The US Census Bureau thread

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Places like Chicago, Detroit have seen their cities shrink while their suburbs grow.

You have simply not looked at the data when making statements like this.

The growth engine of Chicagoland is no longer the suburbs. It’s the central area of the city. By far.

Detroit is an entirely different story.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's probably true for a city like New York with very little available land. I was referring to urban politician's post about 'throwaway growth', which was in the context of DFW passing Chicago someday in the future. Even if most of the growth [or 90%] is 'throwaway' suburban sprawl, the cores of these cities will continue to grow and develop into dense urban hubs.

I disagree. I don’t think the “core” of many of these Texas cities will ever become similar to the “core” of older prewar cities.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This is not true of every metro. Stagnant Chicagoland is seeing very little suburban growth, meanwhile the central area is growing faster than anywhere else. And that is all dense, walkable growth. It is also seeing drastic job and corporate growth.

If you just sit back and look at total metro population growth without analyzing all of the data out there in detail, you miss so much.

Thats not true the city of Chicago is shrinking, the suburbs are growing the development downtown is not indicative of the reality.

Miles of suburban development isn’t as noticeable as some
Downtown buildings but that’s where the lions share of the growth is take place. But downtown revivals are a nationwide occurence for a number of reasons that doesn’t mean suburban development has stopped, it’s just slowed and that’s going on everywhere

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You have simply not looked at the data when making statements like this.

The growth engine of Chicagoland is no longer the suburbs. It’s the central area of the city. By far.

Detroit is an entirely different story.

Chicago and Detroit have lost literally millions of people between the two of them

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Thats not true the city of Chicago is shrinking, the suburbs are growing the development downtown is not indicative of the reality.

Miles of suburban development isn’t as noticeable as some
Downtown buildings but that’s where the lions share of the growth is take place. But downtown revivals are a nationwide occurence for a number of reasons that doesn’t mean suburban development has stopped, it’s just slowed and that’s going on everywhere

The suburbs are not growing.

The central area of the city is growing by leaps and bounds, although yes the total city population is not because of losses on the south side as well as gentrification. This is well established—there is really nothing debatable here.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's probably true for a city like New York with very little available land. I was referring to urban politician's post about 'throwaway growth', which was in the context of DFW passing Chicago someday in the future. Even if most of the growth [or 90%] is 'throwaway' suburban sprawl, the cores of these cities will continue to grow and develop into dense urban hubs.

Very true as far as the bolded.

I think the most likely evolution over the next few decades all across the US will be for exurban areas in major metro areas to continue to grow/mature with older people who want a slower pace of life and families who want great schools and a safe environment, while the core urban areas will also continue to grow for young and unattached people who want a faster pace of life and a ton of big city amenities within walking distance.

It's the inner ring suburbs (that have seen very little new construction) that will likely stagnate or decline. These inner ring suburbs will also likely be where lower income people who are displaced via. gentrification end up.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Chicago and Detroit have lost literally millions of people between the two of them

I feel like you are just stuck on that single point. I’m trying to discuss something a bit different.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I feel like you are just stuck on that single point. I’m trying to discuss something a bit different.

No you are stuck on a fantasy, the city of Chicago is shrinking just because he loop is gaining high rises doesn’t mean that the city is growing. It is factually not growing.

Top 10 Counties With Numeric Decrease: 2016-2017

1) Cook County, IL -20,093


I’m not bagging on Chicago, I like Chicago but it’s shrinking and has been for decades

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No you are stuck on a fantasy, the city of Chicago is shrinking just because he loop is gaining high rises doesn’t mean that the city is growing. It is factually not growing.

Top 10 Counties With Numeric Decrease: 2016-2017

1) Cook County, IL -20,093


I’m not bagging on Chicago, I like Chicago but it’s shrinking and has been for decades

Dude, I’m not saying the city is growing! Why aren’t you reading my posts?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's probably true for a city like New York with very little available land.

The NYC area has tons of land. The issue is NIMBYism and environmental protection, mostly. There is no will to plow over hilly forests and New Englandy looking towns for sprawl. Those who live on the fringe have chosen to pay higher taxes to prevent growth, and most undeveloped land is off-limits.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I was referring to urban politician's post about 'throwaway growth', which was in the context of DFW passing Chicago someday in the future. Even if most of the growth [or 90%] is 'throwaway' suburban sprawl, the cores of these cities will continue to grow and develop into dense urban hubs.

