Why isn't Chicago...greater than it currently is in 2023?

[Tom In Chicago]

It's interesting to read all the analysis of people that have not spent much time here. . . but as someone who has spent most of his life in Chicagoland and the last 30 years in the city itself I can say without hyperbole that Chicago would have a population of over 30 million people if it weren't for the weather. . . it's as simple as that. . .

. . .

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

****

I think a big factor is likely median educational attainment.

When I look at Austin, for instance

I see a rate of 92% high school attainment vs 86% in Chicago. While we also see 50% with a Bachelor's degree vs 44% in Chicago.
I would tend to think that's reflective of population ready for employment in higher growth sectors, which in turn is indicative of whether those sectors will choose to locate/grow in Chicago.

That's just a thought.

I think you have some good points.

I think the issue is that people misunderstand the nature of Chicago in the middle of the 20th century.

Chicago was not a smaller NYC or a SF with a relatively high income and good educational foundation that could capitalize on changing trends at the turn of the century. It was a larger struggling Detroit where most people were at best high school educated manufacturing workers, and the rest were middle class in the process of leaving. The only asset was a concentrated commercial district in the Loop.

The idea of “Global City” Chicago with a wealthy growing North Side and a poor struggling South Side is recency bias. It didn’t functionally exist until around the year 2000.

Chicago and Toronto neighborhood income from 1970-2010



Change from 1970 to 2010

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't see how the city can return to sustained growth without substantial "gentrification" of the historically poor areas.

It can't.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

It's interesting to read all the analysis of people that have not spent much time here. . . but as someone who has spent most of his life in Chicagoland and the last 30 years in the city itself I can say without hyperbole that Chicago would have a population of over 30 million people if it weren't for the weather. . . it's as simple as that. . .

. . .

Well i'm sure it's obvious, but living somewhere for 30years doesn't make one an expert in population predictions in alternate universes that will not happen.

[Smuttynose1]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

But to a large degree, that’s basically saying America is dysfunctional, because Chicago is actually middle of the pack as far as problems go among American cities.

On all those issues Atlanta, D.C. Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Memphis and most of the Midwest have worse difficulties. Houston, Dallas and Minneapolis are about the same. San Francisco, Seattle and Portland would be worse with different demographics.

I would argue that Chicago has a heightened level of dysfunction than average. Yes, less probably than Baltimore, New Orleans, Memphis, etc. and I do think Chicago unfairly gets categorized as high crime when it's more middle-of-the-pack, but still enough general dysfunction that it can color perceptions of it. There's many examples, but the Chicago Teacher's Union unilaterally deciding in 2022 that schools would be closed immediately because of the Omnicron Variant is especially memorable. By that time, it was well established that a lack of in-person instruction was hurting students, so it just seemed especially punitive, cruel, and self-serving. And the City seemed powerless to stop it. And then I heard that some amendment was passed by voters that November that actually strengthened the hand of government unions!

There was also the parking meter debacle and just a slow drip-drip-drip of negative stories (finances, Madigan/Blagojevich, its bizarrely gigantic city council, concentrated poverty/crime, etc.) that paint the picture of a dysfunctional government. Negative perceptions of Illnois state government don't help either. Every major city suffers with some level of disfunction, but it just seems somewhat heightened in Chicago to the point that someone relocating to the Midwest with flexibility might choose Minneapolis or Madison because of the perception of such issues.

[ithakas]

I think Chicago will really start to boom in the next few years, especially if we get leadership with some vision for the central area (promoting walkability, transit, and non-chain commercial districts). As mentioned, Chicago's got the second biggest traditional urban core in the country, but up until now, the Loop – at the center of it, of course – has only been used for weekday office hours and lunch spots. That is quickly going to change, with a new mixed-use district emerging among some of the city's best architecture and transportation access (see this: https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/02/six...eimagined.html, also vintage office buildings in other parts of the Loop quickly pivoting to residential or mixed-use).

At the same time, much of the city's boom over the last decade has been infill in the Loop-adjacent neighborhoods – the former ring of industrial or vacant land that surrounded the Loop and Mag Mile. A lot of liminal areas and dead-feeling streets have become dense with new construction, and the streets feel noticeably busier from North to Cermak, west to Ashland.

