CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Randomguy34]

Tract 3301.03 has 8,248 people

[pip]

Call me very pleasantly surprised! And I'm looking forward to seeing all the data on down

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Tract 3301.03 has 8,248 people

Damn - nice catch. Updated my list above. Definitely a symptom of the shading and no borders (wtf?)


So by my data...Basically the lakefront area from Hyde Park north all the way to Rogers Park and counting areas like Near West Side, Lincoln Square, North Center, Fuller Park, Washington Park, Grand Boulevard, Armour Square, and West Ridge grew by 95,622 people. That is a growth rate of +12.36%....

Total population now of this area is nearly 870,000 people.

[Randomguy34]

Oh wow, that's about 42 sq mi. Just a bit smaller than San Francisco, but identical population sizes.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Oh wow, that's about 42 sq mi. Just a bit smaller than San Francisco, but identical population sizes.

Yep - and there's an area on the north/northwest side counting downtown that's nearly identical in area to SF as well with 200K+ more population. Possibly even more distance now....

It's good to see the south lakefront get denser.

[the urban politician]

If it weren’t for black flight, think just how much Chicago could’ve grown. It could’ve matched many of the other cities in the top 5 (percentage wise)

I actually see a few trends for 2020-2030:

1. A drop off in the effect of black flight
2. Increased growth in less gentrified “infill” neighborhood sites
3. Ongoing central area boom but a bit slower
4. Continued slow immigration

The net effect is that Chicago will perform even better in the next decade than in the last

[chicubs111]

Crazy to think that now the borough of Brooklyn is the same size of Chicago...lol...I Miss the days Chicago was 3 million...Feel like this city is built for more people... I always wonder if the government never enforced the limits of immigration between 1930 and 1940 how many more people would of been added to the city ...Chicago was growing like crazy during that time and easily would of surpassed 4 million people. One could only wonder..


Brooklyn- 2.736
Chicago- 2.746

[glowrock]

I have a bit of a hard time with Avondale's population loss, with the only explanation I can come up with being the continued deconversion of 2 and 4-flats into larger units. Anyone else have a possible explanation?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Steely Dan]

I'm pleased to see that Lincoln Square clawed its way back over the 40K threshold ever so slightly.

Population growth would have certainly been more robust here were it not for the ongoing 2-flat deconversion craze.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I have a bit of a hard time with Avondale's population loss, with the only explanation I can come up with being the continued deconversion of 2 and 4-flats into larger units. Anyone else have a possible explanation?

Aaron (Glowrock)

That’s got to be the reason. Early gentrification is characterized by these deconversions.

Later stages are characterized by new construction, where population numbers begin to rise. This later stage is often blocked by racist pond-scum like Alderman Rosa and his ilk. The free market wants to build apartments all over Avondale, but good luck getting many of those proposals through zoning.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That’s got to be the reason. Early gentrification is characterized by these deconversions.

Later stages are characterized by new construction, where population numbers begin to rise.

Yeah, look at LP and LV now!

After decades of gentrification-induced shrinkage/stagnation, they're finally now seeing very strong growth.

[Chisouthside]

Lower West Side(Pilsen) also lost 2000 people, most likely due to gentrification. Instead of 6 families living in a 3 flat with 6 units you got 2 roommates in each unit.

[marothisu]

Woodlawn and South Shore combined gained another 2646 people. Chatham also gained some people. So basically the neighborhoods that make up the 20 or so miles of lakefront from 79th St all the way to the northern edge of the city with some adjacent areas a little inland gained around 100,000 people between 2010 and 2020.

Logan Square and West Town combined gained another 3717 people.

"wHy Do ThEy KeEp BuIlDiNg? ThE cItY iS lOsInG pEoPlE!!!111"

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I have a bit of a hard time with Avondale's population loss, with the only explanation I can come up with being the continued deconversion of 2 and 4-flats into larger units. Anyone else have a possible explanation?

Aaron (Glowrock)

As other have said, this is typical of early stage gentrification. Let me give you an example of a buddy of mine. Salesforce tech bro, wants bigger house after renting cramped one bedroom in Edgewater for five years. Moves over by me to a two bedroom that used to have two old Polish dudes living in it. That's -1 for Avondale.

Then decides to buy a few years later. Purchases a three flat with duplexed up top floor. All three units were occupied by families of 4-7 people before the bank foreclosed. The bank kicks all of them out (I know because we toured it before the bank completed the foreclosure) and sells it to my buddy empty. He renovates and keeps the top duplex for himself, rents the first floor to a hipster couple and rents the garden unit to his GFs brother.

So let's say the two single floor units had 4 people each and the top had 7 before he moved in. The building that was previously housing 15 people now houses 4 people, 5 if you count tech bros GF...

That's a loss of 10 residents in a single three flat. Now extrapolate that across hundreds of properties. This is what Carlos Rosa is encouraging by banning new construction. He doesn't want other outlets for people like my buddy to move in and apparently thinks they just won't move in if they can't buy a new condo. What he doesn't get is that every new unit he refuses to allow means one more tech bro loose on the streets to gobble up existing naturally occurring affordable housing and turn that extra unit they can't be bothered to rent out into an Airbnb. You can't stop this, there is no legal way to prevent real estate transactions on the private market. When you don't allow the private market to create new supply, existing supply is rapidly decimated as people take existing buildings and upgrade them to suit their needs.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yeah, look at LP and LV now!