The thing is, even though Dallas is growing like wildfire, and Chicago stagnant, core Chicago has like 10x as much traditional urban growth. So it isn't clear that just adding regional population does anything for urbanity. LA has 19 million in its CSA yet doesn't have the traditional urbanity of a Spanish metro of 1 million.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No you are stuck on a fantasy, the city of Chicago is shrinking just because he loop is gaining high rises doesn’t mean that the city is growing. It is factually not growing.

Top 10 Counties With Numeric Decrease: 2016-2017

1) Cook County, IL -20,093

Cook County has like 5.2 million people. The urban core can be growing while Cook shrinks. The vast majority of people in Cook aren't living an urban lifestyle. Even the city proper is nowhere near mostly urban core.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The thing is, even though Dallas is growing like wildfire, and Chicago stagnant, core Chicago has like 10x as much traditional urban growth. So it isn't clear that just adding regional population does anything for urbanity. LA has 19 million in its CSA yet doesn't have the traditional urbanity of a Spanish metro of 1 million.

But why should other cities be held to a Chicago or NYC-type standard for urbanity?

The reality is that the socio-economic factors of today will never allow relatively young cities to become as urban as places that largely matured in the early 20th century.

Still, in spite of that reality, these relatively young cities are still doing quite a respectable job in building environments that are urban enough and should be recognized and applauded for it.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No you are stuck on a fantasy, the city of Chicago is shrinking just because he loop is gaining high rises doesn’t mean that the city is growing. It is factually not growing.

Top 10 Counties With Numeric Decrease: 2016-2017

1) Cook County, IL -20,093


I’m not bagging on Chicago, I like Chicago but it’s shrinking and has been for decades

You don’t need to show me data that I already know. I said this:

The central area of the city is growing by leaps and bounds, although yes the total city population is not because of losses on the south side as well as gentrification. This is well established—there is really nothing debatable here.

You seem to be confusing “Central area of Chicago” with “City of Chicago”.

Once again, it is a simple fact that the growth engine of Chicago is the central area of the city. Even the suburbs are not seeing net growth.

This is more than a story of a few downtown highrises.

This is Chicago’s story right now. It’s not some delusion. This has nothing to do with whether it’s something good or bad.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You don’t need to show me data that I already know. I said this:



You seem to be confusing “Central area of Chicago” with “City of Chicago”.

Once again, it is a simple fact that the growth engine of Chicago is the central area of the city. Even the suburbs are not seeing net growth.

This is more than a story of a few downtown highrises.

This is Chicago’s story right now. It’s not some delusion. This has nothing to do with whether it’s something good or bad.

Yes I clearly do the city is shrinking: https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...story,amp.html

Anything you see in downtown Chicago is in spite of it shrinking overall it’s literally impossible for “the majority of the growth” to be in downtown Chicago and still have the city shrink

You are just wrong and incredibly stubborn

[the urban politician]

The thing that cracks me up about this forum is that here we all are lauding urbanism and transit, yet we are conducting metro population growth competitions like its horse racing, knowing full well that nearly ALL of that growth is the shit that we hate.

Auto-oriented suburbia.

I for one am actually proud that, for perhaps the first time in a century or more, the only real net growth going on in Chicagoland is in walkable, dense environments. And we have evidence that it’s happening at the expense of the suburbs.

Sure I’d like our total numbers to be going up, but by many measures Chicago is a model city.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yes I clearly do the city is shrinking: https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...story,amp.html

Anything you see in downtown Chicago is in spite of it shrinking overall it’s literally impossible for “the majority of the growth” to be in downtown Chicago and still have the city shrink

You are just wrong and incredibly stubborn

And I repeat: The majority of population growth in metro Chicago is in the central area of the city, even if the city proper is not growing. There is nothing to debate here. Sorry, but i believe you just aren’t understanding my point. Doing Google searches to show me stuff I already know is kind of pointless.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And I repeat: The majority of population growth in metro Chicago is in the central area of the city, even if the city proper is not growing. There is nothing to debate here. Sorry, but i believe you just aren’t understanding my point. Doing Google searches to show me stuff I already know is kind of pointless.

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

[C.]

So the population of some neighborhoods in the City of Chicago are growing while others are shrinking.

[the urban politician]

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

I can’t keep repeating myself to you.

1. Central area of Chicago
2. City of Chicago

The above are two very different things.

The problem with conducting a debate on the internet is that many people spend more time typing than reading. I’m afraid I’m conducting this conversation with such a person. I’m tired....

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by CIA

So the population of some neighborhoods in the City of Chicago are growing while others are shrinking.

The majority of the growth is happening in the suburbs which was the initial contention