I think the Loop's turn to mixed-use connected with the new density and momentum of the Loop-adjacent neighborhoods (West Loop, River North, Streeterville, South Loop, etc.) will make downtown feel really special. It's always had great qualities like its architecture and lakefront access, but growing up here there was a sense that it could be much more and have more energy. I think having connectivity between these neighborhoods, with walkability and a more vibrant street experience as focuses, will get it there.

Chicago's neighborhoods have always been great, and it's where Chicagoans will tell you the real heartbeat of the city is. I think that's evolving, and Chicago's downtown is finally coming into its own as a great place too – not just one that looks great, but one that feels exciting too.

[Innsertnamehere]

weather, weather, weather, regulation, weather.

Chicago is basically the second-coldest major US metro behind only Minneapolis.

I know if I were American I would be looking elsewhere.

It's easy to forget on this board that the vast majority of Americans don't care about true walkability.

A lot like having large dating pools and urban amenities when young, but there are plenty of places that offer that in slightly less urban ways in places with lower regulatory burdens and weather which is thousands of times better.

That's it.

Toronto booms because it's Canada's "South" in many ways. I know I often look at Alberta and consider it, as many Canadians do, but decide against it due to the weather.


Even if Chicago offered a very compelling package, it wouldn't boom like Austin or Phoenix does. Minneapolis basically offers that package and only manages to achieve middle-of-the-ground growth levels for the same reason.

All of Chicago's other problems derive out of weather. Companies don't move there as talent isn't there and doesn't want to move there, crime perpetuates as there aren't enough major employers, etc.

Chicago's goal shouldn't be to become the next Dallas or Austin, it should be to become the next Minneapolis. Posting decent, if not amazing, growth numbers with strong economic growth in an affordable metro area.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Chicago is basically the second-coldest major US metro behind only Minneapolis.

Per Google, Chicago averages four days per year with a low below zero:

Chicago averages 21 days a year when the thermometer reaches into the 90s °F (over 32 °C). The temperature can climb briefly above 100 °F (38 °C) although days that hot don't occur every year. Typically on 39 days annually the thermometer remains below freezing for the entire day.

The temperature drops to 10 °F (-12 °C) or below on 16 nights a year. In an average year, Chicago has 4 nights down to 0 °F (-18 °C) or even colder.


That's not very cold, people. People really like to exaggerate.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

weather, weather, weather, regulation, weather.

Chicago is basically the second-coldest major US metro behind only Minneapolis.

I know if I were American I would be looking elsewhere.

It's easy to forget on this board that the vast majority of Americans don't care about true walkability.

A lot like having large dating pools and urban amenities when young, but there are plenty of places that offer that in slightly less urban ways in places with lower regulatory burdens and weather which is thousands of times better.

That's it.

Toronto booms because it's Canada's "South" in many ways. I know I often look at Alberta and consider it, as many Canadians do, but decide against it due to the weather.


Even if Chicago offered a very compelling package, it wouldn't boom like Austin or Phoenix does. Minneapolis basically offers that package and only manages to achieve middle-of-the-ground growth levels for the same reason.

All of Chicago's other problems derive out of weather. Companies don't move there as talent isn't there and doesn't want to move there, crime perpetuates as there aren't enough major employers, etc.

Chicago's goal shouldn't be to become the next Dallas or Austin, it should be to become the next Minneapolis. Posting decent, if not amazing, growth numbers with strong economic growth in an affordable metro area.

Not sure why people keep saying weather. If anything, for countries with large land areas and varying climates, the big cities tend to not be located in the warmest regions of the country: China, France, Russia, Japan, the US, and yes, even Canada, where Vancouver is easily the mildest region of the country but the third largest urban area.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by ithakas

I think Chicago will really start to boom in the next few years, especially if we get leadership with some vision for the central area (promoting walkability, transit, and non-chain commercial districts). As mentioned, Chicago's got the second biggest traditional urban core in the country, but up until now, the Loop – at the center of it, of course – has only been used for weekday office hours and lunch spots. That is quickly going to change, with a new mixed-use district emerging among some of the city's best architecture and transportation access (see this: https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/02/six...eimagined.html, also vintage office buildings in other parts of the Loop quickly pivoting to residential or mixed-use).

