Chicago population is 2,695,598 the 2010 Census reveals, a loss of 200,000 from 2000

[Chicago103]

Chicago Population Sinks to 1920 Level
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312904576146741729857936.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


As requested in the regular 2010 census thread it made sense to start a separate thread on Chicago's census results which was very shocking to a number of people. So discuss what this means to the city and what can be done to reverse this trend during this decade. The exact population loss between 2000 and 2010 was 200,418 or a 6.9% loss. I suppose as time passes this would be the logical place to report census data about individual neighborhoods as well as racial, income, housing, etc. data.

[Chicago103]

Chicago population by decade

Year Population %Change
1840 4,470 —
1850 29,963 570.3%
1860 112,172 274.4%
1870 298,977 166.5%
1880 503,185 68.3%
1890 1,099,850 118.6%
1900 1,698,575 54.4%
1910 2,185,283 28.7%
1920 2,701,705 23.6%
1930 3,376,438 25.0%
1940 3,396,808 0.6%
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%

So as you can see Chicago fared worse than it did in the 1950's and 1960's but fared better than it did in the 1970's and 1980's. The overall population loss from the peak of 1950 to 2010 was 925,364.

[emathias]

I think it largely depends on why it dropped so much.

If it is at least partly due to the massive restructuring of the public housing system here, I would expect the losses to stabilize in the next census.

I also think it's possible (probable?) that the number partially reflects an artifact of the Census response rate in various neighborhoods. The areas of the city with the highest black population, the race hit heaviest, are also the areas with the lowest response rate. I think that's a rather suspect coincidence.

Chicago should ask for a detailed explanation from the Census and if they're not satisfied, pay for (or sue for) a recount.

And here I was wondering if Obama's office would meddle with the numbers to goose them up ...

[Buckman821]

It seems like we should be able to get a fairly accurate estimate of just how much of this was related to CHA demolitions, but I don't know what that number is.

Also, I just posted this in the other thread because I didn't realize this one had opened, but I'm fed up and I think it's time we give serious thought to our immigration policy.

My job sometimes takes me into some of the areas of the city that have experienced substantial population loss (West Garfield Park for example). It absolutely breaks my heart to see some of the most beautiful greystone 2 and 3 flats you'll ever see fall into disrepair. Something has to be done.

The fact of the matter is these areas need more productive citizens, period. Why is it that nobody worried about all of our jobs being given to immigrants through huge stretches of our history when we had open borders?

[Onn]

Ohh that dosen't look good. I wouldn't call it a death spiral, but yeah it's almost looking like that. Trends don't lie.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

Ohh that dosen't look good. I wouldn't call it a death spiral, but yeah it's almost looking like that. Trends don't lie.

The thing is though that the 2000 Census was counter to the trend since 1950, so that shows that Chicago can increase again because it already has not to mention all the construction and vibrancy large parts of the city have that they didn't have 20 years ago.

What's crazy is that it felt to me like in the 2000's the city had more of a renaissance than it did in the 1990's, the last few years of this big recession being the exception. What I am saying is that as somebody who has observed Chicago all my life the period from 2000-2007 seemed like the greatest reinvigoration I have ever seen in my life for this city, even much moreso than the period of 1989-2000. I remember Chicago of the late 1980's and even if the census said it had a slightly higher population back then it sure didn't feel that way, from what I observe it is hard to believe that right now Chicago is the smallest it has ever been in my lifetime.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

The thing is though that the 2000 Census was counter to the trend since 1950, so that shows that Chicago can increase again because it already has not to mention all the construction and vibrancy large parts of the city have that they didn't have 20 years ago.

What's crazy is that it felt to me like in the 2000's the city had more of a renaissance than it did in the 1990's, the last few years of this big recession being the exception.

