Chicago: a tale of seven cities

[Steely Dan]

an interesting piece on current demographic trends in Chicago from the Sun-Times.

the biggest things to note are the large population swings in the northside and the south lakefront so far this decade compared to 2000 - 2010.

Chicago: a tale of seven cities
Of those distinct parts of the city, five are on the way up, one is treading water, and one remains in steep decline. That’s a big change since 2010.






1. Central Area
The booming core — neighborhoods within two miles of City Hall — has been Chicago’s chief magnet for new residents for more than two decades. Its population has grown by almost 100,000 since 2000 and today almost certainly exceeds 250,000.

Chicago had the fastest-growing downtown population of any U.S. city between 2000 and 2010, according to the Census Bureau. Given the accelerated growth rate since then, it’s reasonable to think the same will be true this current decade.


2. North Side
This vast area is home to nearly 1.2 million people. With the central area, it accounts for more than half the city’s population and most of its wealthy neighborhoods.

The North Side’s affluence has spread to the Near West Side, making the two indistinguishable in terms of income, property values and such. So I’ve lumped them together here.

You can head west from the Loop today and see signs of revival as far as Western Avenue, even Kedzie Avenue in some places. Twenty years ago, who’d have thought it?


3. Far West Side
The population of this predominantly African American area plummeted between 2000 and 2010, but the loss since then has slowed. Black people continue to depart in significant numbers, but they’ve been replaced to an extent by Hispanics.


4. Southwest Side
This area remains below the county’s median for income, property values and educational attainment but is seeing growth in population and households, again due to an influx of Hispanics.


5. Far Southwest Side
These communities on the edge of the city — including Beverly, Morgan Park and Mount Greenwood — have been stable for years and remain so. The hilly terrain and quality housing in parts of the area are part of the appeal.


6. Far South Side
The Far South Side lost nearly 100,000 people between 2000 and 2010 and is on track to lose another 80,000 by the end of this decade. The continuing decline offsets gains elsewhere in the city and explains why Chicago’s population has fallen the past few years.

This area has some of the city’s oldest middle-class, black neighborhoods, including Chatham and Auburn-Gresham. All have been losing population in the wake of the community’s overall deterioration.


7. South Lakefront
This could be the most interesting part of the city. For decades, the south lakefront was in free fall, losing thousands of dwellings and tens of thousands of people. Huge tracts are now vacant.

Since 2010, though, the area has started to grow — again in part due to the expansion of the Asian community beyond its base in Chinatown, coupled with the slowing departure of African Americans. Even now, streets like Drexel Boulevard, once among the most elegant in the city, retain a good deal of their former charm. New residential construction, halted by the recession, is resuming.

full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...ity-crossroads

[JManc]

Why is the Far West side separated into two sections and one part not simply a part of SW side?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Why is the Far West side separated into two sections and one part not simply a part of SW side?

do you mean the Far Southwest Side?

Ed probably segregated them out and placed them together because they are whiter, wealthier, and more "cops & firemen"* than the more working class areas they are immediately adjacent to.



(*) the city of chicago has a residency requirement for all city workers, and many of these folks flock to the very extreme edges of the northwest and southwest sides.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by JManc

Why is the Far West side separated into two sections and one part not simply a part of SW side?

I-294 is a barrier that keeps the density and demographics different in these two areas. More black residents on the west side, Hispanic residents on the southwest side. Near Southwest side is much denser plus feels more a part of the city than the far southwest side, which is more leafy residential.

City-proper Chicago is 227.34 square land miles and most of that land is on what's considered the "south side" generally, lots of different neighborhoods in that area.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

I-294 is a barrier that keeps the density and demographics different in these two areas.

huh? the tri-state doesn't go through any part of the city of chicago.

well except for that tiny one-block wide strip of land along foster that connects ohare to the city.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by steely dan

huh? The tri-state doesn't go through anby part of the city of chicago.

Well except that tiny one-block wide swath along foster that connects ohare to the city.