At the same time, much of the city's boom over the last decade has been infill in the Loop-adjacent neighborhoods – the former ring of industrial or vacant land that surrounded the Loop and Mag Mile. A lot of liminal areas and dead-feeling streets have become dense with new construction, and the streets feel noticeably busier from North to Cermak, west to Ashland.

I think the Loop's turn to mixed-use connected with the new density and momentum of the Loop-adjacent neighborhoods (West Loop, River North, Streeterville, South Loop, etc.) will make downtown feel really special. It's always had great qualities like its architecture and lakefront access, but growing up here there was a sense that it could be much more and have more energy. I think having connectivity between these neighborhoods, with walkability and a more vibrant street experience as focuses, will get it there.

Chicago's neighborhoods have always been great, and it's where Chicagoans will tell you the real heartbeat of the city is. I think that's evolving, and Chicago's downtown is finally coming into its own as a great place too – not just one that looks great, but one that feels exciting too.

I agree that the potential is there for connecting more lackadaisical hoods to walkable, amenable ones. Let's hope for Chicagoans that the move toward an Amazonisation of the economy doesn’t seriously impair the existing retail and services on arterials.

As far as violent crime and unsolicited assisted suicide rates go, it may be in the middle of the pack, US-wise, but it is way out there when weighed against wealthy cities of First tier countries.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ithakas

I think Chicago will really start to boom in the next few years, especially if we get leadership with some vision for the central area (promoting walkability, transit, and non-chain commercial districts). As mentioned, Chicago's got the second biggest traditional urban core in the country, but up until now, the Loop – at the center of it, of course – has only been used for weekday office hours and lunch spots. That is quickly going to change, with a new mixed-use district emerging among some of the city's best architecture and transportation access (see this: https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/02/six...eimagined.html, also vintage office buildings in other parts of the Loop quickly pivoting to residential or mixed-use).

+1. I also think Google moving into the Thompson Center is going to be awesome for that area of the loop and Chicago in general.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Per Google, Chicago averages four days per year with a low below zero:

Chicago averages 21 days a year when the thermometer reaches into the 90s °F (over 32 °C). The temperature can climb briefly above 100 °F (38 °C) although days that hot don't occur every year. Typically on 39 days annually the thermometer remains below freezing for the entire day.

The temperature drops to 10 °F (-12 °C) or below on 16 nights a year. In an average year, Chicago has 4 nights down to 0 °F (-18 °C) or even colder.


That's not very cold, people. People really like to exaggerate.

By American standards it is, which is the problem.

Hell, even the list of major cities over 2 million people globally which are colder than Chicago could probably be counted on your hands. It's pretty cold, if not on the extreme end of things. The US generally doesn't see a lot of extreme cold outside of Minnesota, Alaska, and North Dakota though.. so.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Chicago's goal shouldn't be to become the next Dallas or Austin, it should be to become the next Minneapolis. Posting decent, if not amazing, growth numbers with strong economic growth in an affordable metro area.

The problem with Minneapolis is that it attracts very few people from out of state who are not from WI and IL. Minneapolis and the population of the rest of MN are still proportional enough that the Twin Cities get growth out of rural MN, but it won’t last forever. Same with Indianapolis and Columbus, OH.

Minneapolis shows that a Midwest city can have good K-12 schools, decent tax rates, and low crime…and nobody cares. Because the people who value schools and taxes the most, also rank warm weather the most.

Chicago is almost literally the only city in the entire Midwest that has generated any interest outside the Midwest, and that’s mostly because young adults can attend good colleges while having fun in the city.

It’s the only growth niche that has been shown to work.

[Crawford]

Minneapolis grows bc it has a huge hinterland of declining rural areas stretching to Eastern Montana. There are no other major cities.

All metros, even stagnant ones, suck up the nearby rural hinterlands, but MSP is an outperformer bc their hinterland is basically the biggest. It isn't like it's a big destination for top university grads, or people unhappy in the Sunbelt.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Well i'm sure it's obvious, but living somewhere for 30years doesn't make one an expert in population predictions in alternate universes that will not happen.

