CHICAGO | General Discussions

[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.

[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

[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

[the urban politician]

New York was not a big city in the 1600s.

New York was a small trading port for nearly the first two centuries of its existence.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

New York was not a big city in the 1600s.

New York was a small trading port for nearly the first two centuries of its existence.

Yeah, I don't think it even had 100k until the 1800s and only had a few thousand in the 1600s

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

New York was not a big city in the 1600s.

New York was a small trading port for nearly the first two centuries of its existence.

it was way bigger than Chicago was...

[emathias]

For historical purposes, let's say that 100,000 people qualified a city as 'big' prior to the Industrial Revolution. There were obviously a few mega-cities that grew to be much larger, but mostly "big" would have been over 100,000. New York hit that between 1810 and 1820. By comparison, London floated around 100,000 between 1300 and 1500, but it didn't hit one million, either, until the early 1800s (New York hit 100,000 around when London hit 1,000,000 - New York hit a million in the mid-1800s - probably around 1855 the land comprising the current five boroughs contained a million people). By 1860 Manhattan and Brooklyn combined were well above a million, and Chicago was just above 110,000, sort of mirroring the population relationship between London and New York a half-century earlier. By comparison, in the time of Benjamin Franklin, Paris was about a half-million people.

At the time of the American Revolution New York was maybe 25,000 people, about the same as Philadelphia, and about 25% bigger than Boston at the time. The U.S. just didn't have large cities when it was formed - no wonder the Constitution doesn't seem to serve the representation of cities particularly well. It wasn't until almost 1850 that the U.S. had even five cities above 100,000 people - in 1840, New Orleans was essentially tied with Baltimore for second-largest city in the U.S.

Interestingly, Cincinnati broke into the top ten largest American cities in 1830's census and didn't drop out of that group until the 1910 census, which is the third census showing Chicago as the Second City. Also interesting, there has been no census where every U.S. city in the Top Ten had a population in excess of one million, and 1970 was the first time more than five did. Of course, that's not counting metro areas, but interesting nonetheless.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

2020 census is likely to change that though. There will be 10 cities, possibly 11 with Austin, with more than a million

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by emathias

For historical purposes, let's say that 100,000 people qualified a city as 'big' prior to the Industrial Revolution. There were obviously a few mega-cities that grew to be much larger, but mostly "big" would have been over 100,000. New York hit that between 1810 and 1820. By comparison, London floated around 100,000 between 1300 and 1500, but it didn't hit one million, either, until the early 1800s (New York hit 100,000 around when London hit 1,000,000 - New York hit a million in the mid-1800s - probably around 1855 the land comprising the current five boroughs contained a million people). By 1860 Manhattan and Brooklyn combined were well above a million, and Chicago was just above 110,000, sort of mirroring the population relationship between London and New York a half-century earlier. By comparison, in the time of Benjamin Franklin, Paris was about a half-million people.

At the time of the American Revolution New York was maybe 25,000 people, about the same as Philadelphia, and about 25% bigger than Boston at the time. The U.S. just didn't have large cities when it was formed - no wonder the Constitution doesn't seem to serve the representation of cities particularly well. It wasn't until almost 1850 that the U.S. had even five cities above 100,000 people - in 1840, New Orleans was essentially tied with Baltimore for second-largest city in the U.S.

Interestingly, Cincinnati broke into the top ten largest American cities in 1830's census and didn't drop out of that group until the 1910 census, which is the third census showing Chicago as the Second City. Also interesting, there has been no census where every U.S. city in the Top Ten had a population in excess of one million, and 1970 was the first time more than five did. Of course, that's not counting metro areas, but interesting nonetheless.

