Chicago: a tale of seven cities
 

an interesting piece on current demographic trends in Chicago from the Sun-Times.

the biggest things to note are the large population swings in the northside and the south lakefront so far this decade compared to 2000 - 2010.


full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...ity-crossroads

Why is the Far West side separated into two sections and one part not simply a part of SW side?

Probably because the West Side is almost entirely black and pretty bombed-out, while the SW side is overwhelmingly Mexican and quite vibrant.

You cross railroad tracks in Little Village and it's a dramatic change.

do you mean the Far Southwest Side?

Ed probably segregated them out and placed them together because they are whiter, wealthier, and more "cops & firemen"* than the more working class areas they are immediately adjacent to.



(*) the city of chicago has a residency requirement for all city workers, and many of these folks flock to the very extreme edges of the northwest and southwest sides.

I-294 is a barrier that keeps the density and demographics different in these two areas. More black residents on the west side, Hispanic residents on the southwest side. Near Southwest side is much denser plus feels more a part of the city than the far southwest side, which is more leafy residential.

City-proper Chicago is 227.34 square land miles and most of that land is on what's considered the "south side" generally, lots of different neighborhoods in that area.

Likely because this isn't entirely about geographics, but about parts of the city that have different demographic/economic forces in effect.

So one neighborhood could be gentrifying while another neighborhood 6 blocks away could be experiencing gang violence.

The author is trying to separate Chicago into 7 cities that are experiencing different realities, with only loosely defined geographies.

huh? the tri-state doesn't go through any part of the city of chicago.

well except for that tiny one-block wide strip of land along foster that connects ohare to the city.

290*

Yes, Far Southwest Side.

but Jmanc misspoke, he was not asking why the far west and southwest sides are separate. he was asking why the far SOUTHWEST side was made up of two non-contiguous parts.

as i said earlier, the answer is likely demographics.



besides, the ike doesn't separate the far west side from the southwest side on that map. none of the city's expressways separate anything on that map.

the boundary between the far west and the southwest side on the map is the BNSF tracks. the same boundary between south lawndale (little village) and north lawndale, which as we all know, are pretty different worlds.

Ah, my response was to his original question--why the west and southwest sides were separated. And I didn't look at any map, I was speaking generally as to why the community areas would be split in a discussion about demographics. I suppose the boundaries you are referring to are just as arbitrary as mine, yet generally the same.

now that we have the issues of west side boundaries sorted out, let's get back to the meat of this story: most neighborhood areas of chicago are no longer in population free-fall like they were last decade.

from 2000-2010, only the central area saw any population gain. the other 6 neighborhood divisions all lost people, cumulatively an across the board decline of 244,696 people!

and so far this decade, the central area is not only growing even faster than last, but 4 of the 6 neighborhood regions have turned the corner from population loss to population gain. and the far west side, while still losing people, has radically slowed its population loss. it's really now just the far southside where chicago's rather extreme population loss continues unabated.

so far this decade, the 6 neighborhood regions have lost a cumulative 30,655 people, but that's almost entirely because of the unrelenting decline of the far southside. without the far southside, the other 5 neighborhood regions have actually gained 26,488 people so far this decade. quite a remarkable turnaround from the 147,567 people those 5 regions cumulatively lost last decade.

and when you add that gain of 26,488 to the central area's gain of 49,792, you get a respectable gain of 76,280, but the far southside's loss of 57,143 wipes the majority of that gain away. perhaps chicago will finally get over that hump in the next decade.


so the current demographic story of chicago really is a lot more nuanced than the conventionally understood "growing prosperous downtown & northside and declining ghetto westside & southside".

The good news is, the far south side free fall appears to be slowing while the central area growth appears to be accelerating.

The 2000-2010 data are decennial Census data (enumerated count). The 2010-2017 data are annual estimates (sampled). So they aren't comparable, and you can't draw neighborhood-specific conclusions between the two (outside of obvious observations like the core is growing and the fringe generally shrinking).

I assumed the author is using a source other than the ACS. I don't think the ACS provides tract level numbers, does it?

