The US Census Bureau thread

[the urban politician]

^ Look at that map.

Central Area population growth in Chicago from 2010-2015 was about the same as the period from 2000-2010.

So in 5 years we are matching growth that occurred the 10 years prior.

So as I have stated multiple times before, this IS the growth engine of Chicagoland in recent years.

Not the suburbs.

In addition, there is a migration of wealth and wealthy households into the core of the city. It is one of the most dramatic transformations in North America.

[the urban politician]

Chicago is now the nation's best-educated big city


Even as Chicago's population shrinks, the city is becoming notably wealthier and better educated, both in absolute and relative terms compared to other cities and the country as a whole, newly available U.S. census figures show.

Combined with other data, the continuing tale-of-two-cities story suggests large numbers of lower-income African-Americans are fleeing Chicago while somewhat lesser numbers of better-educated and higher-earning whites, Asian-Americans and blacks are coming in. That's leaving the city better off in some ways than it was a decade ago, but smaller.

"This is an aging industrial city. To have it as the most educated city in the top five nationally is a remarkable development," says Ed Zotti, a demographer who works for the Central Area Committee and crunched the data.

Other demographers say the data looks correct to them, but interpreted some of it in different ways.

"The city of Chicago is an absolute magnet if you have resources such as a high level of education and marketable skills," said Rob Paral of Rob Paral & Associates in Chicago. "If you are a working-class immigrant, too often you either can't get in the country in the first place these days or you are choosing a Sun Belt location. If you are an African-American resident of the city without a college education, the data shows that you have a good chance of choosing to leave and joining an astounding exodus of blacks."

"My guess is that higher-income black folks and more-educated black folks have more reasons to stay and the wherewithal to stay," says Alden Loury, who works for the Metropolitan Planning Council. "Their lives are more stable; they're more likely to live in middle-class communities with better education and employment options and a stable economic base. I think the data also suggests that the city is attracting young tech and other professionals of all races and ethnicities in recent years, including African-Americans."

Here are the numbers.

According to American Community Survey data compiled by Zotti, the share of Chicagoans over age 25 with bachelor's degrees or higher leapt from 29.3 percent in 2006 to 38.5 percent last year, with the increase particularly strong since 2011. That hike was larger than any of the country's four other most-populous cities—New York, Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia—and more than twice the 4.3 percent national increase.

Stunningly, a greater share of adults in once-blue-collar Chicago now hold degrees—38.5 percent—than in New York (37 percent) or the U.S. as a whole (31.3 percent).

The pattern is similar in the share of Chicago households with income above $100,000 a year.

Back in 2006, Chicago was in the middle of the pack, trailing New York and Los Angeles and a full percentage point behind the nation. But by 2016, the local share above $100,000 income, 26.1 percent, was just 0.1 percent below the national rate and within one percentage point of Los Angeles

.



http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...cated-big-city

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...sides-plummets



https://www.census.gov/2010census/ne.../cb12-181.html

Ok.

Even by that measure, it doesn't change the fact that *metro* Chicago still added 90,000 people during that time (double the growth of your definition of "the greater downtown area of Chicago").

That's impressive growth no doubt, but it's not enough evidence to suggest that outer suburban / exurban growth has completely dried up and outer suburban / exurban growth isn't just as (if not more) impressive, which is what you seemed to imply in your posts (or maybe I'm mistaken in my understanding of your posts?).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Where is this purple unicorn (in the US) where "outward growth" ISN'T happening "at will?"

There is no outer sprawl county of the NYC MSA/CSA that's showing any major growth. Most are declining or stagnant.

A few exurban counties have growth, but it's mostly in very dense Orthodox Jewish enclaves. There is essentially no large-scale traditional sprawl currently going up anywhere in a 100 mile radius around NYC.

The main reason there's no new sprawl is because it isn't allowed. Sprawl has been zoned out of existence, for the most part, even where there's market demand, because the communities are so intensely NIMBY.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Metro Atlanta is comprised of 28 counties. Georgia's counties are small and Georgia has more counties than any state except Texas.

