The US Census Bureau thread

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think Chicago also suffered from unusually high underreporting for the census.

I really hope Chicago takes this data and asks some tougher questions. The city cannot continue to shrink like this and remain healthy.

Porque. It has been shrinking for 60 years and remains healthy. I li ed there from 2000 to 2004 and it was great and healthy after 50 years of shrinkage.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Nearly 10,000 children die each day from a preventable disease, malaria. If 10,000 chicago children died each day from malaria or 10,000 americans, would we accept that? Would we intervene? Why do we do nothing? Because they are not from our cities or our countries? Cityism and Nationalism are selfishness. For the individual selfishness uglifies the soul, in a population selfishness is extinction. The devil will take the hindmost until the foremost is the hindmost.

Don't feel pride or despair if your city is 200,000 greater or fewer than it was 10 years ago. If you are happy there, then that is good enough.

What do you mean we are doing nothing? Lots of Americans are doing a lot to try to solve that particular issue. Much more than the rest of the world is trying to do. Even from the private side with such foundations as Bill and Malinda Gates who have made massive progress helping get ride of malaria. We aren't doing nothing, you are just chose not to see what we are doing. There is nothing wrong in taking pride in doing something good for others, or in your wonderful city or country.

Originally Posted by Chicago103

The defeatist attitude is rampant in our society today like the black plague. It seems that our society is now full of people who see everything as being half empty all the time.

Disagree, it is just some people who are negative tend to be much more vocal than the happy positive people. There are many people in my home town of Austin to take enormous, even irritating, pride in our city and it drives everyone else batshit crazy how much we love our town.

Houston is the same. See the below post.
VVV

Originally Posted by Venom

And here comes the first of the houston boosters.

Prepare for an onslaught from Houston posters.

[pacarlson]

Dang. I am shocked and saddened to see the numbers for Chicago. I hope this is the bottom and things turn around for it.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

You don't have a city. You happened to be born somewhere. IF you weren't born there, you would have been born somewhere else. Care about all cities. Are you happy? Are you fulfilled? If so, you are lucky and count your blessings. 200,000 more people in your city have no effect on your happiness and fulfillment.

Nearly 10,000 children die each day from a preventable disease, malaria. If 10,000 chicago children died each day from malaria or 10,000 americans, would we accept that? Would we intervene? Why do we do nothing? Because they are not from our cities or our countries? Cityism and Nationalism are selfishness. For the individual selfishness uglifies the soul, in a population selfishness is extinction. The devil will take the hindmost until the foremost is the hindmost.

Don't feel pride or despair if your city is 200,000 greater or fewer than it was 10 years ago. If you are happy there, then that is good enough.

What the fcuk? Enough with the asinine non sequitors littering threads the world over.



Back to Chicago...as some have noted it seems at least from initial reports that we here in Chicago doe have a tale of two or perhaps three cities.

I would guess that the northside is probably near historical population highs....at least within striking distance.

Now the southside and westsides are a different story. It will be curious to see when we get census track level data where the most prolific losses occured.

My comment above should in no way be construed to suggest that all the south or west sides are ghetto crap holes......however there are significant portions that are. If population loss was concentrated in those blighted areas I think it is trenchant commentary on not just Chicago but that state of the US economy in the early 21st century....ie no demand for workers who are essentially marginally employable. In the long run it may be a good thing for Chicago....kind of like excising gangrenous body parts from an otherwise healthy body......one could argue that reality of the population loss is indicative of a more widespread pathology certainly.....but nonetheless I think it is too early to make a definitive diagnosis.

Now if the population losses were concentrated amongst midlle / upper class blacks......that is a very bad thing / indicator for the city in my opinion.

Does anyone know when census block data will be availiable.

Also as the earlier posted CMAP map represents many portions of the above mentioned blighted areas had extremely low census participation rated.....this I think could negatively impact the veracity of the census count....a recount should be in order.

In a related vein I wonder how all the venom being spewed by certain participants of our culture toward immigrant may have impacted either census participation rates and actual emigration?


In the end if it was large sections of blighted Chicago that saw the brunt of population loss......I say good.....it only gives an opportunity for new residents to develop parts of the city that have been a net drain for decades






-----on the more annoying side: now my friends in Brooklyn can claim that they are within striking distance of knocking the Windy City from 3rd place into fourth..... all

[chicubs111]

OK this sucks for Chicago...but i really dont believe these numbers anymore from the census... what is the point of the census doing those esitmates during the middle years before they do an official count when there are so off the count all the time? I mean in 90's they predict a loss and there is a gain...then now they predict a sligh decreaee and we have a major decrease like something from the 80's?..it doesnt make sense at all for such a drop during this decade

[Chicago103]

I have just opened a separate thread for Chicago specific discussion:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=188836

That being said given what Chicago and Gary, Indiana has experienced about the population being much less than what they thought it would be and what census estimates said I wonder if there will be recounts and perhaps investigations into how well Census 2010 as a whole conducted themselves.

