CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Ran the numbers for households which make 6+ figures where the main householder is under the age of 45 years old..... the downtown area (NNS, NWS, NSS, Loop) increased by 10,741 households from 2010 to 2016 in this regard, or an increase of 56.2%. If you add in West Town, Lakeview, Logan Square, Lincoln Park then it was an increase of 18,939 households or a 34.7% increase.


I'll just put this here....

SOURCE: 2010 and 2016 5 year US Census ACS. Table B19037 (used 5 year ACS so I can add up the CAs of Chicago)

NYC: +73,346 households making 6+ figures with householder under the age of 45
Chicago: +26,019 households
Houston: +23,894 households
San Francisco: +23,328 households
Seattle: +23,328 households
Downtown Chicago + Surrounding (West Town, Lakeview, Logan Square, and Lincoln Park): +18,939 households
DC: +18,810 households
Austin: +16,759 households
Los Angeles: +15,972 households
Denver: +15,582 households
Philadelphia: +12,331 households
Boston: +12,284 households
Portland: +11,362 households
Downtown Chicago (NNS+NSS+NWS+Loop): +10,741 households
San Diego: +9950 households
Dallas: +9613 households
Columbus, OH: +8879 households
San Antonio: +8183 households
Fort Worth: +7757 households
San Jose: +7188 households
Baltimore: +6844 households
Nashville: +6357 households
Minneapolis: +6270 households
Charlotte: +5984 households
Jersey City, NJ: +5537 households
Oakland: +5461 households
Oklahoma City: +5382 households
Raleigh: +5002 households
Madison, WI: +4348 households
Miami: +3466 households
El Paso: +3453 households
Atlanta: +3166 households
Milwaukee: +2866 households
Indianapolis: +2767 households
Cleveland: +1368 households
Jacksonville: +826 households
Memphis: +157 households
Plano, TX: -208 households
Phoenix: -401 households
Detroit: -1080 households
Las Vegas: -2439 households



Downtown Chicago outgained the entire city of Dallas......Downtown + those few other areas outgained the entire city of Los Angeles, even though this area is something like 13% the size of Los Angeles....This is actually pretty crazy.

This is possibly the most staggering piece of data on this topic you've shown so far. Gotta give props to Houston, Seattle, and SF of course, although in Houston's case it's very likely that this gain in households is over a much, much larger geographic area and far less urban than in Chi, Seattle, SF.

LA's showing is indeed quite weak.

Anyhow, this data really puts out there how substantial Chicago's core boom is. When Aaron Renn and Crawford try to dismiss Chicago's boom as "Well every city is booming, what's so special about Chicago?" this and other data you've dug up tell exactly that.

What's even more interesting is that your data ends in 2016. But there is a ton of development coming online, and I'm guessing these demographic trends have only accelerated since then.

[the urban politician]

Special mention also needs to go to Columbus, OH, Minneapolis, and Madison, WI.

We need to keep an eye on Columbus. Higher income and young households are growing. That's a good sign for that city's future.

All three of these above cities are beating Atlanta, the darling of sundry internet blogger who clings lazily to population growth stats, and Miami, the darling of those who cling to the illusion of the "elite coastal city" model.

Indianapolis' poor showing here tells a lot as well. Detroit is very sad, and surprising. I always was under the impression that the core of that city was starting to see substantial investment again.

[rgolch]

Yea, the low numbers for LA are surprising, especially given the cost of living in that city. Madison, WI on the other hand.... holy crap... talk about punching above your weight class....

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Yea, the low numbers for LA are surprising, especially given the cost of living in that city. Madison, WI on the other hand.... holy crap... talk about punching above your weight class....

A few months ago I was looking at data for the percentage of people who spend more than 35% of their income on housing....let's just say that LA did not do well. They had one of the highest percentages of any city, which is not a good thing. Chicago was in the middle and SF and NYC were surprisingly low (but they also had a higher percentage of households with more than one earner I believe so that's another story).

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Special mention also needs to go to Columbus, OH, Minneapolis, and Madison, WI.

We need to keep an eye on Columbus. Higher income and young households are growing. That's a good sign for that city's future.

All three of these above cities are beating Atlanta, the darling of sundry internet blogger who clings lazily to population growth stats, and Miami, the darling of those who cling to the illusion of the "elite coastal city" model.

Indianapolis' poor showing here tells a lot as well. Detroit is very sad, and surprising. I always was under the impression that the core of that city was starting to see substantial investment again.

Not sure why you're putting so much stock in this list. People making 100K+ are not the only people who matter when it comes to urban regeneration, far from it.... 83% of American households have less than $100K incomes...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Not sure why you're putting so much stock in this list. People making 100K+ are not the only people who matter when it comes to urban regeneration, far from it.... 83% of American households have less than $100K incomes...

Because money makes the world go around.

That's why New York's metro population is 20 million, as is Calcutta's, but clearly New York is 1000 times more important.

But by all means I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to the under $100k crowd. I'm just saying that we should be paying attention to this as well when pundits keep ringing Chicago's death knells

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Not sure why you're putting so much stock in this list. People making 100K+ are not the only people who matter when it comes to urban regeneration, far from it.... 83% of American households have less than $100K incomes...