I've looked at the census tract estimates for Pittsburgh, and they're ludicrously off from reality. Like showing 10%-15% declines in the student neighborhoods, no growth in a neighborhood which has added 1,000+ apartment units, and population gains in blighted black neighborhoods.

Basically anything below the municipal level in terms of estimates is shit.

For sure, census estimates are always a bit suspect, so grains of salt and all of that, but they are also the only thing we have to go on at the moment.

When the actual count is done next year, these trends will obviously come into much clearer focus.

As an outsider, I've always thought the "northside" would be growing. Why wasn't it and why is the growth still pretty slow?

New construction (which isn't that high since there aren't THAT many buildable lots) is counteracted by conversions from multifamily to mansions.

^ yep, gentrification in Chicago neighborhoods often leads to lower population density. Flat deconversions, smaller household sizes, rich NIMBYs blocking new development, etc.

Where are the folks that are leaving the Far South Side moving too? That's quite a change in population. Are folks relocating to the suburbs?

I wonder what caused folks to leave the North Side, I always thought that was a safe part of Chicago. Maybe prices. :shrug:

Hopefully Chi Town can grow in other areas. Some of that loss of folks is alarming.

I don't follow Chicago as much as I should so I genuinely have no idea when it comes to neighborhood dynamics.

See e.g.https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...all-of-chicago

The explanation we are given is nearby suburbs and out of State, particularly down South.

Not sure I get this concern. Every city is dynamic and has people coming and going. Why would it surprise you that there are people leaving the north side of Chicago (which still gained population)?

Nearly the entire population loss in the North Side is due to smaller family sizes as well as deconversions.

As far as the safety of Chicago, there are only really around 6-7 neighborhoods where the vast majority of violent crime occurs in. Best way to avoid being a victim of violence? Don't be a gang member, don't be a drug dealer, don't become involved in domestic disputes. Perhaps stay away from those 6-7 neighborhoods at night if walking alone. ;) Use some common sense and don't make yourself a victim, you'll be just fine.

Back to population. The South Side population loss continuing is quite alarming, but the fringes of the South Side seeming to come back are a huge deal. Gentrification is slowly pushing into some of the worst areas of the city crime-wise, which might either finally help to resolve some of the serious issues or, hopefully not, just cause them to move to new areas and continue unabated.

Aaron (Glowrock)

that's a great article.

due to a combination of aldermanic prerogative, a zoning code that generally prohibits anything over 4 stories in 90% of the city, the awful legacy of highrise public housing, and a general cultural aversion to highrise structures anywhere outside of downtown/lakefront, chicago has some rather schizophrenic attitudes towards building density.

"you wanna build an 8 million story tower to the moon in downtown? that sounds awfully ambitious, but what the hell, go for it!"

"you wanna build an 8 story apartment building in avondale? are you mad? this is OUR neighborhood, not fucking manhattan!"

Yea, I get why people don't want hi-rises in the neighborhoods, but more stuff around 6 stories would be nice along commercial streets. And being able to build 4 story apartment buildings on residential streets should be allowed. I quite like the scale of the new stuff in Wrigleyville. It's quite similar to new stuff going up in large European cities, where it's very dense but it doesn't have to be 20+ stories.

Hey now, Avondale is the last bastion of new construction on the NW side. We might not have any 8 floor towers going up, but 4 story infill is cranking hard West of Central Park where DSA territory ends and old school Reboyras reigns supreme.

this seems pretty accurate to me.. just south of Hyde Park and the midway is really cranking. Just had a friend move from wrigleyville to there and the whole area is filling with young white couples with kids.. talking like straight up north woodlawn

houses that would be 750k to 1 million in roscoe village.. he takes metra electric to work from there

and yeah, the central area is obviously still exploding

^ It should be interesting to see how plans for increased service on the Metra Electric will affect Woodlawn and other areas down there

he lands at millennium park and his new commute is faster..

funny that the "pioneers" were U Chicago employees and professors. And now the Obama center should pop it further

This area is called Woodlawn or Jackson Park Highlands. JP Highlands is filled with mansions that sell for like $350k.