[Buckman821]

Was I the only person compelled to start reading about immigration policy when I heard about the Chicago population news?

It's really got me thinking about the case for open borders. Seems like open immigration coincided with periods of extreme urban growth in our country.

[Thundertubs]

With Chicago's surprising drop in mind, I'd hate to think what we're going to see from Detroit and Cleveland. When do Michigan and Ohio come out?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

Was I the only person compelled to start reading about immigration policy when I heard about the Chicago population news?

It's really got me thinking about the case for open borders. Seems like open immigration coincided with periods of extreme urban growth in our country.

I don't know if you're the only one, but I've been an advocate of open (or very nearly open) immigration for a very long time. I consider the right to migrate a fundamental human right, and I hope this news jostles a few people into thinking that's not such a bad idea.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by lawfin

What the fcuk? Enough with the asinine non sequitors littering threads the world over.

Chicago 103 was saying that his sense of well-being was related to whether or not Chicago was losing or gaining population. My point is is that no one has a city. And if city populations are tied to your well-being, celebrate other cities that are gaining population.

Caring about your city's population is as stupid as caring about its sports teams. All you are doing is rooting for one color combination over another.

Like I said, I lived in Chicago after 5 decades of population decline and it was awesome. So what difference does another 200,000 make?

Cityism and Nationalism are small-minded things and of no value to the world. They are all totally artificial.

Oh and no way is north side Chicago at an all-time high in population.

You guys are really going racial and assuming that just because the african american population is plummeting that it means that only imporvished people are leaving. A lot of those african americans are/were middle class.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Chicago 103 was saying that his sense of well-being was related to whether or not Chicago was losing or gaining population. My point is is that no one has a city. And if city populations are tied to your well-being, celebrate other cities that are gaining population.

Caring about your city's population is as stupid as caring about its sports teams. All you are doing is rooting for one color combination over another.

Like I said, I lived in Chicago after 5 decades of population decline and it was awesome. So what difference does another 200,000 make?

Cityism and Nationalism are small-minded things and of no value to the world. They are all totally artificial.

I never said that my sense of well being was dependent on Chicago's population, thats a total distortion of what I said. At the same time its also crazy to say that it makes no difference at all. No it doesn't change how I feel about Chicago and it doesn't make me want to live anywhere else but I just don't brush it aside with rhetoric nonsense like oh well at least children aren't dying of malaria en masse in Chicago like in the third world or if I wasn't from Chicago I would be from somewhere else.

The world is not black and white, there is a middle ground between sayind "Oh my God my entire sense of purpose depends on this, I am going to be suicidally depressed if things don't go exactly as I wish" and "Oh well it doesn't matter at all, la di da de da".

If anything if you want to talk about selfishness in my view I would be rather selfish if I didn't care at all, if I just had this attitude of well at least I am happy in Chicago who cares what is going on outside of my own life then I would be the one narrow minded not the other way around.

I mean how far are you going to take your insane line of logic? If you come on here and say you just got mugged I will say "oh well you should be happy at least you aren't dying of malaria in Darfur".

[Urbanguy]

It's very sad to see Chicago's city population continue to decline. It's such a great & important city. It makes me very curious as to where Houston's ranks now with all the growth in Texas over the last decade -- I kind of wonder if it's as large as Chicago's now or....?

Anyhow, here is a list of cities that we have information on that are over 100,000 & their population change since the 2000 Census:

Chicago city, IL 2,695,598 (-200,418)
Indianapolis city, IN 829,718 (+37,792)
Baltimore city, MD 620,961 (-30,193)
Oklahoma City city, OK 579,999 (+73,867)
Virginia Beach city, VA 437,994 (+12,737)
Tulsa city, OK 391,906 (-1,143)
New Orleans city, LA 343,829 (-140,845)
Newark city, NJ 277,140 (+3,594)
Fort Wayne city, IN 253,691 (+47,964)
Jersey City city, NJ 247,597 (+7,542)
Norfolk city, VA 242,803 (+8,400)
Baton Rouge city, LA 229,493 (+1,675)
Chesapeake city, VA 222,209 (+23,025)
Richmond city, VA 204,214 (+6,424)
Des Moines city, IA 203,433 (+4,751)
Shreveport city, LA 199,311 (-834)
Aurora city, IL 197,899 (+54,909)
Little Rock city, AR 193,524 (+10,391)
Newport News city, VA 180,719 (+569)
Jackson city, MS 173,514 (-10,742)
Rockford city, IL 152,871 (+2,756)
Joliet city, IL 147,433 (+41,212)
Paterson city, NJ 146,199 (-3,023)
Naperville city, IL 141,853 (+13,495)
Alexandria city, VA 139,966 (+11,683)
Hampton city, VA 137,436 (-9,001)
Cedar Rapids city, IA 126,326 (+5,568)
Elizabeth city, NJ 124,969 (+4,401)
Lafayette city, LA 120,623 (+10,366)
Evansville city, IN 117,429 (-4,153)
Springfield city, IL 116,250 (+4,796)
Peoria city, IL 115,007 (+2,071)
Norman city, OK 110,925 (+15,231)
Elgin city, IL 108,188 (+13,701)
South Bend city, IN 101,168 (-6,621)

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by Urbanguy

It's very sad to see Chicago's city population continue to decline. It's such a great & important city. It makes me very curious as to where Houston's ranks now with all the growth in Texas over the last decade -- I kind of wonder if it's as large as Chicago's now or....?

Anyhow, here is a list of cities that we have information on that are over 100,000 & their population change since the 2000 Census:

Chicago city, IL 2,695,598 (-200,418)
Indianapolis city, IN 829,718 (+37,792)
Baltimore city, MD 620,961 (-30,193)
Washington, DC 601,723 (+29,664)
Oklahoma City city, OK 579,999 (+73,867)
Virginia Beach city, VA 437,994 (+12,737)
Tulsa city, OK 391,906 (-1,143)
New Orleans city, LA 343,829 (-140,845)
Newark city, NJ 277,140 (+3,594)
Fort Wayne city, IN 253,691 (+47,964)
Jersey City city, NJ 247,597 (+7,542)
Norfolk city, VA 242,803 (+8,400)
Baton Rouge city, LA 229,493 (+1,675)
Chesapeake city, VA 222,209 (+23,025)
Richmond city, VA 204,214 (+6,424)
Des Moines city, IA 203,433 (+4,751)
Shreveport city, LA 199,311 (-834)
Aurora city, IL 197,899 (+54,909)
Little Rock city, AR 193,524 (+10,391)
Newport News city, VA 180,719 (+569)
Jackson city, MS 173,514 (-10,742)
Rockford city, IL 152,871 (+2,756)
Joliet city, IL 147,433 (+41,212)
Paterson city, NJ 146,199 (-3,023)
Naperville city, IL 141,853 (+13,495)
Alexandria city, VA 139,966 (+11,683)
Hampton city, VA 137,436 (-9,001)
Cedar Rapids city, IA 126,326 (+5,568)
Elizabeth city, NJ 124,969 (+4,401)
Lafayette city, LA 120,623 (+10,366)
Evansville city, IN 117,429 (-4,153)
Springfield city, IL 116,250 (+4,796)
Peoria city, IL 115,007 (+2,071)
Norman city, OK 110,925 (+15,231)
Elgin city, IL 108,188 (+13,701)
South Bend city, IN 101,168 (-6,621)

Don't forget the bolded

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by Urbanguy

Newark city, NJ 277,140 (+3,594)
Jersey City city, NJ 247,597 (+7,542)

Richmond city, VA 204,214 (+6,424)
Des Moines city, IA 203,433 (+4,751)

Rockford city, IL 152,871 (+2,756)

Elizabeth city, NJ 124,969 (+4,401)

1. Three of New Jersey's top 4 cities gained population. Nice work, Garden State.

2. Congrats to Richmond and Des Moines for breaking 200,000 again.

3. Growth doesn't necessarily mean health. Rockford grew a little and it has a horrible economy, probably the worst in the state.

[Evergrey]

Did Fort Wayne annex some territory this past decade?

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

3. Growth doesn't necessarily mean health. Rockford grew a little and it has a horrible economy, probably the worst in the state.

I seriously wonder if Rockford is one of the places that people displaced by CHA demolition went to. It sounds crazy I know but I heard rumors that people from Chicago are moving to the suburbs and downstate in order to get section 8 vouchers and the like. At first I thought it was just nuts but given the census figures I wonder. I mean why else in the world would somebody move to Rockford given the economy unless they don't work in the first place?

