Census 2016 City Population Estimates

[the urban politician]

^ Uh yeah, ya think?

Chicago is not dangerous at all. 80% of the murders are black on black gang related violence, most of the rest is Hispanic.

If you are white or Asian, you have to actually try in order to get killed in Chicago.

I know the media likes to sensationalize things, but crime is just not that interesting in Chicago. The fractionated gangs are pretty much the entire problem, for which there appears to be no forthcoming fix.

[chris08876]

^^^^

That's kinda how it is in most of the country's dangerous cities. Gang on gang violence. Really, if we just ignore the social network involved in gang on gang violence from the statistic (for sake of argument), a lot of our cities are for the most part safe. I'm talking violent crimes.

[maru2501]

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/as-...near-downtown/

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Uh yeah, ya think?

Chicago is not dangerous at all. 80% of the murders are black on black gang related violence, most of the rest is Hispanic.

If you are white or Asian, you have to actually try in order to get killed in Chicago.

I know the media likes to sensationalize things, but crime is just not that interesting in Chicago. The fractionated gangs are pretty much the entire problem, for which there appears to be no forthcoming fix.

Let's be honest. This is true for pretty much every major city east of the Rockies.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Philadelphia is also maxed out and can not spread any further in any direction except maybe west. To the east, the Philadelphia Region touches the ocean. To the north, Philadelphia touches the NYC region. To the south, Phila touches the Baltimore region. To the west, the Philadelphia region extends for 1.5 hours from the city center. The Philadelphia region is also pretty build out in terms of developable land.

The density of Phoenix is 3,025 ppsm. It's absurd what this country allows to qualify as a city, and how much land area this country allows a city to incorporate. There should be a minimum requirement of 5,000 ppsm to even be allowed to qualify as a city.

Phoenix Metro area:
14,598 sq miles
308 ppsm

Philadelphia Metro area:
5,118 sq miles
2,746 ppsm

It's laughable. It's easy to add so much in population when you have SO MUCH land area and so much developable land for so cheap.

Philadelphia is the smallest city land wise of the ten largest cities by population.

If Philadelphia was a big as Phoenix, the city population would be more than Chicago and Houston. There are over 2 million people just in the western suburbs alone.

I never understood the glee of people on here about "passing Philadelphia". We are still a major metro area and we are still very relevant.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Uh yeah, ya think?

Chicago is not dangerous at all. 80% of the murders are black on black gang related violence, most of the rest is Hispanic.

If you are white or Asian, you have to actually try in order to get killed in Chicago.

I know the media likes to sensationalize things, but crime is just not that interesting in Chicago. The fractionated gangs are pretty much the entire problem, for which there appears to be no forthcoming fix.

You seem to be implying that Chicago would be dangerous only if most murders affected whites or Asians, as if whites and Asians are more important as human beings.

[ssiguy]

When it comes to populations growth, looks can be very deceiving.

Most US downtowns have seen a marked resurgence in construction and population growth which is great but that doesn't mean the city is growing. In many cases, as these stats revel, it's simply a moving of where people live but not result in a net increase in population. It's sort of like a new transit line..........it may get good ridership but overall ridership is stagnant as people simply go from the bus to the train.

Millenials maybe moving downtown but then the older suburbs of the city that were built in the 50s & 60s maybe experiencing population decline. Those homes that once held 6 people when the kids were there probably average only one or two people as the kids move out to the suburbs to raise their kids. The post-war "donut" urban development of dying downtown and booming suburbs has changed into more of a "dart board" design...........booming downtowns, hollowing out older suburbs, and growing outer suburbs.

This is happening all over. Even in booming Toronto small pockets of post-war housing districts are experiencing population stagnation. In Vancouver with all it's condo towers is growing at less than 1% in the city of 650,000 as the older areas have falling populations due to changing demographics and mansions being left empty.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Most US downtowns have seen a marked resurgence in construction and population growth which is great but that doesn't mean the city is growing. In many cases, as these stats revel, it's simply a moving of where people live but not result in a net increase in population. It's sort of like a new transit line..........it may get good ridership but overall ridership is stagnant as people simply go from the bus to the train.

Yes. I don't see the relevance of pointing out that a declining city has a booming downtown. Besides the fact that every city has a booming downtown, all that means is that the rest of the city has even worse decline.

Also don't see the relevance of pointing out the murder rate is overwhelmingly black assailants and victims. This is true basically everywhere in the U.S. and doesn't change anything; it's still murders.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Millenials maybe moving downtown but then the older suburbs of the city that were built in the 50s & 60s maybe experiencing population decline. Those homes that once held 6 people when the kids were there probably average only one or two people as the kids move out to the suburbs to raise their kids. The post-war "donut" urban development of dying downtown and booming suburbs has changed into more of a "dart board" design...........booming downtowns, hollowing out older suburbs, and growing outer suburbs.

Great analogy! This is how I often see Winnipeg, new outer suburbs and subdivisions always being built and approved, massive reinvestment in downtown and struggling inner suburbs. Inner city areas like the North End and West End have seen a bit of a renaissance, but much of this is due to the growing immigrant and growing Aboriginal populations, which I don't really think is long-term sustainability. That's how these neighborhoods were founded (by minority groups) and that's what lead to them being perceived as culturally segregated and "different". Unless the socioeconomic makeup of these areas can change, its possible that they'll continue to struggle for years down the road.

[C.]