I agree but the list is telling in its own ways. I plan on running the data for $60k and above. I'm sure we'll see a slightly different story with some of these cities.

[Chi-Sky21]

Crap , all this time i thought it was love.....

[Vlajos]

marothisu, where do you find the $60K break down in incomes? I am using American Fact Finder 1 year estimates. I am seeing income bands $49,999 and below or $50,000+.

In 2016, Chicago had 52.9% of households making $50k+.
In 2010, Chicago had 45.8% of households making $50k+.

The numbers are inflation adjusted too. We are clearly losing lower income residents. $50K is below the area median income. We've gained almost 40,000 households from 2010 - 2016.

[the urban politician]

100 jobs coming downtown:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...hall-as-tenant

[Baronvonellis]

Since the economy is doing alot better, do you think the population losses from the south and west sides have stopped by now? I think once we can stabilize those areas Chicago will start to gain population overall.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Since the economy is doing alot better, do you think the population losses from the south and west sides have stopped by now? I think once we can stabilize those areas Chicago will start to gain population overall.

Unfortunately, in the absences of amerliorative action by state and local lawmakers to address racial inequity, I think this trend is guaranteed to persist for several decades.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Since the economy is doing alot better, do you think the population losses from the south and west sides have stopped by now? I think once we can stabilize those areas Chicago will start to gain population overall.

The population losses on the south and west side are more driven by violence and poor schools than the economy in general. That being said, the economic disadvantage of the residents of the south and west sides definitely is a primary contributor to those issues.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by left of center

The population losses on the south and west side are more driven by violence and poor schools than the economy in general. That being said, the economic disadvantage of the residents of the south and west sides definitely is a primary contributor to those issues.

Nope. Actually a lot is driven by sectors like manufacturing going away and Chicago transitioning to more of a while collar place economically (still transitioning). There's a reason why almost all of the net loss in the city happened between 2001 and 2004 and the population since 2005 has mostly been hovering around the same level. Many people with the jobs that went away around this time either bolted for other places right away or they stuck around unsuccessfully for awhile before saying screw it and moving to places like Dallas, Atlanta, etc.

Look at another one of my posts too, a lot of the south side places are losing younger people under the age of 40 yet gaining people aged 55+

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Nope. Actually a lot is driven by sectors like manufacturing going away and Chicago transitioning to more of a while collar place economically (still transitioning). There's a reason why almost all of the net loss in the city happened between 2001 and 2004 and the population since 2005 has mostly been hovering around the same level. Many people with the jobs that went away around this time either bolted for other places right away or they stuck around unsuccessfully for awhile before saying screw it and moving to places like Dallas, Atlanta, etc.

Look at another one of my posts too, a lot of the south side places are losing younger people under the age of 40 yet gaining people aged 55+

I think a lot of it was also the projects being taken down, with many of the voucher recipients going out of the city. I've also talked to many people in the south and west sides and number one reason for leaving the city was the crime, especially after hearing that they had to bury a friend of family member.

And I think that the demographic trends indicate Chicago going the direction of a"prosperous relic": A successful city not as economically strong as it used to be. Yeah, we city making strides in some ways the eludes most of the Rust Belt, but it hasn't really expanded it's economic base. It'll be great to get perhaps 10 more Grubhubs and Groupons, and that will me the moment when Chicago can achieve that desired turnaround.

[marothisu]

Yes, the population issues in some of these areas are a bit deep rooted. But as a bunch of people have left, it's possible that the loss of the specific areas are slowing a little bit.

Btw, chicago has only lost people in the last two estimates. It was gaining before and it's still a net gain. It's estimated to have gained population in more years since 2010 than it has lost. We'll see what happens with the next.

Population is a really shallow metric for judging the health of a city, but in Chicago's case it's indicative of the health of a subset of the city, but not the whole.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Btw, chicago has only lost people in the last two estimates. It was gaining before and it's still a net gain. It's estimated to have gained population in more years since 2010 than it has lost. We'll see what happens with the next.

Luckily, these facts never get in the way of a good story. From Crain's:

But the reason for the decline isn't that more people are in more jobs but that the city's labor force shrank about 6,400 to 1.35 million—perhaps a reflection of the steady decline in the city's population since the 2010 census.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Luckily, these facts never get in the way of a good story. From Crain's:

Crain's is a lot of the time looking for negative news. Over a year ago, Chicago posted very interesting employment for something like 4 straight months, but Crain's didn't want to run the story. However, they run a story today comparing a month in 2018 vs. 2017, but also admitting these things with employment vary from month to month. Almost comical how they pick and choose what to run and what not to run.

And that bold part is sad, because it's not true. Chicago posted a few years of population growth before going the opposite way.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Crain's is a lot of the time looking for negative news. Over a year ago, Chicago posted very interesting employment for something like 4 straight months, but Crain's didn't want to run the story. However, they run a story today comparing a month in 2018 vs. 2017, but also admitting these things with employment vary from month to month. Almost comical how they pick and choose what to run and what not to run.

And that bold part is sad, because it's not true. Chicago posted a few years of population growth before going the opposite way.

Yeah, that's freaking silly. Not a peep on the last 5 or 6 years of strong job growth and they report on one month year over year that was slow?

[the urban politician]

^ I tend to agree. I think the fundamental factor is jobs.