Sure it does. . . the only reason that people I've known over my entire lifetime here in the Chicagoland area have left is because of weather. . . no one I know is leaving because of poor schools, taxes, lack of professional opportunities or crime. . .

. . .

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Per Google, Chicago averages four days per year with a low below zero:

Chicago averages 21 days a year when the thermometer reaches into the 90s °F (over 32 °C). The temperature can climb briefly above 100 °F (38 °C) although days that hot don't occur every year. Typically on 39 days annually the thermometer remains below freezing for the entire day.

The temperature drops to 10 °F (-12 °C) or below on 16 nights a year. In an average year, Chicago has 4 nights down to 0 °F (-18 °C) or even colder.


That's not very cold, people. People really like to exaggerate.

Nothing you listed above refutes that Chicago is the second coldest major metro in the US, I don't know if that's true or not, but I believe it. I can't think of another major city colder, other than MSP. There are others that are snowier, but I don't know about colder.

Those numbers you listed likely don't include windchill, which is a major factor. Also I hate how grey Chicago is in the winter, it feels like weeks can go by without seeing the sun. Chicago is a terrific city, but the weather sucks for a good 5 months out of the year, in my opinion, and apparently the opinion of many others.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not sure why people keep saying weather. If anything, for countries with large land areas and varying climates, the big cities tend to not be located in the warmest regions of the country: China, France, Russia, Japan, the US, and yes, even Canada, where Vancouver is easily the mildest region of the country but the third largest urban area.

Actually, the US and France are in the exact same situation on that one ("Sunbelt" as a net people magnet).

Net migration map:



https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/de...17-7472991.php

[pdxtex]

We should consult an urban psychologist. They could probably explain the emotional phenomenon driving migration. Look at northern cities in general, most of them are slow growing or have basically topped out. Industrialization of the rust belt peaked 70 years ago too. Someone on this board once explained the life cycle of coastal cities, his example was Boston. I found that interesting. He said at some point lower birth rates and real estate prices intersect and population growth stabilizes or stops all together. Also has anybody mentioned the fact that the northside was supposed to be the fastest growing urban region in the country these past ten years. Thats true right?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, the US and France are in the exact same situation on that one ("Sunbelt" as a net people magnet).

Net migration map:



https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/de...17-7472991.php

The article (English translation) also says this trend is fading:

This geographic division, which has persisted for twenty years, is however running out of steam. In 38 departments, notably in Paca and in the south-east of Occitanie, as well as in the east of the Paris Basin, the contribution of net migration to the increase in population thus deteriorated between 1990-2010 and 2010 -2015. Conversely, the migration balance is much better in the recent period for 11 departments, including the Auvergne Rhône-Alpes region, the North, the Gironde or the Loire-Atlantique.

I think the article also ignores a source of growth that is critical to modern big cities: immigration. We talk a lot about Americans moving from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt, but this isn't really the full picture. The ability to attract foreigners is the key, at least for big cities in rich countries

The large US Sun Belt cities have been fueled by growth from immigration, and the biggest ones all have much higher foreign-born populations than Rust Belt cities. Dallas, Houston, Miami, etc., all have among the largest foreign-born populations in the world living in those cities. Chicago is the only Midwest city in that top tier, but it has a lower percentage than all of the Sun Belt cities that I mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...rn_populations

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The article (English translation) also says this trend is fading:



I think the article also ignores a source of growth that is critical to modern big cities: immigration. We talk a lot about Americans moving from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt, but this isn't really the full picture. The ability to attract foreigners is the key, at least for big cities in rich countries

The large US Sun Belt cities have been fueled by growth from immigration, and the biggest ones all have much higher foreign-born populations than Rust Belt cities. Dallas, Houston, Miami, etc., all have among the largest foreign-born populations in the world living in those cities. Chicago is the only Midwest city in that top tier, but it has a lower percentage than all of the Sun Belt cities that I mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...rn_populations

LOL. 5 of the top 6 are Canadian: Toronto and Vancouver plus 2 Toronto suburbs and 1 Vancouver suburb.