Geography April 1, 2010 Population Estimate (as of July 1)
Census Estimates Base 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Jersey City city, New Jersey 247,597 247,643 248,599 253,840 257,993 259,965 262,367 263,868 264,152
Newark city, New Jersey 277,140 277,130 277,342 277,942 278,346 279,139 280,441 281,100 281,764


3 or four years ago, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop said Jersey City would surpass Newark in population in 2016. That didn't happen. lol. Newark grew faster than Jersey City in the past year.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CIA

3 or four years ago, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop said Jersey City would surpass Newark in population in 2016. That didn't happen. lol. Newark grew faster than Jersey City in the past year.

That's actually not surprising. Newark gets more immigrants than JC these days, and is still dirt-cheap (for NYC-area standards). You have a lot of Hispanic familes crowding into the Ironbound and North Newark.

Yeah, JC has a lot more new construction but new construction isn't really correlated with overall population numbers. And gentrification usually doesn't add much population.

Look at NYC- the Bronx is the fastest growing borough, and Manhattan is slowest growing. I don't think too many people would guess this.

[C.]

^ Agreed. Many of the teardowns are replacing homes that previously housed 10 or 15 people with an illegal basement with a 2-unit property housing maybe 5 or 6.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CIA

^ Agreed. Many of the teardowns are replacing homes that previously housed 10 or 15 people with an illegal basement with a 2-unit property housing maybe 5 or 6.

Long-term JC will probably have more population growth because there's an avalanche of planned construction, but don't count out Newark. It's still really, really cheap outside a few areas.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

You seem to be implying that Chicago would be dangerous only if most murders affected whites or Asians, as if whites and Asians are more important as human beings.

He's not saying that at all. He's saying that the city is relatively safe (for anyone) outside of concentrated poverty/ gang-ridden neighborhoods...of which tend to be predominantly black and Hispanic. That's not a 'Chicago thing' but nation-wide.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Uh yeah, ya think?

Chicago is not dangerous at all. 80% of the murders are black on black gang related violence, most of the rest is Hispanic.

If you are white or Asian, you have to actually try in order to get killed in Chicago.

I know the media likes to sensationalize things, but crime is just not that interesting in Chicago. The fractionated gangs are pretty much the entire problem, for which there appears to be no forthcoming fix.

i dk about chicago, but not black or hispanic and i live in one of the most expensive zip codes in any big city in the country and there were like 30 shots fired and three people shot directly below my open window the other night. i was awake and heard the whole thing -- and it certainly woke up everyone else in the area. i think the bigger issue is guns are the problem -- and also that nothing good happens at three o'clock in the morning. i wish we had a simple, common sense approach to owning weapons down here like the canadian states do. i just dont understand the nra because that wouldn't be taking anybodies guns away.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by JManc

He's not saying that at all. He's saying that the city is relatively safe (for anyone) outside of concentrated poverty/ gang-ridden neighborhoods...of which tend to be predominantly black and Hispanic. That's not a 'Chicago thing' but nation-wide.

Exactly.

[ssiguy]

The "dartboard" urban development scenario we now have, as I noted above, is not just born out by raw statistics but also by business.

There is often references to "dying malls" but where those malls are located is very telling. Malls started in the 50s/60s and mushroomed in the 70s/80s. They are not dead now because people would rather shop in "big box developments" because they relish the idea of wading in the snow, walking in the rain, or dying from the heat of the summers as opposed to shopping in air conditioned comfort but rather due to changing demographics.

Malls did not flourish on providing basics but rather on discretionary spending. That discretionary spending was speareheaded by young people who wanted the newest toy and parents who had to provide for their growing families and their needs. Now those shops are no longer needed as the kids have moved away and the parents in those 80s homes are in their late 60s and 70s where the desire for the latest gadget or keeping up with the latest fad and fashion is not near as great.

In other words, the population in these areas have declined and the changing demographics have hollowed out that discretionary spending. Now those kids have left for the further out suburbs and brought their discretionary spending with them which is why we have the big box developments which have sprung up because they are vastly cheaper to build and run than traditional malls. This is also why many of the dying malls maintain only two or three stores replacing the 80 or more they had before and those stores are uniformaly big grocery stores and pharmacies...............non-discretionary spending stores because even the elderly still have to eat and buy essentials.

The above exemplifies how a booming downtown can greatly mask declining older suburbs and an overall declining population.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

You seem to be implying that Chicago would be dangerous only if most murders affected whites or Asians, as if whites and Asians are more important as human beings.

yep, pretty trashy post

this type of thinking is super common among privileged suburbanites

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by CIA

Geography April 1, 2010 Population Estimate (as of July 1)
Census Estimates Base 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Jersey City city, New Jersey 247,597 247,643 248,599 253,840 257,993 259,965 262,367 263,868 264,152
Newark city, New Jersey 277,140 277,130 277,342 277,942 278,346 279,139 280,441 281,100 281,764


3 or four years ago, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop said Jersey City would surpass Newark in population in 2016. That didn't happen. lol. Newark grew faster than Jersey City in the past year.

I love it when people copy and paste something from a table or whatever, without any effort to make it readable!

[dave8721]

These are all City limits data so all this data needs to be taken with a grain of salt and just deals with lines drawn arbitrarily on a map but interesting anyway:

Since 2010 Miami has passed Chicago and Philly in density and Philly is closing in on passing Chicago. NYC, SF, Boston, Miami, DC and Seattle all added well over 1K per square mile.

2016 Population density and 2010 numbers.
NYC: 28,210 (up from 27,012)
San Francisco: 18,581 (up from 17,179)
Boston: 13,903 (up from 12,756)
Miami: 12,712 (up from 11,197)
Chicago: 11,900 (up from 11,859)
Philadelphia: 11,692 (up from 11,380)
Washington DC: 11,158 (up from 9,857)

Seattle may pass LA by 2020:
LA: 8,478 (up from 8087)
Seattle: 8,398 (up from 7257)