CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Gonzo the Great]

I know this is the wrong forum for my question but when can we expect to see Kris Bryant back in the line up where he belongs

[marothisu]

There was a topic of change of races by community area (specifically Pilsen) a little bit ago. So I did a calculation of all the major groups by CA in Chicago and their changes from 2010 to 2016. The following is presented in terms of percentage point change. For example, if it went from 14% to 15%, I would say it's a change of 1 percentage point..

Source is the 2010 and 2016 Census American Community Surveys. Table DP05

White, Non-Hispanic Top Increases
1. Logan Square: +6.69 pct points
2. Rogers Park: +4.54 pct points
3. Avondale: +3.96 pct points
4. Uptown: +3.93 pct points
5. North Park: +3.30 pct points
6. Pullman: +2.38 pct points
7. West Town: +2.32 pct points
8. Forest Glen: +1.91 pct points
9. Woodlawn: +1.83 pct points
10. Near West Side: +1.72 pct points
11. East Garfield Park: +1.70 pct points
11T. South Shore: +1.70 pct points
13. Lower West Side: +1.65 pct points
14. Hegewisch: +1.59 pct points
15. Norwood Park: +1.59 pct points

Black, Non-Hispanic Top Increases
1. South Deering: +6.15 pct points
2. South Chicago: +2.56 pct points
3. Morgan Park: +1.94 pct points
4. West Ridge: +1.92 pct points
5. Edison Park: +1.33 pct points
6. Bridgeport: +1.25 pct points
7. Burnside: +1.21 pct points
8. Lower West Side: +1.02 pct points
9. The Loop: +1.01 pct points
10. Avalon Park: +0.91 pct points
11. Albany Park: +0.87 pct points
12. Dunning: +0.85 pct points
13. Beverly: +0.68 pct points
14T. East Side: +0.53 pct points
14T. Uptown: +0.53 pct points

Asian, Non-Hispanic Top Increases
1. Near South Side: +9.61 pct points
2. Amour Square: +8.73 pct points
3. Douglas: +3.79 pct points
4. Archer Heights: +3.33 pct points
5. Near West Side: +2.24 pct points
6. Near North Side: +2.19 pct points
7. Brighton Park: +2.09 pct points
8. Albany Park: +1.95 pct points
9. McKinley Park: +1.92 pct points
10. Mount Greenwood: +1.89 pct points
11. The Loop: +1.83 pct points
12. Jefferson Park: +1.82 pct points
13. Hyde Park: +1.74 pct points
14. Lower West Side: +1.62 pct points
15. Bridgeport: +1.56 pct points

Hispanic Top Increases
1. Garfield Ridge: +12.55 pct points
2. Chicago Lawn: +9.65 pct points
3. Montclare: +9.39 pct points
4. New CIty: +9.32 pct points
5. West Elsdon: +8.07 pct points
6. Dunning: +7.78 pct points
7. Ashburn: +6.52 pct points
8. Belmont Cragin: +5.49 pct points
9. Portage Park: +5.05 pct points
10. Austin: +4.76 pct points
11. West Lawn: +4.66 pct points
12. West Englewood: +4.33 pct points
13. Mount Greenwood: +3.83 pct points
14. Clearing: +3.71 pct points
15. Archer Heights: +3.64 pct points

[marothisu]

Now, as far as greater downtown (Near North, Near South, Near West, and the Loop) goes, as of 2016 it was estimated to have been 58.15% White (non Hispanic), 17.11% Black, 15.31% Asian, and 6.80% Hispanic.

Here's how it breaks down in changes..keep in mind that the Census estimated this area to have grown by 43,225 people from the 2010 ACS to the 2016 ACS.

White, Non Hispanic (Greater Downtown)
* Increase of 24,355 people
* Decrease of 0.49 pct points

Asian (Greater Downtown)
* Increase of 12,003 people
* Increase of 3.29 pct points

Hispanic (Greater Downtown)
* Increase of 4336 people
* Increase of 0.85 pct points

Black (Greater Downtown)
* Increase of 600 people
* Decrease of 4.15 pct points





Now here's the list for decreases...