290*

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

290*

but Jmanc misspoke, he was not asking why the far west and southwest sides are separate. he was asking why the far SOUTHWEST side was made up of two non-contiguous parts.

as i said earlier, the answer is likely demographics.



besides, the ike doesn't separate the far west side from the southwest side on that map. none of the city's expressways separate anything on that map.

the boundary between the far west and the southwest side on the map is the BNSF tracks. the same boundary between south lawndale (little village) and north lawndale, which as we all know, are pretty different worlds.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by JManc

Why is the Far West side separated into two sections and one part not simply a part of SW side?

Likely because this isn't entirely about geographics, but about parts of the city that have different demographic/economic forces in effect.

So one neighborhood could be gentrifying while another neighborhood 6 blocks away could be experiencing gang violence.

The author is trying to separate Chicago into 7 cities that are experiencing different realities, with only loosely defined geographies.

[Crawford]

Probably because the West Side is almost entirely black and pretty bombed-out, while the SW side is overwhelmingly Mexican and quite vibrant.

You cross railroad tracks in Little Village and it's a dramatic change.

[JManc]

Yes, Far Southwest Side.

[maru2501]

this seems pretty accurate to me.. just south of Hyde Park and the midway is really cranking. Just had a friend move from wrigleyville to there and the whole area is filling with young white couples with kids.. talking like straight up north woodlawn

houses that would be 750k to 1 million in roscoe village.. he takes metra electric to work from there

and yeah, the central area is obviously still exploding

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by maru2501

this seems pretty accurate to me.. just south of Hyde Park and the midway is really cranking. Just had a friend move from wrigleyville to there and the whole area is filling with young white couples with kids.. talking like straight up north woodlawn

houses that would be 750k to 1 million in roscoe village.. he takes metra electric to work from there

and yeah, the central area is obviously still exploding

This area is called Woodlawn or Jackson Park Highlands. JP Highlands is filled with mansions that sell for like $350k.

[the urban politician]

^ It should be interesting to see how plans for increased service on the Metra Electric will affect Woodlawn and other areas down there

[maru2501]

he lands at millennium park and his new commute is faster..

funny that the "pioneers" were U Chicago employees and professors. And now the Obama center should pop it further

[Sun Belt]

The central core +94,000 in 17 years. That's +460 people per month in a city that was 2.9 million in the year 2000. Pretty solid growth, not sure I would categorize that as booming. I guess it's booming in respect to other parts of the city that lost significant population.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Pretty solid growth, not sure I would categorize that as booming.

it is booming when you consider the fact that the 11 sq. miles of chicago's central area were home to ~150,000 people in 2000, and are now home to ~250,000 people, a 67% increase in just under 2 decades.

we also say that downtown chicago is "booming" because it has built 50 towers over 500' since 2000. that's more 500+ footers than any other US city not named new york or miami even has in the first place.

if you took all of the new towers chicago has built over the past 2 decades and put 'em in a cornfield in central illinois, that new cornfield skyline would be bigger and taller than the existing skylines of houston, LA, atlanta, dallas, philly, SF, seattle, etc.

in an american context, that can't be categorized as anything other than "booming".

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The central core +94,000 in 17 years. That's +460 people per month in a city that was 2.9 million in the year 2000. Pretty solid growth, not sure I would categorize that as booming. I guess it's booming in respect to other parts of the city that lost significant population.

You do realize that that is roughly 94k people in 17 years in a 2 mile radius (of which a large portion is Lake Michigan), right?

That kind of growth would be considered nothing in a sunbelt boomtown over typically a much, much larger geographic area.

But growth of that degree over such a tight geographic footprint (once again, about 40% of that geography is water) is pure urban awesomeness.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The central core +94,000 in 17 years. That's +460 people per month in a city that was 2.9 million in the year 2000. Pretty solid growth, not sure I would categorize that as booming. I guess it's booming in respect to other parts of the city that lost significant population.

Its disingenuous to look at the city population as a whole, we're talking about a single district in a city that is 220 square miles. That's an amazing increase in density to an already dense area.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Handro

Its disingenuous to look at the city population as a whole, we're talking about a single district in a city that is 220 square miles. That's an amazing increase in density to an already dense area.

This. Absolutely this.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[the urban politician]

^ Wow, that's not even very accurate