The central core +94,000 in 17 years. That's +460 people per month in a city that was 2.9 million in the year 2000. Pretty solid growth, not sure I would categorize that as booming. I guess it's booming in respect to other parts of the city that lost significant population.

it is booming when you consider the fact that the 11 sq. miles of chicago's central area were home to ~150,000 people in 2000, and are now home to ~250,000 people, a 67% increase in just under 2 decades.

we also say that downtown chicago is "booming" because it has built 50 towers over 500' since 2000. that's more 500+ footers than any other US city not named new york or miami even has in the first place.

if you took all of the new towers chicago has built over the past 2 decades and put 'em in a cornfield in central illinois, that new cornfield skyline would be bigger and taller than the existing skylines of houston, LA, atlanta, dallas, philly, SF, seattle, etc.

in an american context, that can't be categorized as anything other than "booming".

You do realize that that is roughly 94k people in 17 years in a 2 mile radius (of which a large portion is Lake Michigan), right?

That kind of growth would be considered nothing in a sunbelt boomtown over typically a much, much larger geographic area.

But growth of that degree over such a tight geographic footprint (once again, about 40% of that geography is water) is pure urban awesomeness.

Its disingenuous to look at the city population as a whole, we're talking about a single district in a city that is 220 square miles. That's an amazing increase in density to an already dense area.

This. Absolutely this.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I know there are a few projects along Milwaukee, but nothing along Pulaski that I'm aware of. Belmont near Milwaukee has one or two 3-4 story buildings going up, but nothing spectacular. Honestly, Belmont from the Kennedy to Pulaski could use some serious clean-up, minus the awesomeness that is Avondale Tap, of course. ;)

Aaron (Glowrock)

How about Chicago split into 5 boroughs?

https://scontent-sjc3-1.cdninstagram...Njc3Nw%3D%3D.2
https://www.picluck.com/media/210053...777_7415959545

^ Wow, that's not even very accurate

yeah citi field is nothing like wrigley

This is really the case everywhere. There’s a reason Manhattan’s population is below its historical peak despite the built environment being vastly more developed.

They should have just labelled it Ebbets Field. Difference being that Wrigley still exists.

Two or three years late to the discussion but why is the North Side one "city"? The semi-suburban neighborhoods of the NW seem very different than the lakefront neighborhoods.

They are different, but this map is trying to illustrate population trends not form.

Central Area - Growth, High-Rise

North- Growth, Established wealthy or middle-class

South Lakefront - Growth, Emerging middle-class

Southwest - Growth, Hispanic working-class

Far Southwest - Stable, middle-class

Far West - Loss, Poverty but stabilizing

Far South - Loss, Poverty and abandonment

It is interesting how the actual census results largely confirmed the general suppositions of this article from 2.5 years ago.

Considering Chicago was predicted to have shrunk, but actually grew, it must have been off somewhere.

i don't know where the population #s on the map in the first post of this thread came from. if you total them all up, you get a net gain of 19,137 people, yet the last CB estimate in 2019 had the city losing ~20K, so something isn't adding up there.

perhaps the author, ed zotti, was using some other source for his population figures?

in any event, the city did end up gaining ~50K residents last decade, and the patterns of where, and the degree to which, the growth/loss occurred generally line up with what was outlined in that map. that was really my only point.

the vast majority of chicago actually faired pretty well last decade on the population front (stable to growing), with a still strongly booming central area, but a still hollowing-out far southside.

in fact, if you remove the two far southside regions on the map below, the rest of the city of chicago actually grew by 85,891 people (+3.9%), which would be very respectable city growth for an old rustbelter, especially one as large as chicago.

but the far southside of the city is still adrift in some pretty troubled waters.




https://i.postimg.cc/qMsdcXqQ/southside-map.png


area ------------------------ 2010 ------ 2020 ----- growth

inner southeast side ---- 226,241 --- 239,282 --- +13,041 (+5.8%)

inner southwest side --- 355,247 --- 359,941 --- +4,694 (+1.3%)

far southeast side ------ 224,793 --- 208,941 --- -15,852 (-7.1%)

far southwest side ------ 244,147 --- 224,898 --- -19,249 (-7.9%)

TOTAL ------------- 1,050,428 --- 1,033,062 --- -17,366 (-1.7%)

How would you subdivide the 77 community areas by section or "side"?