CHICAGO | General Discussions

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah they are ridiculous. I'm not sure they understand how a census count works. Most people there are dumb about this though. I've gotten into it before with a few people. They literally expected Houston to surpass Chicago this year even though the growth rates from 2010 to 2015 indicated more like sometime between 2030 and 2040. And by then who knows what will happen in various cities.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

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.
.

^ I already acknowledged and applauded the fact that Chicago is outperforming the suburbs and the entire State, as a whole.

But net growth doesn't mean Chicago isn't experiencing a mass exodus, even though you are correct that the earlier estimates were WAY the hell off. We are celebrating the fact that Chicago didn't shrink, think about it. Well guess what, we BARELY grew, while our peers grew by a lot. The reason for that, despite white hot growth in the core, is because a TON of people are bailing. The aforementioned black exodus.

The media is reporting on that. They are correct to report on that, even though the scale is off.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I already acknowledged and applauded the fact that Chicago is outperforming the suburbs and the entire State, as a whole.

But net growth doesn't mean Chicago isn't experiencing a mass exodus, even though you are correct that the earlier estimates were WAY the hell off. We are celebrating the fact that Chicago didn't shrink, think about it. Well guess what, we BARELY grew, while our peers grew by a lot. The reason for that, despite white hot growth in the core, is because a TON of people are bailing. The aforementioned black exodus.

The media is reporting on that. They are correct to report on that, even though the scale is off.

Contrary to what O'Reilly reports, the growth wasn't just in the core although most was on on the lake. From South Shore to Evanston, there was just as much population growth not counting downtown as there was downtown in those areas combined. This entire area, if it was its own city, would have around 1 million people and have a greater growth rate than most cities. But anyway..

And obviously anyone who's stepped foot or driven through Englewood and areas around there knows there is an exodus there. However, what's dangerous is that people view sensationalist headlines and believe the entirety of the city was losing population. The fact is that the areas the city lost population in are fairly confined to a few areas. Most other places had growth or their decline was typically fairly small (except a few places like Albany Park).

I will blame the media for not being more careful with how they message what the data is. The only person in Chicago for big media I've seen make an effort to actually show nuance is Greg Hinz from Crains. Everyone else writes articles that make people believe that every corner of the city was losing population even when all surveys said otherwise. Again, only Hinz that I know.of made an actual effort to be a real journalist here.

If I had a dollar for everytime I read a comment on an article about a new development in Chicago that was "tHe CiTy Is LoSiNg PoPuLaTiOn!!!" I'd be rich. Sorry but I will blame media for not even pointing out these things.

Anyway...I think it should be a celebration for a lot of the city but hopefully those like Englewood, Lawndale, etc can get some things in order. I think what Lightfoot is doing by getting investment to those places is a good thing that couls pay off in a handful of years.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by 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.

Even if Houston manages to surpass Chicago, it don't think it would pull away.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

Even if Houston manages to surpass Chicago, it don't think it would pull away.

Lets get real, Chicago is going to get blown away by Houston in population some day.

And that is ok.

San Francisco is a jewel of a city, considered one of the greatest American cities and a highly desirable place to live, yet it has a fraction of the population of Chicago or Houston.

We need to think in terms of quality over quantity. We will never be able to compete with Sunbelt cities in sheer numbers.

[ChiMIchael]

^ In what fashion? Do you think Houston is going to challenge LA?

I don't think SF has ever had a major issue with prominence like Chicago. It probably won't be the end of the world when all is said is don't, but some outsiders are waiting to put Chicago among the dead or failed American cities.

[the urban politician]

^ I don't understand your question, perhaps we are talking past eachother.

I don't really care who Houston "challenges". Why is that important?

Chicago has zero hope of preventing Houston from surpassing it in population, and I actually think that has little to do with how Chicago is perceived from the outside.

[ChiSoxRox]

Double post.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I don't understand your question, perhaps we are talking past eachother.

I don't really care who Houston "challenges". Why is that important?

Chicago has zero hope of preventing Houston from surpassing it in population, and I actually think that has little to do with how Chicago is perceived from the outside.

You make this claim like Houston will always have perpetually high or moderate growth while Chicago will always be treading water. While that is probable, I just don't agree that the course can't change over the next 50 years. How exactly it would change, I don't know.