After decades of gentrification-induced shrinkage/stagnation, they're finally now seeing very strong growth.

Are you referring to Little Village? I didn't see LV on the list on the previous page...


BTW this is great data for me as an investor. It proves that these downtrodden areas can turn around and become attractive to new residents and it proves my point that Chicago is not shrivelling like a raisin in the sun after all. People want to live here. People even want to live in "those areas", all we need to do is build it and they will come.

At some point the outside world is going to catch on to what is going on in Chicago. At some point people are going to realize this is the only great city on earth with abundant vacant proeprty near it's core. Hopefully Chicago is ready for the influx by then and prepared herself in such a way that those who have been historically systematically excluded from the benefits of landownership are best positioned to reap the rewards of this country pulling it's head from it's ass about our city.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Are you referring to Little Village? I didn't see LV on the list on the previous page...


BTW this is great data for me as an investor. It proves that these downtrodden areas can turn around and become attractive to new residents and it proves my point that Chicago is not shrivelling like a raisin in the sun after all. People want to live here. People even want to live in "those areas", all we need to do is build it and they will come.

At some point the outside world is going to catch on to what is going on in Chicago. At some point people are going to realize this is the only great city on earth with abundant vacant proeprty near it's core. Hopefully Chicago is ready for the influx by then and prepared herself in such a way that those who have been historically systematically excluded from the benefits of landownership are best positioned to reap the rewards of this country pulling it's head from it's ass about our city.

I hate to dwell on media, but part of the reason is because most media is too naive to realize that interesting even positive things can be going on in a place with supposedly stagnant or reducing population.

As we see though - it's not true. Chicago gained population and the lakefront areas for 20 miles gained 100,000 which has become a badge of honor so far for this census for cities.

South Lawndale actually lost the most people of any community area according to the data. I calculated it last night but didn't post more. Basically the areas that lost people were around Englewood, West Englewood, Auburn Gresham, Roseland, South Chicago, etc as well as Austin, Lawndale, Garfield Park, Humboldt Park, and Lower West Side. Also a few NW areas like Portage Park and Belmont Cragin lost people while places like Jefferson Park, Dunning, and Montclare gained.

I'm just guessing by my own data that in 5 years or so areas like Portage Park might reverse this trend. They have been hot since early this year for property purchasing. We'll see though.

And as TUP indicated..imagine if there was better investment in some of these South and west side areas earlier and some things like safety could stabilize? Say what you will about Lightfoot but some of her initiatives are a very good thing for many reasons.

It'll be interesting to see how Chicago develops in the next decade. The growth is modest but thats because of only a small handful of community areas. If those were doing better,, Chicago would have probably gained 100K+ people instead.

In the meantime I'm basking in the fact that the data I've been collecting for years and telling people that there's more to what meets the eye about what's happening in Chicago is true.

The fact that the census says the city gained population is almost like a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of people don't like to live in areas they think are in decline. Now people can see how the media has misused the prior estimates and see that actually no..Chicago is growing again and there's a reason why developers have poured billions into the city as well as suburbs.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Are you referring to Little Village?

no, not Little Village.

I was speaking of LakeView.

my apologies for the confusion.

[Halsted & Villagio]

You guys know how Google sends you articles from various newspapers regarding their local news and/or world events.... well this article was sent to me by Google's news feed:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/foo...s-16382430.php

Titled: "Why Houston, not Chicago, deserves Third in the Census"

Can you believe Houston is actually butt hurt over not taking over #3? Butt hurt and whining like little sniffling babies. They really wanted that distinction baaad and actually were telling themselves that this would be the census to put them at #03. I don't mind a city aspiring for more, but take your medicine like a big boy Houston... and don't take away credit from a city you know next to nothing about - Chicago.

And yeah, needless to say, I requested for google to stop sending me articles from the Houston Chronicle.

Note: the article might be paywalled by now.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The fact that the census says the city gained population is almost like a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of people don't like to live in areas they think are in decline. Now people can see how the media has misused the prior estimates and see that actually no..Chicago is growing again and there's a reason why developers have poured billions into the city as well as suburbs.

^ Even better, Chicago is outperforming the metropolitan area & State in population growth as well as growth in income.

But I disagree with you that media is somehow at fault for reporting bad news. Murders DO deserve attention. When somebody dies of a gunshot, particularly a child, it is only a journalistic obligation to report on it and ask "why does so much of this keep happening?"

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Even better, Chicago is outperforming the metropolitan area & State in population growth as well as growth in income.

But I disagree with you that media is somehow at fault for reporting bad news. Murders DO deserve attention. When somebody dies of a gunshot, particularly a child, it is only a journalistic obligation to report on it and ask "why does so much of this keep happening?"

Murders have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. No straw man arguments here. We are talking about how the media all over has misused data to convince people that everyone is fleeing a few places when it's not true. And the point here is they should actually consult other data to form an opinion. This census in 2020 isn't even the first time this has happened. A few cities estimates for 2010 were way off too. Did media across the country learn their lesson? Nope. They like to sell fear all over the place. It's what sells.

This has to do with misusing ESTIMATE data and the media all over the place (not just Chicago..not even close) not understanding that it's a sample survey and has a margin of error, and has been way off in recent times. It's their fault for not talking about this in articles that the numbers arent typically super accurate. Lazy journalism at its finest for not even mentioning its a survey and has a certain margin of error.