White, Non-Hispanic Top Decreases
1. Montclare: -12.42 pct points
2. Garfield Ridge: -7.70 pct points
3. Dunning: -7.39 pct points
4. Archer Heights: -6.42 pct points
5. West Elsdon: -6.37 pct points
6. Clearing: -5.21 pct points
7. Morgan Park: -5.16 pct points
8. The Loop: -4.83 pct points
9. McKinley Park: -4.54 pct points
10. Ashburn: -4.51 pct points
11. Mount Greenwood: -4.40 pct points
12T. Portage Park: -4.21 pct points
12T. Jefferson Park: -4.21 pct points
14. West Lawn: -4.18 pct points
15. O'Hare: -3.91 pct points


Black, Non-Hispanic Top Decreases
1. Near South Side: -11.81 pct points
2. Chicago Lawn: -9.37 pct points
3. New City: -8.35 pct points
4. Douglas: -5.78 pct points
5. Near West Side: -5.77 pct points
6. Humboldt Park: -4.81 pct points
7. Hyde Park: -4.57 pct points
8. West Englewood: -4.46 pct points
9. North Lawndale: -4.20 pct points
10. Austin: -4.18 pct points
11. Garfield Ridge: -4.13 pct points
12. Woodlawn: -4.00 pct points
13. Riverdale: -3.85 pct points
14. Englewood: -3.64 pct points
15. Kenwood: -3.51 pct points


Asian, Non-Hispanic Top Decreases
1. Uptown: -2.85 pct points
2. Lincoln Square: -1.24 pct points
3. Norwood Park: -1.18 pct points
4. Dunning: -1.14 pct points
5. Garfield Ridge: -1.12 pct points
6. North Park: -0.97 pct points
7. Forest Glen: -0.96 pct points
8. Morgan Park: -0.88 pct points
9. Edgewater: -0.62 pct points
10T. Ashburn: -0.39 pct points
10T. Calumet Heights: -0.39 pct points
12. Logan Square: -0.36 pct points
13. North Center: -0.34 pct points
14. Riverdale: -0.33 pct points
15. West Elsdon: -0.32 pct points


Hispanic Top Decreases
1. Logan Square: -4.93 pct points
2. Albany Park: -4.81 pct points
3. Lower West Side: -4.32 pct points
4. South Deering: -3.90 pct points
5. Pullman: -3.86 pct points
6. Avondale: -3.75 pct points
7. West Ridge: -3.27 pct points
8T. South Chicago: -2.78 pct points
8T. West Town: -2.87 pct points
10. Rogers Park: -2.35 pct points
11. Uptown: -2.22 pct points
12. Norwood Park: -2.03 pct points
13. Armour Square: -1.49 pct points
14. Bridgeport: -1.38 pct points
15. Forest Glen: -1.12 pct points

[the urban politician]

Hmmm, so Pilsen isn’t becoming “white” as fast as people think? Of course, lower west side encompasses a large area, so it may hard to measure specifically what is happening in Pilsen looking at this.

Interesting that Armour square is 8% more Asian. I mean, it’s Chinatown, after all, I would have figured it was nearly all Asian by now.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Hmmm, so Pilsen isn’t becoming “white” as fast as people think? Of course, lower west side encompasses a large area, so it may hard to measure specifically what is happening in Pilsen looking at this.

Interesting that Armour square is 8% more Asian. I mean, it’s Chinatown, after all, I would have figured it was nearly all Asian by now.

I think it was actually in the General Development thread then that I posted specifically about Pilsen doing this down to the tract. You can find it probably a week or so back. Pilsen is becoming less Hispanic because they've been moving away. The actual gains of other races there aren't massive...and I believe Asian and Black had larger increases than White in most tracts. East Pilsen grew in overall population and I think that it went up by 500 or 600 for Asian population.

As far as Armour Square goes, remember that it also includes a part west of the interstate. I think there are a few public housing projects in Armour Square that are not at all Asian. I think...which is why it's not as high previously as you might think.

[ardecila]

Interesting to see the racial changes on the outskirts of the city. Virtually all the edge neighborhoods on the west and southwest sides of the city are becoming more Hispanic and less white.

Then South Deering and South Chicago are losing their longtime Hispanic populations, and gaining Black population, probably refugees from more crime-ravaged neighborhoods. The only other neighborhoods seeing Black increases are all very small amounts of people, probably educated middle-class folks moving into largely white or gentrifying areas.

