CHICAGO | General Discussions

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I realize that population is not all that important (we are importing wealthy households, not people) but it still baffles me that the third largest region in the richest nation on the planet, whose GDP is among the highest among regions in the world, can’t manage to gain people.

But whatever, I give up trying to understand these things. Just keep blaming the weather...

I'm not sure I understand it either. Having lived here for over 15 years it seems like downtown gets more and more crowded every year with a very noticeable difference in the last 2~3 years. I'd love to see a heat map of +/- population change per neighborhood because they all seem to be popping. I'm sure things are different on the south and west sides, which is a whole other, incredibly important conversation.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes.

city proper toronto is currently growing by roughly 25,000 people/year.

Wow, that is impressive. What is mainly driving that? 20-30 something’s want a hip urban center, and are moving in from the outer areas in droves?

[Mr Downtown]

Toronto (like Vancouver) is still seeing strong immigration flows, and some brain drain from the Hamilton-Niagara industrial corridor.

In Chicago, Latino immigration for several decades blinded us to the loss of African-Americans. That flow of migrants slowed to a trickle during the Great Recession.

When we look at downtown construction cranes and Brown Line crowding and shiny residential highrises and people like us, it keeps us from noticing the lights quietly going out, one after another after another, in traditional small factories and warehouses all through the South Side and older suburbs.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

How is NYC not totally owning that list? Seems way off

I believe the numbers quoted in the article are residential only. 85% to 90% of Toronto cranes are for residential only projects (and have been for 15 years) though that ratio may change once the ~14 underground stops on the Eglinton line are excavated (2 cranes each?).

Nearly everything in NYC will be in their Mixed Use category due to some kind of retail at ground level.

The below document doesn't contain per-city numbers but you can kinda see what they're doing in the continent summary graph.

http://assets.rlb.com/production/201...rane-Index.pdf

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Fvn

Lol Toronto's skyscrapers are a joke. Here's a good documentary that goes into depth on the mishaps of the condo industry there and what over building does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMtjf0rYlQ4

"It spiraled out of control and it spiraled out of control because the city hall never had the power to say no"

Video is a few years old but I just watched it. Seems like some difficulties ahead with some of those poorly constructed highrises. Thanks for sharing.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Wow, that is impressive. What is mainly driving that? 20-30 something’s want a hip urban center, and are moving in from the outer areas in droves?

Well, immigrants aren’t coming in and buying condos, for the most part. So either wealthy foreigners are buying real estate to park their money, or Toronto has a big bubble on their hands (or a bit of both).

The great news for Chicago is that we probably don’t have that much of a bubble on our hands compared to other places

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

toronto currently has 27 500+ foot towers U/C , with a further 83 proposed!

yeah, they've gone full-blown skyscraper building boom up there in the great white north.

if that pace keeps up, toronto will be passing chicago up in number of 500+ footers sometime in the middle of the next decade.

Well maybe if all of theirs get built and very few of ours, but currently we hold like a 100 to 25 lead on +500 foot tall buildings. Their growth rate is impressive though

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I realize that population is not all that important (we are importing wealthy households, not people) but it still baffles me that the third largest region in the richest nation on the planet, whose GDP is among the highest among regions in the world, can’t manage to gain people.

But whatever, I give up trying to understand these things. Just keep blaming the weather...

We get thousands of people moving to the better neighborhoods yearly now, but as was already stated by someone else, African Americans have been flooding to the Suburbs and out of state for the last 20 years at a ridiculous pace. It will slow down eventually though

[TimeAgain]

Anyone who doesn't understand Chicago's population loss hasn't stepped foot on the south and west sides in years. While you have growing parts of the South Side, such as Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Bronzeville, and maybe Pullman seeing some growth and resurgence, huge swaths of the south side are becoming barren.

This city has serious and fundamental problems that are being covered to an extent by big private investment. In areas that don't have that, there's not much else to keep things going.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by left of center

Impressive. We were losing a bit less than that per year last decade. Lets hope we can turn that around this census or next.