The 2000 census is an outlier and a small bump, wake me up when we have 1990 era explosive economic growth again. The fact of the matter is every time the city of Chicago loses population the city budget suffers...eventually to the point of collapsing in on itself. You have to have something big to turn a trend like this around, it's not pretty. I'm from Detroit, I know a thing or two about major declining rustbelt cities. And well, you could say an expanding population will save the city because you have to have places to put people, and places already built are by far the cheapest choice...of course that hasn't stopped Detroit's bleeding either.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

The 2000 census is an outlier and a small bump, wake me up when we have 1990 era explosive economic growth again. The fact of the matter is every time the city of Chicago loses population the city budget suffers...eventually to the point of collapsing in on itself. You have to have something big to turn a trend like this around, it's not pretty. I'm from Detroit, I know a thing or two about major declining rustbelt cities. And well, you could say an expanding population will save the city because you have to have places to put people, and places already built are by far the cheapest choice...of course that hasn't stopped Detroit's bleeding either.

Well I disagree with your implication that somehow Chicago was just like Detroit all along and that 2000 was just a fluke because unlike Detroit the fact is that Chicago has a strong core and has seen massive construction and business investment in the early part of the 2000's. The point I am trying to make is that Chicago has the structure in place to revive the city wheras Detroit does not at this point. If anything I think the 2010 census is the fluke, just a victim of the massive public housing dismantling coupled with the great recession of the past few years which halted to a large degree the influx of wealthier residents we have been seeing for the past nearly 20 years before that. So really what I think happened was that wealthier white residents were coming in large number from 2000-2007 and then it stagnated in the last few years but the loss of poorer residents was ongoing throughout the decade that might have even accelerated during the recession. In the 1990's there was gentrification but not enough to cause a major displacement of poor residents but it appears in the 2000's that did have an impact.

[Thundertubs]

No one will argue that Lincoln Square isn't booming and vibrant, but the 2009 estimates I saw had the community district losing 3,600 people - 8% of the population. Hispanic families out, white couples and singles in.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

No one will argue that Lincoln Square isn't booming and vibrant, but the 2009 estimates I saw had the community district losing 3,600 people - 8% of the population. Hispanic families out, white couples and singles in.

That link with 2009 estimates for all community areas I think is a taste of what he are going to get when the 2010 census figures come out for those same areas.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Well I disagree with your implication that somehow Chicago was just like Detroit all along and that 2000 was just a fluke because unlike Detroit the fact is that Chicago has a strong core and has seen massive construction and business investment in the early part of the 2000's. The point I am trying to make is that Chicago has the structure in place to revive the city wheras Detroit does not at this point. If anything I think the 2010 census is the fluke, just a victim of the massive public housing dismantling coupled with the great recession of the past few years which halted to a large degree the influx of wealthier residents we have been seeing for the past nearly 20 years before that. So really what I think happened was that wealthier white residents were coming in large number from 2000-2007 and then it stagnated in the last few years but the loss of poorer residents was ongoing throughout the decade that might have even accelerated during the recession. In the 1990's there was gentrification but not enough to cause a major displacement of poor residents but it appears in the 2000's that did have an impact.

^ I agree with this.

I think the 2010 census is indeed the outlier.

Fact is, the CHA restructuring was a massive displacement of African Americans. Plus, as we all know, this particular census had a very poor response rate. It's very plausible that Chicago was significantly undercounted. Having said that, I think we all can agree that Chicago still loss a significant number of people.

Finally, the reason this is the outlier is that every ethnic group except blacks actually grew in the city. Therefore, the net loss of population was entirely a net loss of black people. How many rust belt cities out there in a "death spiral" are gaining population in every ethnic group and losing black people?

[Vertigo]

Originally Posted by Onn

The 2000 census is an outlier and a small bump, wake me up when we have 1990 era explosive economic growth again. The fact of the matter is every time the city of Chicago loses population the city budget suffers...

I don't think this is necessarily the case every time. I work downtown in high end retail and our business is performing better than ever despite the recession. We opened in 2002 and a large portion of that business is fueled by new downtown residents. A common demographic I encounter is a relatively young retired couple that has sold the McMansion in Des Moines and purchased a condo in Chicago along with a condo in Florida. Generally, the kids are grown and they don't spend all of their time here. However, they have the money and they definitely spend it.