[the urban politician]

So the number of Asians gained in the central area of the city is greater than the total Asian population of all but the largest cities in the Midwest

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

So the number of Asians gained in the central area of the city is greater than the total Asian population of all but the largest cities in the Midwest

An interesting statement. St. Paul and Columbus both have pretty sizable Asian populations (St. Paul percentage wise is much more impressive than Columbus though). Other places like Minneapolis, Milwaukee, etc have kind of sizable ones too but the pure fact is that downtown Chicago alone has more Asian alone people than a lot of cities have total. Add in the areas south of downtown like Chinatown, Bridgeport, Douglas+rest of Bronzeville, McKinley Park, Brighton Park, Kenwood, Hyde Park (and areas like Fuller Park and Washington Park around it for completeness) and that area has even more..


1. Downtown Chicago + Chinatown area down to Hyde Park: 68,646 Asian alone people (total population of this area = 454,443. Asian % = 15.11%)

2. Jersey City, NJ: 65,180 Asian alone people
3. Austin: 61,234 people
4. St. Paul, MN: 51,238 people
5. Charlotte: 48,042 people
6. Portland: 46,488 people
7. Dallas: 41,273 people
8. Columbus, OH: 40,774 people
9. Las Vegas: 39,150 people
10. San Antonio: 38,172 people
11. Greater Downtown Chicago: 31,710 people
12. Fort Worth: 30,883 people
13. Oklahoma City: 27,090 people
4. Minneapolis: 23,839 people
15. Indianapolis: 23,750 people
16. Washington DC: 23,675 people
17. Milwaukee: 22,813 people
18. Nashville: 22,655 people
19. Atlanta: 18,130 people
20. Pittsburgh: 16,802 people
21. Baltimore: 15,685 people
22. Kansas City: 11,834 people
23. Des Moines: 11,685 people
24. New Orleans: 11,062 people
25. Detroit: 9636 people
26. St. Louis: 9561 people
27. Cleveland: 7660 people
28. Cincinnati: 5297 people
29. Miami: 3561 people

Also, that entire "surrounding" area increased by 17,666 Asian people. That increase is more than what the entire cities (individually) like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Miami, etc have and barely below the entire Asian population of Atlanta city proper.

[the urban politician]

Impressive stuff. I would hope that as the Asian community grows, it will spur even more growth down the road as the Asian community becomes ever more established and the word spreads that you get the amenities of New York at 1/2 or 1/3 the price

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Impressive stuff. I would hope that as the Asian community grows, it will spur even more growth down the road as the Asian community becomes ever more established and the word spreads that you get the amenities of New York at 1/2 or 1/3 the price

It's important that Chicago become highly established as a port of entry for the Chinese. At some point in the future the current status quo in China is going to collapse and there will be a wave of mass immigration. We want to be where the best and brightest fleeing a newly liberated, but temporarily unstable China land.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's important that Chicago become highly established as a port of entry for the Chinese. At some point in the future the current status quo in China is going to collapse and there will be a wave of mass immigration. We want to be where the best and brightest fleeing a newly liberated, but temporarily unstable China land.

It'll be interesting. A lot of expats there are reporting increasing nationalism, even among young Chinese, and being given a harder time from the State. If things got really unstable there, but they were really nationalistic, would they flee? Or if they did, would it only be to Taiwan and Hong Kong (neither of which can handle 100 million mainlanders of course).

At any rate, the next few decades in China will be fascinating to observe. At one time I seriously considered moving there, but I think starting there now would present fewer opportunities and much bigger risks as an expat than 10-15 years ago would have (I was first there in 2005).

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's important that Chicago become highly established as a port of entry for the Chinese. At some point in the future the current status quo in China is going to collapse and there will be a wave of mass immigration. We want to be where the best and brightest fleeing a newly liberated, but temporarily unstable China land.

classic american

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

classic american

Not really. Classic American is to unjustifiably fear the overtaking of the US in terms of economic and military strength. First it was the Soviet Union, then it was Japan, now it's China. The fundamentals of the Chinese economy is a house of cards. The people predicting that China will rule the world in the next 15 years are as wrong as the people that predicted Japan would rule the world in the 1980s.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Not really. Classic American is to unjustifiably fear the overtaking of the US in terms of economic and military strength. First it was the Soviet Union, then it was Japan, now it's China. The fundamentals of the Chinese economy is a house of cards. The people predicting that China will rule the world in the next 15 years are as wrong as the people that predicted Japan would rule the world in the 1980s.

And before that it was the British Empire and other European colonial states. Ever hear of the Monroe doctrine? The "classic American" is aggressive and paranoid of being outclassed. Just look at Trump and his uniquely American ego. "I'm going to walk in there and cowboy this shit".