[Randomguy34]

Illinois had a massive drop in its white population by 700,000! Basically the only reason Illinois' population was roughly constant was cause of the large rise in the state's Latinx and Asian population, with many folks also identifying themselves as multi-racial: https://abc7chicago.com/us-census-20...data/10947865/

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

You make this claim like Houston will always have perpetually high or moderate growth while Chicago will always be treading water. While that is probable, I just don't agree that the course can't change over the next 50 years. How exactly it would change, I don't know.

^ I'm just not focused on that. I can't predict where things will be in 50 or 100 years. I'm sure that in 1900 nobody could have dreamed that an upstart town in Texas would challenge the mighty Chicago 120 years later.

All that Chicago can do is to make itself a better and more desirable place to live, visit, and do business. If it succeeds, the population will grow and more wealthy residents will come. If it doesn't, it will remain stagnant and shrink.

The focus should be on crime, making things livable and fair for business and residents, and getting its financial house in order. Everything else follows that.

[Chisouthside]

Maybe the moderately good news will be enough to push the Tribune tower into being built

Also it's gonna be interesting to find out what's happening in Aurora but from anecdotal evidence I know alot of Mexican families moved out to aurora from the city around the early 2000s and alot of them have left and gone out into the surrounding towns.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Lots can change over time. I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that Houston will ever pass Chicago in population. As Marothisu pointed out, all Chicago has to do is stabilize and improve a few areas of the city, and our growth would be somewhat right in line with some of the bigger growth cities. Of course, a changing of the media narrative wouldn’t hurt either.

Many thought Houston would pass Chicago with this census. How did that turn out?? Again, I would not be so fast to predict the future. Is it likely within the next 20/40 years… probably so. But then again, stranger things have happened.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

Lots can change over time. I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that Houston will ever pass Chicago in population. As Marothisu pointed out, all Chicago has to do is stabilize and improve a few areas of the city, and our growth would be somewhat right in line with some of the bigger growth cities. Of course, a changing of the media narrative wouldn’t hurt either.

Many thought Houston would pass Chicago with this census. How did that turn out?? Again, I would not be so fast to predict the future. Is it likely within the next 20/40 years… probably so. But then again, stranger things have happened.

The only people who thought that Houston was actually passing Chicago this Census were people who either:

1) Are bad at math.

2) Didn't actually bother to look at the trends (even those that said Chicago was losing population)

3) People so motivated to believe a narrative that they will believe anything.

The Census actually estimated Houston 's population pretty accurately. They were off by something like only 11,000 people. You can find posts in here from me or some other forum showing people even a few years ago how Houston isn't surpassing Chicago anytime until the mid 2030s basically and at this rate probably more like 2040. And by then who knows what will happen. So much can happen in the next 10 years that I'm not going to even try and predict it. Different cities but let's just think about NYC in the 1970s. BIg decline from 1970 to 1980. I'm sure many people proclaimed it so dead. Nope - 20 years later in 2000 it had nearly 1 million more people than 1980. Now 20 years later it has 800,000 more than 2000. The point is - this is a long time and anything can happen. Don't count out any city or believe a city will continue at its current clip of population trend when you are talking about 20 years from now.


Also this is pretty spot on, for the most part, and entertaining

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...coa-story.html

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 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.

They could have just annexed everything between Houston city limits and Austin if they wanted the title that badly...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Lets get real, Chicago is going to get blown away by Houston in population some day.

Not if Houston gets blown away by hurricanes first. I'm not really worried about Chicago vs Houston on a long term timeline. Eventually drought, 120+ degree temps, and monster storms will destroy the habitability of Houston. It's already happening, the insurance companies just haven't really caught on yet...

[marothisu]

Population size doesn't mean anything, as pointed out earlier. Case in point - San Francisco as well as places like Boston or DC and increasingly now Seattle.

But for fun, if the current 2010-2020 rates continue on for other Censuses..

2030:
Chicago: 2,798,020 people
Houston: 2,528,815 people

2040:
Chicago: 2,850,622 people
Houston: 2,774,868 people

2050:
Houston: 3,044,862 people
Chicago: 2,904,213 people

Alright so if Chicago keeps up a 1.88% growth per decade and Houston keeps up a 9.73% growth per decade then sometime in the mid to late 2040s, Houston will overtake Chicago.

This is why I say people are dumb at math. Houston was never going to overtake Chicago this census and realistically probably not the 2030 one either, and very possibly not even 2040.

[the urban politician]

I think that too many people on this site are short sighted and just want to hear any good news whatsoever, even if it’s really pretty minimal, so that they can go back to the business of rolling their eyes and scoffing at and labeling all critics—even sensible and practical ones—as knuckle dragging Trumpists who hate Chicago and want it to burn in hell.