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I seriously wonder if Rockford is one of the places that people displaced by CHA demolition went to. It sounds crazy I know but I heard rumors that people from Chicago are moving to the suburbs and downstate in order to get section 8 vouchers and the like. At first I thought it was just nuts but given the census figures I wonder. I mean why else in the world would somebody move to Rockford given the economy unless they don't work in the first place?

Some, but I'm not sure if that's completely driving Rockford's growth. There was a lot of empty room for suburban sprawl in far eastern Rockford near I-90.

The CHA demolitions sent former residents all over the central Midwest. Bloomington, Urbana, Madison, Iowa City, Danville, among other places. I do recall reading somthing about five years ago about Bloomington and Rockford accepting state money to take in former Cabrini residents. The wait list for Section 8 housing is also a lot shorter somewhere like Bloomington or Urbana than it is in Chicago.

Heck, 10 years ago a lot of Robert Taylor was still up, as well as the ALBA high-rises.

[wrab]

The weird irony here is that while the city as a whole shrank, the Loop, West Loop, South Loop and much of the North Side grew at rates of 15% or more:


Link

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

ummmmm,........ i don't think anyone in this thread has said anything remotely close to the effect that they take pride in the fact that chicago's population decreased by 200,000 people over the last decade. all i and a few others have done is point out that population alone isn't everything. wealth is very, VERY important as well. let's see how the wealth picture plays out. if the city is wealthier than it was 10 years ago, that's still a good thing despite the population loss. the fact that the core is healthier than it's ever been since world war II is also a good thing despite the population loss.

and comparing chicago only to new york is not always terribly useful. chicago is more like what would happen if new york and detroit had a child. there are still vast swaths of chicago that are far more fucked-up and dysfunctional than even the worst square inch of NYC these days.

I'm torn on how to feel about this... but definitely N-O-T proud of the population loss. But this is an American story... every city is going through what Chicago is going through, even if at different developmental stages. As you've said, we can all be proud that Chicago's central city is getting stronger. But the US is still suburb-driven, and that is just starting to weaken in the new millenium. Kendall and Kane counties grew like gangbusters over the last 10 years... no doubt some of that growth was out-migration. And eventhough we on this forum don't like it as a conglomerate, the individual families that moved from a drab, unsafe inner-city ghetto into a spacious home in the suburbs are NOT looking back. They are in a safer environment for their kids, better schools and more opportunities for all.

So if we're going to be mad about Chicago's population loss, then we NEED to be mad at ourselves. The poor areas of our cities are black holes of opportunity, and if they're not getting better, it's up to individuals to either stay there and accept it, or GTFO into a better situation. From glancing at the facts here, it appears that's what happened to Chicago.

The other side of the coin is this... the GHETTOS are getting smaller Hopefully, they cycle through and eventually become nice safe areas again. No one loses in that scenario, even if it's disappointing to look at right now. Chicago is still a world-class city and the 3rd largest in the nation. That's not going to change in the immediate future. So now that we have the numbers, we need to learn from them and support the city so it can be better!! Anyone on this forum who would celebrate a loss is just dumb.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

I'm torn on how to feel about this... but definitely N-O-T proud of the population loss. But this is an American story... every city is going through what Chicago is going through, even if at different developmental stages. As you've said, we can all be proud that Chicago's central city is getting stronger. But the US is still suburb-driven, and that is just starting to weaken in the new millenium. Kendall and Kane counties grew like gangbusters over the last 10 years... no doubt some of that growth was out-migration. And eventhough we on this forum don't like it as a conglomerate, the individual families that moved from a drab, unsafe inner-city ghetto into a spacious home in the suburbs are NOT looking back. They are in a safer environment for their kids, better schools and more opportunities for all.

I think we all knew the 2010 Census would continue to show that the U.S. suburbs are still where the vast majority of population growth took place over the past decade. While inner cities were revitalized from coast to coast in the end that didn't seem to make much a dent in population numbers. Chicago seemingly added thousands of new units in new condo towers and infill lofts but still lost population in the outlying neighborhoods and poor areas. My city, Tulsa, lost 1,143 people even with a major inner city renaissance while surrounding suburbs gained double digit percentages as people moved for the typical "good schools, bigger house, lower crime, etc." I do think we started to move away from that as a nation towards the end of the past decade, and in some cities it has been faster than others, but by and large the suburbs are still growing faster than our central cities...