Between 2010 and 2017, 62% of metro Atlanta's growth occurred in the core four counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb and Gwinnett.

Those four counties comprise the majority of the Atlanta metro. The rate of growth is roughly proportional to the overall population share.

And all four have essentially the same land use patterns as the more outer counties. It isn't as if McMansions in North Fulton County are somehow different from those in a more exurban country.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There is no outer sprawl county of the NYC MSA/CSA that's showing any major growth. Most are declining or stagnant.

A few exurban counties have growth, but it's mostly in very dense Orthodox Jewish enclaves. There is essentially no large-scale traditional sprawl currently going up anywhere in a 100 mile radius around NYC.

The main reason there's no new sprawl is because it isn't allowed. Sprawl has been zoned out of existence, for the most part, even where there's market demand, because the communities are so intensely NIMBY.

Yeah, the data I found and posted earlier seems to back up a lot of what you say about NYC.

But still, relatively minimal outward growth does not equate to zero outward growth. There's no such place that exists in the US.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Ok.

Even by that measure, it doesn't change the fact that *metro* Chicago still added 90,000 people during that time (double the growth of your definition of "the greater downtown area of Chicago").

That's impressive growth no doubt, but it's not enough evidence to suggest that outer suburban / exurban growth has completely dried up and outer suburban / exurban growth isn't just as (if not more) impressive, which is what you seemed to imply in your posts (or maybe I'm mistaken in my understanding of your posts?).

Look again at the graph. Over 86,000 people added since 2000

Compare that to 90,000 supposedly in all of the suburban area.

Come on, man. 86,000 highly paid, highly educated (on average) people in just a few square miles, compared to 90,000 (as you say) in hundreds of square miles?

The city center is clearly the growth center, and the future. And this is without talking about hotels, office, tourism, jobs—all which are clearly centered around the downtown area.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The downtown is part of the city of Chicago, the vast majority of growth that has occurred in the metro Chicago area has occurred outside the city.

This is untrue, at least in 2018.

The majority of growth in Chicagoland is occuring in the core. There is some growth in the exurban counties too, and some new fringe sprawl, but no exurban county has comparable growth as in the core.

Chicagoland is losing population because most of the geography between the core and fringe is stagnant or losing population. The biggest demographic issue in Chicago is decline in immigrants. Chicago was a major gateway city 10-15 years ago and was only #9 (I think) in the latest Census (by immigrant in-migration). It's annual immigrant flow is now just a bit ahead of Philly, when before it was like #3 or #4 nationally.

Chicago had robust growth in the 1990's largely because of huge Mexican in-migration. Really nothing changed with the domestic numbers, but the intl. numbers kinda went off a cliff. Immigration is a VERY important component of growth if you're an older U.S. city. The two groups that fuel growth in older metros are young professionals and immigrants.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Look again at the graph.

Yes, I am in fact mistaken.

Since 2010, it was only 42,423 through 2015 (not 44,208).

[the urban politician]

^ Yes, 42k since 2010, and 44k from 2000-2010

So the rate of growth is speeding up. Total growth of 86k people in 15 years.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is untrue, at least in 2018.

The majority of growth in Chicagoland is occuring in the core. There is some growth in the exurban counties too, and some new fringe sprawl, but no exurban county has comparable growth as in the core.

Chicagoland is losing population because most of the geography between the core and fringe is stagnant or losing population. The biggest demographic issue in Chicago is decline in immigrants. Chicago was a major gateway city 10-15 years ago and was only #9 (I think) in the latest Census (by immigrant in-migration). It's annual immigrant flow is now just a bit ahead of Philly, when before it was like #3 or #4 nationally.

Well, I mean I wouldn't expect the bolded to be the case. "Exurban Chicago" consists of (a guessimate) 1,000 sq. mi., versus the maybe 5 sq. mi. or so in the Greater Downtown Chicago area.

That doesn't change the facts though, those being outer suburban / exurban growth is still going strong and that growth in Chicago's core isn't all that more impressive.