[the urban politician]

We also have to remember that "Asian" also includes Indians, Pakistanis, etc.

By being a huge city we will always be a port of entry, but Chicago has never been a strong one for the Chinese. Typical poor marketing abroad is to blame, and if there is one thing I've been disappointed about with Rahm it would be his failure to remedy that.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

We also have to remember that "Asian" also includes Indians, Pakistanis, etc.

By being a huge city we will always be a port of entry, but Chicago has never been a strong one for the Chinese. Typical poor marketing abroad is to blame, and if there is one thing I've been disappointed about with Rahm it would be his failure to remedy that.

Yes, though a very large percentage of the growth in the central area (and really the whole city) was Chinese. The marketing - yes. Though as I've shared before, as my girlfriend's parents shared with me, in one of the big Chinese travel websites, it describes Chicago basically as "perfect urbanism" - Chicago's urbanism in the central area is a lot more similar to parts of China, the areas with newer buildings), than most people would ever believe.

I do think that a lot of the reason why Chinese especially end up in LA, SF, and NYC is basically marketing though. Honestly, a lot of people from mainland China would be more familiar with how Streeterville, South Loop, etc looks than pretty much anywhere in Manhattan (not counting people from Hong Kong).

[marothisu]

In case you are wondering, here is the breakdown of changes from 2010 to 2016 for Near North + Near West + Near South + Loop. Guess before I should have really said "Indian and Chinese people"

Indian: +5048 people
Chinese: +4588 people
Filipino: +627 people
Korean: +513 people
Japanese: +390 people
Pakistani: +367 people
Laotian: +94 people
Vietnamese: +49 people
Cambodian: +23 people
Hmong: +8 people
Indonesian: +6 people
Sri Lankan: Unchanged
Malaysian: -2 people
Thai: -28 people

Now, add in the areas Armour Square, Lower West Side, Bridgeport, McKinley Park, Brighton Park, Archer Heights, New City, Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Fuller Park, Washington Park, Kenwood, Hyde Park, and Woodlawn...

Chinese: +10,768 people
Indian: +5642 people
Pakistani: +556 people
Filipino: +315 people
Vietnamese: +291 people
Japanese: +250 people
Korean: +218 people
Thai: +137 people
Laotian: +122 people
Sri Lankan: +76 people
Indonesian: +38 people
Cambodian: +25 people
Hmong: +19 people
Malaysian: -27 people

Total Asian alone population of all of these areas put together is 71,172 people. I added in places like Fuller Park and what not for geographical completeness. Archer Heights was added because they went from an estimated 0 Asian people in 2010 to not much under 500 in 2016. So it looks like this is kind of an emerging Asian community in town. Grand total population of that entire area is 534,904 people making it 13.31% Asian. In 2010, this same area had 489,182 people total, and 52,220 of those were categorized as Asian alone people. That percentage was 10.67% back then meaning that the Asian percentage of this area has gone up 2.64 percentage points from 2010 to 2016. Also, that area's estimated growth from the 2010 ACS to 2016 ACS was estimated at 45,722 people, which is a growth of 9.3%.

Other interesting things from nearby areas to the north or northwest:
- Indian population of Lakeview, Lincoln Park, North Center, and West Town together increased by 1357 people
- Indian population of Rogers Park, West Ridge, Albany Park, and North Park together increased by 2224 people
- Chinese population of North Park, Albany Park, and Irving Park together increased by 552 people

[marothisu]

Now something more economics related directly. I calculated the mean household income for each community area. I wanted to do median but don't have enough to more accurately do that. I think it's more important than mean, but mean still has its place.

Keeping with the spirit of things, the mean household income in 2016 of the 4 community areas I consider greater downtown was $130,375.20. That's an increase of $12,920.84 per household average compared to 2010. The United States' mean income in 2016 was $77,866, which was an increase of $6983. This central area of Chicago did about twice as well as the US average. If you add other areas like West Town, Logan Square, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Lincoln Square, North Center then the increase was over $16,500 per year. Mean household income of all these areas together is $121,528.60.

