15 Largest Cities by 2046?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Just occurred to me that aside Osaka-Kyoto, Chicago is the largest metropolitan area in the world losing population.

That's interesting.

Chicago for all of its global prominence is still rustbelt at its core. I like that. And I don't think it has anything to do with decline, per se.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by l3g0

Isnt the chicago population flat, and losing older poorer people, and gaining younger more affluent people?

That would be a better description overall when looking at the MSA, yes. I believe it's only down a few thousand people at this point. Still, this is primarily due stagnation and population loss in the primary counties that makeup metro Chicago, especially the most populous ones in Illinois.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by l3g0

Isnt the chicago population flat, and losing older poorer people, and gaining younger more affluent people?

By metro, almost certainly no. Metros are getting older, especially in the Northeast/Midwest.

In urban core, no doubt, but that's probably every urban core. Cores are generally getting younger and more affluent.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pj3000

That's interesting.

Chicago for all of its global prominence is still rustbelt at its core. I like that. And I don't think it has anything to do with decline, per se.

I think Chicago is another category. Up to the 1990's, it was arguably one of the most important cities in the world, with an incredibly diversified economy, world's busiest airport, etc. It started to lose ground from the 2000's.

However, fortunes can change. 1970's New York also lost population. It was the largest metro area ever to do so, while being the most populated area in the US and the 2nd in the world.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I think Chicago is another category. Up to the 1990's, it was arguably one of the most important cities in the world, with an incredibly diversified economy, world's busiest airport, etc. It started to lose ground from the 2000's.

However, fortunes can change. 1970's New York also lost population. It was the largest metro area ever to do so, while being the most populated area in the US and the 2nd in the world.

Right, yeah. I didn't mean that Chicago is rustbelt like Youngstown or Flint or Detroit or Pittsburgh is rustbelt. It's the alpha rustbelt city, with true global presence. Yet some of the demographic characteristics still reflect that heavy industry past, which the cities of the region share. The metro has an old population and they're dying. I said I like that Chicago is still rustbelt at its core because I'll take a city where families live for generations through the ups and downs of a city's fortunes over a transient "hot" city any day of the week.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I think Chicago is another category. Up to the 1990's, it was arguably one of the most important cities in the world, with an incredibly diversified economy, world's busiest airport, etc. It started to lose ground from the 2000's.

However, fortunes can change. 1970's New York also lost population. It was the largest metro area ever to do so, while being the most populated area in the US and the 2nd in the world.

Make no mistake, Chicago is definitely still a heavyweight in the global economy, but I think people are finally noticing that there can, and in a lot of cases is, a disconnect between what makes a city important to the global economy vs what makes a place desirable for the average person.

LaSalle St and organizations like the CME don't care that Chicago's population isn't booming. What they care about is money and the city not taxing their financial transactions.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by l3g0

Isnt the chicago population flat, and losing older poorer people, and gaining younger more affluent people?

Yes, Chicago is losing its poorer black citizens as rough neighborhoods on the south and west sides continue to hollow out. That isn't offset by the more affluent, young professionals that occupy all of those shiny new towers within the Loop. One of our resident Chicagoans can likely give a more detailed analysis.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by BG918

Yes, Chicago is losing its poorer black citizens as rough neighborhoods on the south and west sides continue to hollow out. That isn't offset by the more affluent, young professionals that occupy all of those shiny new towers within the Loop. One of our resident Chicagoans can likely give a more detailed analysis.

Chicago is probably losing its black working class and middle class residents faster than its poor black residents.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Chicago is probably losing its black working class and middle class residents faster than its poor black residents.

Pretty much seeing that in a lot of northern cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Pretty much seeing that in a lot of northern cities.

Yeah, probably all of them.

[IrishIllini]

Chicago is hemorrhaging black residents, but growing among all other demographics...at least before the pandemic. Not sure how things look today, but if Chicago had even a stable black population, the city and region would have been growing in the lead up to the pandemic, although modestly.

I think the loss of black residents is fairly widespread across income levels. There were increases in some areas, but those were more than offset by losses elsewhere.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Chicago is hemorrhaging black residents, but growing among all other demographics...at least before the pandemic. Not sure how things look today, but if Chicago had even a stable black population, the city and region would have been growing in the lead up to the pandemic, although modestly.

I think the loss of black residents is fairly widespread across income levels. There were increases in some areas, but those were more than offset by losses elsewhere.