[the urban politician]

^ It depends on what you consider “impressive”

To have population growth in 5 square miles that matches that occurring in 1000 square miles is impressive to me, at least. That just doesn’t happen in America, outside of New York, maybe

That kind of growth requires a great deal of infrastructure and some seriously dense structures.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yes, 42k since 2010, and 44k from 2000-2010

So the rate of growth is speeding up. Total growth of 86k people in 15 years.

BTW, to clarify, the 90,000 increase in *metro* Chicago was since 2010, which is why I did not consider the 2000 - 2010 number (because it wasn't an apples to apples comparison).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

BTW, to clarify, the 90,000 increase in *metro* Chicago was since 2010, which is why I did not consider the 2000 - 2010 number (because it wasn't an apples to apples comparison).

Oh ok, do you have a source for that?

I’m not sure all of that was the burbs. From 2010-present Chicago city proper has also grown

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Oh ok, do you have a source for that?

I’m not sure all of that was the burbs. From 2010-present Chicago city proper has also grown

From Obadno's post earlier (whose numbers seem to match the Census')

Originally Posted by Obadno

The central area is not getting the majority of the growth, although you did grow a little overall since 2010 it’s very up and down


Chicago metro 2010: 9,461,105
Chicago metro 2017:9,554,598

Change: +90,000

Chicago city 2010: 2,695,598
Chicago city 2016(couldn’t find 17): 2,704,958
Change: +9,000

What you are insinuating is incorrect

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...sides-plummets



https://www.census.gov/2010census/ne.../cb12-181.html

Here's the thing...Even still, these growth numbers for Chicago's core still don't tell the entire story of what is going on on the ground. The Near North Side showed impressive growth number despite losing thousands of public housing residents, both between 2000-2010 and 2010-2017; so a increase in 42,000+ residents (the vast majority which are young, high earners) is probably more like 50,000+ increase with a decrease in 8,000 or so low income/public housing residents; which is even more impressive.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Here's the thing...Even still, these growth numbers for Chicago's core still don't tell the entire story of what is going on on the ground. The Near North Side showed impressive growth number despite losing thousands of public housing residents, both between 2000-2010 and 2010-2017; so a increase in 42,000+ residents (the vast majority which are young, high earners) is probably more like 50,000+ increase with a decrease in 8,000 or so low income/public housing residents; which is even more impressive.

People in public housing are human beings. It isn't "more impressive" if you remove public housing residents and the land gets developed.

The Near North Side is most desirable part of Chicago and has the most housing development. It would obviously be expected to show significant growth. I doubt there's any core in the U.S. that doesn't show growth.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

People in public housing are human beings. It isn't "more impressive" if you remove public housing residents and the land gets developed.

The Near North Side is most desirable part of Chicago and has the most housing development. It would obviously be expected to show significant growth. I doubt there's any core in the U.S. that doesn't show growth.

Yes, they are human beings, but if we’re going to talk about prosperity (a topic we all obsess with around here with our little dick-measuring contests) let’s not lie and pretend that 1000 public housing residents mean the same for a city’s well being as 1000 professionals.

Besides, I think IIC’s point was that the true growth in population of high income earners in the central area was probably even higher. The growth of 86,000 people is impressive still knowing that it was offset by the loss of thousands of public housing residents.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

People in public housing are human beings. It isn't "more impressive" if you remove public housing residents and the land gets developed.

The Near North Side is most desirable part of Chicago and has the most housing development. It would obviously be expected to show significant growth. I doubt there's any core in the U.S. that doesn't show growth.

We have different opinions on this, in my opinion, it is significantly better to see an increase in wealthy, productive residents, than an increase in poor people living in public housing. I'm happy the poorest residents of the Near North Side are leaving the neighborhood.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by CIA

Growth in the metro area is not a positive for me, especially if the city proper is still in decline. Especially thinking of Detroit. It just becomes a doughnut hole of disinvestment.

Doughnut hole of disinvestment? The city of Detroit is seeing more investment and construction than it has seen in many decades! There’s even a new “Tallest” going up DT, along with multiple other developments. Population loss in the city proper has slowed to a trickle and should show actual growth soon, possibly even the next census!