Just a comparison to various parts of NYC and some other cities, for fun:

Manhattan: $138,748
Greater Downtown Chicago: $130,375.20
San Francisco: $127,625
Downtown Chicago + some North/NW surrounding areas: $121,528.60
San Jose: $116,520
Washington DC: $110,614
Seattle: $104,590
San Diego: $93,632
Staten Island: $92,152
Atlanta: $87,784
Queens: $77,515
Brooklyn: $75,810
Bronx: $51,445


Here are the differences compared to 2010:
San Francisco: +$25,358
Seattle: +$19,269
Washington DC: +$18,836
San Jose: +$17,054
Downtown Chicago + some North/NW surrounding areas: $16,541.55
Manhattan: +$16,128
Brooklyn: +$13,154
Greater Downtown Chicago: +12,920.84
San Diego: +$9132
Atlanta: +$8485
Queens: +$7307
Staten Island: +$5548
Bronx: +$4120


Median income is more important but still this is interesting.


Chicago, 2016 mean household income by community area
1. Lincoln Park: $144,258.96
2. North Center: $142,020.46
3. Near North Side: $141,889.08
4. The Loop: $135,764.23
5. Near South Side: $134,766.81
6. Forest Glen: $127,674.96
7. Lake View: $118,975.83
8. Edison Park: $116,331.1
9. Beverly: $115,231.16
10. West Town: $109,177.72
11. Near West Side: $102,402.04
12. Mount Greenwood: $97,600.47
13. Lincoln Square: $92,989.32
14. Logan Square: $90,015.34
15. Norwood Park: $89,965.37
16. Jefferson Park: $83,765.44
17. Hyde Park: $81,265.38
18. Garfield Ridge: $77,545.72
19. Irving Park: $75,416.79
20. Ashburn: $75,277.61
21. North Park: $74,649.41
22. Montclare: $74,039.77
23. Kenwood: $74,037.37
24. Morgan Park: $73,904.68
25. Albany Park: $73,509.88
26. Portage Park: $72,946.86
27. Dunning: $72,908.3
28. Clearing: $70,722.64
29. Uptown: $69,288.66
30. West Ridge: $69,006.31
31. Edgewater: $68,732.62
32. Hegewisch: $68,306.27
33. Avondale: $64,765.44
34. West Lawn: $62,804.1
35. West Elsdon: $61,666.41
36. O'Hare: $60,988.6
37. Bridgeport: $59,453.01
38. Calumet Heights: $58,916.02
39. Washington Heights: $57,554.18
40. Archer Heights: $57,169.53
41. East Side: $56,592.79
42. Belmont Cragin: $56,321.58
43. McKinley Park: $54,655.33
44. Rogers Park: $53,868.79
45. Hermosa: $53,457.29
46. Roseland: $52,385.61
47. Avalon Park: $52,176.32
48. Brighton Park: $50,502.77
49. Lower West Side: $50,449.05
50. Gage Park: $49,068.57
51. Grand Boulevard: $48,743.57
52. West Pullman: $48,029.92
53. Austin: $46,478.73
54. Humboldt Park: $46,462.52
55. Pullman: $45,824.33
56. Douglas: $45,433.81
57. Chicago Lawn: $44,277.74
58. Chatham: $43,185.83
59. Oakland: $42,797.03
60. Auburn Gresham: $42,409.17
61. Armour Square: $42,264.59
62. Woodlawn: $41,753.22
63. New City: $41,666
64. South Shore: $41,418.55
65. South Deering: $41,327.17
66. South Lawndale: $40,676.23
67. South Chicago: $40,553.48
68. Greater Grand Crossing: $40,323.63
69. East Garfield Park: $40,103.13
70. West Englewood: $39,061.22
71. Burnside: $38,446.76
72. Washington Park: $36,380.37
73. West Garfield Park: $36,343.17
74. North Lawndale: $36,211.22
75. Fuller Park: $34,176.88
76. Englewood: $31,113.09
77. Riverdale: $24,578.46