No we weren't. Chicago's actual overall population net loss was estimated at sometime between 2000/2001 and 2004. The US Census with the exception of one year has been estimating Chicago's population at between 2.7 and 2.8 million since 2005. Complete myth based off of lazy investigation and basing off of one year of weird data, and Chicago was not the only city that was over estimated for this weird year (2009 - more on that later).

SOURCE: United Status Census American Community Survey (1 year survey), table S0101
https://factfinder.census.gov

2005: 2,701,926
2006: 2,749,283
2007: 2,737,996
2008: 2,741,455,
2009: 2,850,502
2010: 2,698,831 (estimate - the actual census was 2,695,598)
2011: 2,707,123
2012: 2,714,844
2013: 2,718,789
2014: 2,722,407
2015; 2,720,556
2016: 2,704,965

I mean, did people seriously believe the 2009 number? Want to know who else was over estimated by a TON of people? Houston by over 150,000 people, NYC by something like 200,000 people, etc. All of these places magically jumped up a few hundred thousand people from 2008's estimate only to go back down to near 2008's estimate for the 2010 Decennial Census. You basically have to throw the 2009 number out of the window if you are actually looking at loss information and as you can see above, Chicago's population has been stagnant between 2.7 and 2.75 million people for 11 of the last 12 estimates. In other words, even the US Census believes that most of the population net loss for Chicago was before 2005 and has been pretty even ever since.

And yes, south side in some areas continues to lose people. The difference between now and then is that there are other communities outside of downtown which are gaining in population whereas back then that wasn't really true.

[Fvn]

Originally Posted by TimeAgain

Anyone who doesn't understand Chicago's population loss hasn't stepped foot on the south and west sides in years. While you have growing parts of the South Side, such as Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Bronzeville, and maybe Pullman seeing some growth and resurgence, huge swaths of the south side are becoming barren.

This city has serious and fundamental problems that are being covered to an extent by big private investment. In areas that don't have that, there's not much else to keep things going.

But there's also a conscious effort to try and rebuild the for example, the south side. Most recently the proposed Red Line extension and the new under construction library at Altgeld Gardens.

Not the mention the 3 library housing developments that just broke ground on Sunday (not on south side, but in the west).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

but currently we hold like a 100 to 25 lead on +500 foot tall buildings.

Incorrect.

Including U/C towers, chicago currently has a lead of 121 - 78 over toronto in terms of 500+ footers

They're catching up really damn fast, with 83 more currently proposed.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I realize that population is not all that important (we are importing wealthy households, not people) but it still baffles me that the third largest region in the richest nation on the planet, whose GDP is among the highest among regions in the world, can’t manage to gain people.

But whatever, I give up trying to understand these things. Just keep blaming the weather...

Its not the weather. Minneapolis and Boston have similarly crappy weather but they are growing at a steady pace.

The state, county and municipal tax environment is the main reason, I would wager. People gripe about being overtaxed, and wanting to move to Indiana/Wisconsin as they always do, but the main reason is how anti competitive the tax structure makes Illinois. It's anti business (or at the least, makes the state appear to be anti business in the eyes of employers) and job creation lags other Midwestern states. Population always follows jobs. We need more of the latter to get more of the former.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I realize that population is not all that important (we are importing wealthy households, not people) but it still baffles me that the third largest region in the richest nation on the planet, whose GDP is among the highest among regions in the world, can’t manage to gain people.

But whatever, I give up trying to understand these things. Just keep blaming the weather...

The reputation of rampant crime and the perception that Chicago is not a sophisticated global cosmopolitan city with a trendy identity is what's holding us back on population growth. Our cold weather is often exaggerated but I don't think that keeps people away more than other cold cities.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by left of center

Minneapolis and Boston have similarly crappy weather but they are growing at a steady pace.

