds in the area crunching these numbers. I was looking at some median household income data - change from 2014 to 2015 in some tracts look not very trustworthy? Or just hard to believe. There were a few handfuls of tracts which increased their median household income by like $20K - $30K in a year, and some that lost around that much too (maybe not as many that gained). Kind of crazy. Am curious as of the mean household income gains in those tracts.

At the tract level you have a hard time getting an honest conclusion from the estimates, because the margin of error swamps any changes over the previous year.

Even at the Community area level it's still daunting.
For the instance, the Logan Square population shows an increase of 494, but when you figure the MOE, that number is +-1762.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

At the tract level you have a hard time getting an honest conclusion from the estimates, because the margin of error swamps any changes over the previous year.

Even at the Community area level it's still daunting.
For the instance, the Logan Square population shows an increase of 494, but when you figure the MOE, that number is +-1762.

Generally, Chicago metro median income is rising, which is the most important. Of course, driving down to small sub sections will have more margin for error.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

At the tract level you have a hard time getting an honest conclusion from the estimates, because the margin of error swamps any changes over the previous year.

Even at the Community area level it's still daunting.
For the instance, the Logan Square population shows an increase of 494, but when you figure the MOE, that number is +-1762.

Yep. You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt. It is afterall just estimates. They might be in a way accurate, but maybe not. The 2010 ACS under estimated some tracts downtown really badly for example. The estimates were off by something like 4000 people in Near North Side and I think 10,000 people in the Loop. Depending on what you compare the 2015 data to, the central area either gained 20K some people or 40K some people. Either way it's great growth. At the worst case, it's basically at the same growth rate as 2000-2010. At best case, it's double.

[ithakas]

The news from the ACS study about the growth downtown seems to reflect what some of us were recently discussing anecdotally about the increasing vibrancy of downtown and the Loop in particular.

Interestingly, it seems like there was a lot less new construction from 2010-2013, with the bulk of new units coming in the past year or two. Given what's been built over the last year and what's still in the pipeline, I could see the next five years beating that period.