Chicago, mean household income by community area, change from 2010 to 2016
1. Near South Side: +$29,546.72
2. North Center: +$27,536.39
3. Edison Park: +$27,246.19
4. West Town: +$23,252.1
5. Logan Square: +$19,689.57
6. The Loop: +$19,655.74
7. Lincoln Square: +$17,402.09
8. Near West Side: +$17,369.76
9. Lake View: +$16,750.46
10. Forest Glen: +$14,784.62
11. Montclare: +$14,306.61
12. Jefferson Park: +$14,055.1
13. Albany Park: +$13,048.91
14. Fuller Park: +$11,526.48
15. Uptown: +$10,095.82
16. Portage Park: +$9275.65
17. Beverly: +$8836.38
18. West Lawn: +$8355.26
19. West Ridge: +$8327.43
20. Morgan Park: +$8288.5
21. Norwood Park: +$8226.78
22. Garfield Ridge: +$7785.26
23. Avondale: +$7443.34
24. Lower West Side: +$7001.94
25. Hegewisch: +$6729.82
26. Edgewater: +$6554.69
27. Ashburn: +$6137.24
28. Clearing: +$5912.58
29. Humboldt Park: +$5908.42
30. Near North Side: +$5674.61
31. Washington Heights: +$5512.31
32. Mount Greenwood: +$5131.42
33. Lincoln Park: +$5093.98
34. Irving Park: +$5037.34
35. East Side: +$4589.4
36. North Park: +$4529.16
37. O'Hare: +$4290.84
38. West Garfield Park: +$3985.84
39. West Englewood: +$3973.78
40. Belmont Cragin: +$3937.2
41. Brighton Park: +$3730.29
42. Washington Park: +$3367.31
43. West Elsdon: +$3297.2
44. South Shore: +$2787.84
45. Dunning: +$2771.74
46. McKinley Park: +$2558.76
47. Kenwood: +$2540.49
48. Roseland: +$2510.61
49. East Garfield Park: +$2472.33
50. Archer Heights: +$2441.36
51. Hyde Park: +$2267.06
52. Bridgeport: +$2112.2
53. Hermosa: +$2056.86
54. Austin: +$1643.44
55. Gage Park: +$1538.4
56. Riverdale: +$976.2
57. Pullman: +$959.43
58. Rogers Park: +$375.38
59. Woodlawn: +$1.14
60. Armour Square: -$184.96
61. Grand Boulevard: -$336.46
62. Burnside: -$525.45
63. South Chicago: -$779.3
64. North Lawndale: -$922.5
65. New City: -$991.93
66. Greater Grand Crossing: -$1579.75
67. Douglas: -$1957.37
68. Oakland: -$2385.79
69. Englewood: -$2399.6
70. Chatham: -$2468.76
71. Auburn Gresham: -$2631.69
72. South Lawndale: -$2668.21
73. West Pullman: -$2756.32
74. Chicago Lawn: -$2772.49
75. Avalon Park: -$3135.9
76. South Deering: -$3373.76
77. Calumet Heights: -$12,368.3

[emathias]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Now something more economics related directly. I calculated the mean household income for each community area. I wanted to do median but don't have enough to more accurately do that. I think it's more important than mean, but mean still has its place.
...
Just a comparison to various parts of NYC and some other cities, for fun:

Manhattan: $138,748
Greater Downtown Chicago: $130,375.20
San Francisco: $127,625
Downtown Chicago + some North/NW surrounding areas: $121,528.60
San Jose: $116,520
Washington DC: $110,614
Rough 800,000 piece of Chicago: $107,xxx
Seattle: $104,590
Rough 1,000,000 piece of Chicago: $98,xxx
San Diego: $93,632
Staten Island: $92,152
Atlanta: $87,784
Queens: $77,515
Brooklyn: $75,810
Bronx: $51,445
...

Your "Downtown + some N/NW" areas have an ACS 2015 population of almost exactly 600,000 people. I took the liberty of doing some very rough estimates of adding in contiguous areas that would pull a "Global Chicago" with your area, anchored by the Loop with adjacent areas, into an 800,000 person population range, and then the 1,000,000 person range making them a little more comparable to San Francisco or San Jose.

One interesting thing is that San Francisco has an average age approaching 38.5, which for the areas of Chicago you've highlighted, the average is probably almost five years younger. I wonder how those numbers would change if it were possible to control for age given that I've seen numbers indicating that the average earnings for Americans in the 35-44 age group are 25% higher than in the 25-34 age group. That whole time during the 30s tends to be some strong earnings growth so even a few years could explain a significant portion of a gap between SF and Chicago. On the other hand, Manhattan's median age is probably only slightly older than my guess at the median in the area of Chicago you're looking at.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

The truth is Chicagoans (and Midwesterners in general) have different tastes than Londoners (or New Yorkers, where I'm from) and don't typically pay top price for "old". Generally speaking, Chicagoans like shiny and new, buildings like this are going to be a tough sell for any developer looking to rehab.

Chicago just is not an old city by comparison... London was around in the middle ages and waaaay before that even... New York was a big city in the 1600's... Chicago was founded in the early 1800's, mostly burned down and is basically only housing from the last 150 years or so... so there is just a lot less to choose from, and why we should do a better job preserving what we have left