I'm willing to guess that the majority of those that moved out of the city do not fit this description.

So I think it is possible for a city to lose population while still gaining wealth.

[bnk]

dup...................

[intrepidDesign]

I think also that when the housing bubble pushed the prices of condos/town homes within the city limits to astronomical levels, many people felt that they were getting more for their money by moving to the burbs. The fact still remains, that even with the readjustment in prices, it's still an expensive proposition to live downtown. I think something has to be done about truly affordable housing.

It was mentioned in another thread, last week maybe, that a lot of people view downtown as a novelty, someplace to go to for a Cubs game or a night out, and I think there is some truth to that, but it's not the whole story. I think people come to the city for a game or a night because a lot of the times that's all they can afford.

On a completely different note, I also believe that Chicago does a poor job of selling itself. While I've had it up to here with the endless, almost ubiquitous, advertising of the coastal cities, I never hear or see much in the way of advertising when it comes to Chicago. The coastals do a good job of convincing people to move there, be it with celebrities, or weather/outdoors, big city lifestyle, etc, there is an almost constant stream of music and imagery that is all but advertising for these cities. Being humble is great and all, but only to a certain point. The Olympic bid was a positive, albeit expensive, PR move, but I think there needs to be a well though out, constant, more affordable effort. When I'm out of town and people ask me where I live, all they seem to associate with Chicago is: the weather, corrupt politicians and Al Capone, and it drives me nuts because as we all know, there is so, so much more. Plain and simple, Chicago's story is not being told properly, and those who listen, only a handful can afford to live downtown.

I could be off base, but that's my 2¢

[bnk]

I don't know but I think some of us are hyper venting on this unexpected loss of population. I myself only thought we would lose 100K but in reality there are a lot of reasons for this loss that was explained in the census thread and the region grew more than it lost in the city limits. As I and others said before I think this black run has pretty much finished and I see the city better off and more vibrant and exciting than ever. Becides the loss of the CHA housing there are a lot of nice housing stock in the west and south sides that could potentally be filled by a nich group[s] of peoples. But this high, it must be high, vacancy rate in those sectors will depress the overall housing cost of the entire region for a few more years.

As far as the end of the world people this is no where near a Gary or Detriot runnaway situ going on. I just seems peculiar that we did not expect such a massive change in advance.

In the future I still see good things.

The metro area continues to grow more than what was lost from the city limits. Business's are still relocating HQ's to the city more than we have been losing. Chicago is becoming more and more a global city, esp with Obama in the White house. Obama will win again in 2012. The streets will still be clean, the flowers will still be planted.
and the Cubs and Bears will win the world series and superbowl next year to boot.

Ok the last two were kind of a joke but you get my drift. This is still a very vibrant and global alpha world city and I would suspect after we get out of this bush depression that by 2020 the city will again get close to that magical number aproaching 3 million and the metro area will be in the 12 Million range.

Things are really are looking up my fellow downtroden foumers.

I could not and would not have said these positive remarks even a month after Chicago was eliminated from the 2016 Olympics but things are more clear to me now. We live in a great and growing region that will rebound again like we did in the 90-00 census. There is no general feeling from me, my large family, my co-workers, my friends that anyone is looking to move elsewhere in the country.

The only co worker that have mentioned moving, at my past job was a person that already grew up in the south and had a large family connection down there [Mississippi]. I know that this may alarm some but she was black. We sometimes forget that blacks still have roots and families in the south, these roots are the same that keep the rest of us still here and happy to live here. I could go on and on but really we really are doing pretty good in these parts....

[Onn]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I agree with this.

I think the 2010 census is indeed the outlier.

Fact is, the CHA restructuring was a massive displacement of African Americans. Plus, as we all know, this particular census had a very poor response rate. It's very plausible that Chicago was significantly undercounted. Having said that, I think we all can agree that Chicago still loss a significant number of people.