Undoubtedly because of their low, low taxes.

Toronto's construction boom (Montreal is having one that's even more puzzling) is, as I understand it, largely the result of Canadian immigration law. Immigrants can get Canadian citizenship if they show a certain amount of job-creating investment, and building construction is one of the easiest ways to do that.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

The reputation of rampant crime and the perception that Chicago is not a sophisticated global cosmopolitan city with a trendy identity is what's holding us back on population growth. Our cold weather is often exaggerated but I don't think that keeps people away more than other cold cities.

But Chicago is growing at rates comparable with the "popular" cities if you look at the popular parts of Chicago and/or apply certain demographic controls. The reputation of being unhip is just as fallacious as the reputation for being a murder-per-capita capital.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Undoubtedly because of their low, low taxes.

Minnesota and Massachusetts are in no way low tax, but neither have a ugly state budget crisis, and both have investment grade credit ratings (AA+ and above).

Illinois is already a high tax state, and one that is poised to substantially increase its tax burden due to its out of control pension debt that cannot be diminished due to the language in the state constitution. We are one rating away from junk status with a negative outlook, and we have a state government that is barely above complete dysfunction.

Don't discount how important state finances are to corporate investment. IL is seen as an unpredictable business environment, and one that will be deteriorating going forward. In that regard, MN and MA look a lot more attractive to employers. This isn't the only reason cities like Minneapolis or Boston are growing while Chicago languishes, but it's a safe bet to say its one of the top reasons.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

The reputation of rampant crime and the perception that Chicago is not a sophisticated global cosmopolitan city with a trendy identity is what's holding us back on population growth. Our cold weather is often exaggerated but I don't think that keeps people away more than other cold cities.

I doubt this

[bnk]

Anyway, Question back to capping the Kennedy ala like the plans to cap the Ike in Oak Park years ago, is this even feasible here at sometime in the future.

IMO out of all three capping's I would cap the Metra electric lines south of the Art Institute as far south as you could go with Government grants and private concerns.

To those that think any one of these can happen or not please tell me why or why not any of these will happen and if they do happen which will happen first?

I personally think it would be much harder to cap the Kennedy here vs Grant Park that has no exits or entrances for vehicle traffic. Capping Grant Park south one would think the 3-4 towers alone could almost do it for at least till there stretch. Think how easy it would be and not even interfere with the Metra lines. Bare bones Columns and beams holding much less mass that Millennium Park for example. All they need is a truss, columns, a cap and a nice light patch of grass.

IMO this is certainly doable but I haven't heard anything talking about this for years unless I'm not following it close enough.

Currently it is ugly and embarrassing crossing bridges to get to the east end of Grant Park or over to the Field Museum and Solder Field by walking.

To me its a total eyesore and a gut shot that is past time to fix.


Remember the Pit of what was below Millennium Park before it was decked over at a high cost? That area also was a worse embarrassment for the city.

We can do this much more cheaply and not have to worry about holding

"Bean because of its shape. Made up of 168 stainless steel plates welded together, its highly polished exterior has no visible seams. It measures 33 by 66 by 42 feet (10 by 20 by 13 m), and weighs 110 short tons (100 t; 98 long tons)."

ton structures or parking above or below it. A soccer pitch or other green fields would be all that is needed to beatify the area and make access to Grant Park easy as pie.

[10023]

^ and if they put sports fields above the tracks, then they can replace the existing ones to the east with (heavier) trees. But frankly Grant Park already has too many ball fields and not enough more scenic gardens.

And for god's sake, narrow Columbus Drive to at most 2 lanes in each direction!! That's the easiest and most important improvement that could be made to Grant Park. Because frankly, Grant Park is not an impressive urban park at the moment. It's mostly concrete.

Originally Posted by Bombardier

VE in 5...4...3...2...1!

Probably.

It's a shame because high quality glass, in particular, would make or break this tower. That and the multiple angles at play, which surely add to fabrication costs.