If we want to go back in time even further......Illinois did have the most populated city before any of this.... Cahokia used to be the largest "city" in america around 1300. Not many people give thought to the thriving indian populations around before we got involved. Some estimates were around 40k, WHICH would be about Londons size around then. Interesting place to visit/camp.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by emathias

For historical purposes, let's say that 100,000 people qualified a city as 'big' prior to the Industrial Revolution. There were obviously a few mega-cities that grew to be much larger, but mostly "big" would have been over 100,000. New York hit that between 1810 and 1820. By comparison, London floated around 100,000 between 1300 and 1500, but it didn't hit one million, either, until the early 1800s (New York hit 100,000 around when London hit 1,000,000 - New York hit a million in the mid-1800s - probably around 1855 the land comprising the current five boroughs contained a million people). By 1860 Manhattan and Brooklyn combined were well above a million, and Chicago was just above 110,000, sort of mirroring the population relationship between London and New York a half-century earlier. By comparison, in the time of Benjamin Franklin, Paris was about a half-million people.

There were very few cities with more than 100,000 historically. The height of urban life, prior to the 15th or 16th centuries, was the Roman Empire and even the bulk of cities were in the 20,000 to 50,000 range. During the 1st century AD during the height of stability for the Roman Empire the largest cities were Rome (1 million residents), Alexandria (600,000 +/- 100,000), Antioch & Carthage (both roughly ~ 500,000), then Ephesus (250,000 to 350,000), and after that cities like Pergamum, Byzantium, Smyrna, Lugudunum, Massila, Mediolanum, Aquileia, Athens, Apamea, Sardis, Corinth, Beroea, and Gadir had populations in the 100,000 to 200,000 range. London's population at this time (prior to the Boudiccan Revolt) was 60,000 and wouldn't eclipse that figure until some time in the 15th century.

Which while that shows how the number of cities diminish as population rises. In 1700 there were just 10 cities in Europe with populations in excess of 100,000. By 1800 there were maybe a dozen with certain already large cities seeing a lot of growth but in general there wasn't a huge increase in the number of large cities. Point being that London is an outlier whereas other cities, such as New York, were far more typical.

At the time of the American Revolution New York was maybe 25,000 people, about the same as Philadelphia, and about 25% bigger than Boston at the time. The U.S. just didn't have large cities when it was formed - no wonder the Constitution doesn't seem to serve the representation of cities particularly well. It wasn't until almost 1850 that the U.S. had even five cities above 100,000 people - in 1840, New Orleans was essentially tied with Baltimore for second-largest city in the U.S.

At the time of the Revolution Philadelphia had a population of 40,000, followed by New York with 25000, Boston with 15000, Charleston with 12000 and Newport with 11000.

More importantly though is that Philadelphia, with just 40000 people, was the second largest city in the British Empire after London. Which should again emphasize that 1) London is an outlier and not a benchmark on urban life and 2) urban centers at that time were in general much less populous than you imagine.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by JK47

There were very few cities with more than 100,000 historically. The height of urban life, prior to the 15th or 16th centuries, was the Roman Empire

[emathias]

Jk47, the census of 1790 put Philadelphia's population at 28,000. They didn't pass 40,000 until the census of 1800. Are you asserting they lost over 12,000 during the Revolution?

When I say "big city," I thought it was obvious that that would mean, by definition, that it only applied to a relatively few cities.

I also was not being nearly as Euro-centric as your list seems to be, as China and India had multiple cities in excess of 100,000 since antiquity, as did general Central Asia empires. Additionally, various cities in the Western Hemisphere passed 100,000 at various times in the past several thousand years - and we know that even with what is, realistically, very spotty archeology.

[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 Lurker]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

2020 census is likely to change that though. There will be 10 cities, possibly 11 with Austin, with more than a million

There are already 10 cities with 1 million plus. San Jose has surpassed that mark joining NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and San Diego

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by The Lurker

There are already 10 cities with 1 million plus. San Jose has surpassed that mark joining NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and San Diego

Austin has an estimated population of 950,715 as of the 2017 estimates. Given that's fairly accurate, based on current growth rates, if those rates continue for the next few years then it's very possible that Austin will be over 1 million people.