I haven't looked it up, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Chicago's high income black population is growing.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I haven't looked it up, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Chicago's high income black population is growing.

Marothisu could probably give us the best breakout. I recall black households earning less than $75k were falling and falling fast. There may have been modest gains at the higher end, but they were minimal. Contrary to what has been discussed here, the population of metro Chicago has been relatively flat since the early/mid 2010s. The state's population has been declining, but primarily in rural counties south and west of the Chicagoland area. There were one or two fringe counties that increased in population, as well as some counties with large, public universities.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Chicago is hemorrhaging black residents, but growing among all other demographics...at least before the pandemic. Not sure how things look today, but if Chicago had even a stable black population, the city and region would have been growing in the lead up to the pandemic, although modestly.

I think the loss of black residents is fairly widespread across income levels. There were increases in some areas, but those were more than offset by losses elsewhere.

Where are these black residents moving to, the suburbs or the Sunbelt?

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by BG918

Where are these black residents moving to, the suburbs or the Sunbelt?

Some move to the suburbs. Some move to smaller cities in central Illinois. Seems most move out of state.

[MolsonExport]

Interesting article in the Atlantic on America's shrinking metros (from 2019, thus pre-covid)

Why Are America’s Three Biggest Metros Shrinking?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Without having read the article, I'm going to assume high cost of living is one factor, outside of maybe Chicago?

The Californians leaving for neighboring states are starting to make it impossible for us locals to afford housing, but compared to where they're coming from (SoCal and the Bay Area), housing is a steal.

[MolsonExport]

cost of living is a major factor, along with sharply reduced international migration (the three cities have long been in the negative for domestic migration)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I said I like that Chicago is still rustbelt at its core because I'll take a city where families live for generations through the ups and downs of a city's fortunes over a transient "hot" city any day of the week.

my ears are burning (my two kids represent generation 7 in chicago for my family)

but overall, while chicagoland certainly has a crap-ton of multi-generational families just like anywhere else, there's also a fair bit of "transcience" as well, at least in the trendy favored quarter of the city.

there's a very sizeable demographic in chicago that can best be summed up as: grew up somewhere in the midwest, went to a big10 school, moved to chicago for first job, romped around the urban theme park for 5-15 years, then (a) career climb and move on to the next city, (b) get married, have kids, move back home "to be closer to my family", or (c) plant roots in chicagoland. my own wife falls into camp (c).

anecdotal: i still have a lot of childhood friends in my social network who come from multi-generation chicago families like mine, however, along with all of those old-schoolers, I also have newer friends born in: downstate illinois, cleveland, milwaukee, detroit, seattle, connecticut, guatemala, peru, and poland.

so i feel like there's a somewhat healthy balance bewteen rootedness and new blood in this town. yeah, we could definitely use more international immigration juice like we got back in the '90s, but it's not at all like the truly dying small rustbelt cities where newcomers can be pretty few and far between.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

my ears are burning (my two kids represent generation 7 in chicago for my family)

but overall, while chicagoland certainly has a crap-ton of multi-generational families just like anywhere else, there's also a fair bit of "transcience" as well, at least in the trendy favored quarter of the city.

there's a very sizeable demographic in chicago that can best be summed up as: grew up somewhere in the midwest, went to a big10 school, moved to chicago for first job, romped around the urban theme park for 5-15 years, then (a) career climb and move on to the next city, (b) get married, have kids, move back home "to be closer to my family", or (c) plant roots in chicagoland. my own wife falls into camp (c).

anecdotal: i still have a lot of childhood friends in my social network who come from multi-generation chicago families like mine, however, along with all of those old-schoolers, I also have newer friends born in: downstate illinois, cleveland, milwaukee, detroit, seattle, guatemala, and poland.

so i feel like there's a somewhat healthy balance bewteen rootedness and new blood in this town. yeah, we could definitely use more international immigration juice like we got back in the '90s, but it's not at all like the truly dying small rustbelt cities where newcomers can be pretty few and far between.

That's cool, thanks for the info. I'm not familiar with Chicago to really understand the population dynamics there, but I certainly figured that it's NOT like smaller rustbelt cities, just mega times their size -- I didn't mean to suggest that at all... Only that it has that real generational heft to it, with the problems of smaller rustbelt cities of the region present, but very far from dominant. It's constantly getting new blood in the door, as a major global magnet.

From your a-b-c description, sounds very similar to my experience, except swapping Chicago with NYC/Philly.