Finally, the reason this is the outlier is that every ethnic group except blacks actually grew in the city. Therefore, the net loss of population was entirely a net loss of black people. How many rust belt cities out there in a "death spiral" are gaining population in every ethnic group and losing black people?

No, the 2000 census is the different one. A lot before 2000 are negative, than it's negative after 2000. Until you have another positive you have to assume the next census will be negative again. There's only one that bucks the trend.

It's all about money, no one wants to live in a city with bad schools, poor infrastructure, and a lack of public services. When you loose population you loose tax dollars, things have to be cut. It may not seem like a big thing right now, immigrants will come...but who knows for how long or if they'll stay in the future. The expansion of Southern cities, and states in general, is working against the Midwestern cities.

[bnk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/us/16illinois.html?_r=1&src=mv&pagewanted=print

February 15, 2011

Chicago Is Now Smaller and Less Black, Census Shows

By MONICA DAVEY

CHICAGO — As Chicagoans prepare to vote next week for their first new mayor in decades, the city itself looks different from how it did during much of the era of Mayor Richard M. Daley, who is retiring: it has shrunk, and black people in particular have left.

While Chicago remains the nation’s third-most-populous city — with 2.69 million people — it lost more than 200,000 residents during the last decade, Census Bureau figures released Tuesday show.

That is about a 7 percent decrease, a sharper drop than some leaders had expected and gloomy news for the city’s budget writers (who have to worry about the tax base) and elected officials (who have to worry about who will bear the political brunt of redistricting).

The decline among blacks may be explained in part by migration to the suburbs, the demolition of thousands of high-rise public housing units and a broader population shift to the South.

“Chicago was probably among the pre-eminent destinations of the Great Migration, and this marks the end of an era in some ways,” said William H. Frey, a demographer and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

...


Even as the city shrank, a ring of suburbs along its fringes expanded rapidly. In fact, two of those counties — Will and Kendall — will probably rank among the fastest-growing counties in the nation over the last decade, said Kenneth M. Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire.

Illinois grew, too, but not at the pace of some states ...

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Onn

No, the 2000 census is the different one. A lot before 2000 are negative, than it's negative after 2000. Until you have another positive you have to assume the next census will be negative again. There's only one that bucks the trend.

It's all about money, no one wants to live in a city with bad schools, poor infrastructure, and a lack of public services. When you loose population you loose tax dollars, things have to be cut. It may not seem like a big thing right now, immigrants will come...but who knows for how long or if they'll stay in the future. The expansion of Southern cities, and states in general, is working against the Midwestern cities.

The decline that Chicago saw from 1950-1990 is clearly very different than the decline that took place in the 2000's. Granted we don't have all the data yet but given the information we already have one can point out differences. In 1950-1990 it was middle class whites that were fleeing the city in droves for the suburbs. In the 2000's it was blacks and perhaps other poor people that were leaving the city in droves, the white population actually increased for the first time if my understanding is correct since before 1950. While suburban Chicagoland is growing I think the outer suburbs are mostly growing because people who have been suburbanities for decades are moving further out and also people from rural areas and smaller cities moving to the exurbs of Chicagoland. It does not seem that whites currently living in the city are moving to the suburbs in droves anymore like they used to.

Just take a look at Thundertubs link above which shows census estimates which I think are quite accurate as far as patterns of what to expect for the offical data. It shows that the ghettos are emptying out bigtime, the core gentrified areas are doing very well and growing and middle class white neighborhoods in the outer reaches of the city such as Garfield Ridge, Edison Park, Beverly, Mount Greenwood, East Side and even Hegewisch all have stable populations and not decline. These are not signs of a dying city but rather of a city that has just surgically removed some of its already dead flesh. The big downer in this all is the apparent decline of the black middle class in the city.

[photoLith]

Wow, didnt expect this to happen, how depressing. Could it be possible that as the city has become more expensive to live in that it could be pushing out the poorer more fertile people, who have 2-4 kids each; while single people are moving into the buildings formerly inhabited by the poorer people? Maybe, just maybe, this population loss could mean a good thing overall for the city.

[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