Not that simple of a world, folks. I’m as big a Chicagophile as anyone else here, but my criticisms come from a position of loving what it could be if bad decisions didn’t keep happening over and over again. The tiny population gain really isn’t a cause for celebration, because we are still performing horribly. We need to make the city way more inviting to business and families, and not just gung-ho enthusiasts like Steely Dan and LVDW who would never think about leaving the city and region for any reason.

Chicago needs to broaden its appeal. And you start with honest discussions about what really needs to change to stop crime and lower taxes, as well as lowering barriers to business and home ownership. And yes, that means standing up to the empowered special interests who don’t want to lose their grip on this place. Good luck, because they ain’t interested in change.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m as big a Chicagophile as anyone else here

Dubious claim.

[Steely Dan]

one of the interesting aspects about metro chicago's meager growth this past 10 years has been the radical slowdown of the great cornfield-eating sprawl machine.

i think things have sprawled out so far from the city in most directions, that distances have now finally gotten "too damn far".

Just look at the MASSIVE slowdowns in Lake, Mchenry, Kane, and Will Counties. Dupage was slow too, but it was fully built-out by the previous census.

Even Kendall County, while growing much faster than the MSA overall, still saw a gigantic drop in it's growth rate relative to previous decades.

and its higher percentage is more a function of its low base, in raw numbers it only added ~17,000 people. in the '00s it added nearly 60,000 people, more than doubling it!


it still boggles my mind that the city of chicago actually grew a little bit faster than suburban cook, lake, mchenry, dupage and kane counties. and it wasn't all that far behind former cornfield-gobbler will county.

and in raw numbers, more than half of the MSA's growth was in the core county of Cook. take that, you stupid fucking sprawl!




City of Chicago:

1950: 3,620,962 | 6.6%
1960: 3,550,404 | −1.9%
1970: 3,366,957 | −5.2%
1980: 3,005,072 | −10.7%
1990: 2,783,726 | −7.4%
2000: 2,896,016 | 4.0%
2010: 2,695,598 | −6.9%
2020; 2,746,388 | 1.9%




Cook County (including the city):

1950: 4,508,792 | 11.0%
1960: 5,129,725 | 13.8%
1970: 5,492,369 | 7.1%
1980: 5,253,655 | −4.3%
1990: 5,105,067 | −2.8%
2000: 5,376,741 | 5.3%
2010: 5,194,675 | −3.4%
2020: 5,275,541 | 1.6%



Lake County:

1950: 179,097 | 47.9%
1960: 293,656 | 64.0%
1970: 382,638 | 30.3%
1980: 440,372 | 15.1%
1990: 516,418 | 17.3%
2000: 644,356 | 24.8%
2010: 703,462 | 9.2%
2020: 714,342 | 1.5%



Mchenry County:

1950: 50,656 | 35.8%
1960: 84,210 | 66.2%
1970: 111,555 | 32.5%
1980: 147,897 | 32.6%
1990: 183,241 | 23.9%
2000: 260,075 | 18.7%
2010: 308,760 | 18.7%
2020: 310,229 | 0.5%



Dupage County:

1950: 154,599 | 49.4%
1960: 313,459 | 102.8%
1970: 491,882 | 56.9%
1980: 658,835 | 33.9%
1990: 781,666 | 18.6%
2000: 904,161 | 15.7%
2010: 916,924 | 1.4%
2020: 932,877 | 1.7%



Kane County:

1950: 150,388 | 15.5%
1960: 208,246 | 38.5%
1970: 251,005 | 20.5%
1980: 278,405 | 10.9%
1990: 317,471 | 14.0%
2000: 404,119 | 27.3%
2010: 515,269 | 27.5%
2020: 516,522 | 0.2%



Will County:

1950: 134,336 | 17.6%
1960: 191,617 | 42.6%
1970: 249,498 | 30.2%
1980: 324,460 | 30.0%
1990: 357,313 | 10.1%
2000: 502,266 | 40.6%
2010: 677,560 | 34.9%
2020: 696,355 | 2.8%



Kendall County:

1950: 12,115 | 9.1%
1960: 17,540 | 44.8%
1970: 26,374 | 50.4%
1980: 37,202 | 41.1%
1990: 39,413 | 5.9%
2000: 54,544 | 38.4%
2010: 114,736 | 110.4%
2020: 131,869 | 14.9%