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

[Six Corners]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

My general feeling is Chicago is only a draw for midwesterners and most other coastal refugees are probably seeking the sun belt. I guess 10 million is its equilibrium point because its been 10 million more or less for 20 years. It takes a certain mindset to uproot yourself from suburban Los Angeles and move to Illinois. Also Chicago doesn't really need the rest of America. As long as big ten colleges keep cranking out graduates, Wrigleyville will keep selling beer.

Anecdotally, it does not only draw from the Midwest. Certainly the midwest provides the most transplants simply out of proximity and those who moved to Chicago simply to be in Chicago often were Midwestern. But within my circles (performing arts stuff - improv, stand up, theatre) there were plenty of people from outside the midwest. Their primary reason was either school or opportunities in their chosen performing art, not necessarily to simply be among 'L' trains and live in cheap brownstones. There was a good showing from the northeast, Texas (mainly Houston and Austin), and California (LA and Bay Area). For the northeast people were usually from an inland city such as Pittsburgh, Rochester, or Buffalo, though Boston had a significant showing as well.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These cross-national comparisons make no sense. There are totally different migration inputs.

If Toronto were in the U.S. it would be another Buffalo or Rochester, at best. If Chicago were in Canada it would have 20 million people.

Also, Toronto isn't a "cold weather city". It has some of the best weather (in Canada). It's the only big English-speaking city in (arguably) the most welcoming nation for immigrants on earth. It's basically Canada's NY-LA-Bay Area-Chicago-Boston-Detroit.

I wasn't implying there weren't other factors, I'm merely saying that cold weather alone won't keep people away.

Take Minneapolis then...

[Acajack]

As an outsider to the US, Chicago seems fairly dysfunctional to me: crime, police, schools, justice, politics, etc.

I know it's a huge city and metro so I could certainly find the same level of functionality that I have here (or better even), even within the city limits.

Still that is my perception.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

Anecdotally, it does not only draw from the Midwest. Certainly the midwest provides the most transplants simply out of proximity and those who moved to Chicago simply to be in Chicago often were Midwestern. But within my circles (performing arts stuff - improv, stand up, theatre) there were plenty of people from outside the midwest. Their primary reason was either school or opportunities in their chosen performing art, not necessarily to simply be among 'L' trains and live in cheap brownstones. There was a good showing from the northeast, Texas (mainly Houston and Austin), and California (LA and Bay Area). For the northeast people were usually from an inland city such as Pittsburgh, Rochester, or Buffalo, though Boston had a significant showing as well.

I was from Florida when I moved to Chicago, so I think the flow from the South is underestimated at certain ages.

Chicago has an economy that is still deindustrializing at the low end, but is adding jobs for students and college graduates at a good pace, and is overall an excellent place to attend school.

That explains every observable trend. The population grows slower, but ultimately ends up significantly wealthier in the long run.

Property abandonment is mostly at its end in rust belt cities, and a lot of further neighborhood declines are just household sizes getting smaller.

Eventually Chicago will arrive at an equilibrium when steady growth overcomes the population churn that has been occurring over the past years.











https://www.generationlab.org/_files...67646dd515.pdf

Chicago is top destination for Denver residents looking to move, says report
The top destination for Denver residents looking to move elsewhere was Chicago, Redfin found.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...fin-study.html

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As an outsider to the US, Chicago seems fairly dysfunctional to me: crime, police, schools, justice, politics, etc.

I know it's a huge city and metro so I could certainly find the same level of functionality that I have here (or better even), even within the city limits.

Still that is my perception.

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.

And NYC and LA used gentrification and housing shortages to get rid of the people those cities didn’t like.

Chicago is the media’s whipping boy, but it’s not unique among major cities in the slightest.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

Anecdotally, it does not only draw from the Midwest.

Another anecdotal experience.

Here is where the dads of young children who live on my block in Lincoln Square grew up:

2 Chicagoland
2 Michigan
1 Ohio
1 Vermont
1 Connecticut
1 Virginia
1 Oregon
1 Texas
1 Serbia

And here are where my co-workers at my new job grew up:

2 Chicagoland
1 Wisconsin
1 Pennsylvania
2 India
1 Poland
1 Phillipines

[Investing In Chicago]

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.

And NYC and LA used gentrification and housing shortages to get rid of the people those cities didn’t like.

Chicago is the media’s whipping boy, but it’s not unique among major cities in the slightest.

One of the challenges Chicago faces that DC (which is the only one of those cities I'd call a true peer to Chicago) is scale. Looking at murder rate, while important, doesn't tell the story of the sheer amount of murders and violent crime over a large part of the city. DC is expensive and nearly fully built out, and gentrification is already happening in the cities worst neighborhoods. In Chicago it's a different story, the worst of Chicago will not be gentrified in any of our lifetimes, there is too much land and the real estate values just won't warrant it.

I think Chicago is unique from a global standard of World Class cities with the the violent crime, especially the scale at which it happens.

That said, Chicago is a great city, and is a relative bargain in part b/c of some of these issues. I personally would hate to see 2M more people move into prime Chicagoland and drive up prices to obnoxious levels.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

One of the challenges Chicago faces that DC (which is the only one of those cities I'd call a true peer to Chicago) is scale. Looking at murder rate, while important, doesn't tell the story of the sheer amount of murders and violent crime over a large part of the city. DC is expensive and nearly fully built out, and gentrification is already happening in the cities worst neighborhoods. In Chicago it's a different story, the worst of Chicago will not be gentrified in any of our lifetimes, there is too much land and the real estate values just won't warrant it.

I think Chicago is unique from a global standard of World Class cities with the the violent crime, especially the scale at which it happens.

That said, Chicago is a great city, and is a relative bargain in part b/c of some of these issues. I personally would hate to see 2M more people move into prime Chicagoland and drive up prices to obnoxious levels.

I don’t personally see much difference between a city of 700K that has 200 murders, a city of 2.3 million that has 450, and a city of 2.7 million that has 650 on average in recent years. Those are all plenty large scales that people have similar experiences.

And restricting comparisons to just NYC and LA which are THE immigrant megacities, or other places that have had minimal diversity in their entire history is rather misleading. Chicago is a representative American city and has typical American problems.

[llamaorama]

I have to wonder if the typical transplant is representative of the mainstream American population. Or how much migration has changed over time.

I get the feeling that the current trend is basically people who are middle class in income but wealthy in assets, or their adult children, leaving very expensive coastal places such as SoCal or New Jersey and using the payout from selling their homes to seek a lifestyle that revolves around having stuff and more toys. These people seem to be very conservative. They really like the master planned community lifestyle that Texas and Florida are geared towards or want scenery like in Idaho or Phoenix.

The other movers seem like very poor people, specifically Latinos, priced out of the same expensive metros. Because they are less educated on average their preferences are unsophisticated and they move where they can most conveniently get a new job.

The people who aren't moving at all would be the silent majority of people who are middle class in income and increasingly poor in assets and getting eaten by inflation. They are moderately educated and would probably sacrifice some things for living in a place that fits their desires. But they can't go anywhere because moving is impractical. Someone who lives in Indianapolis has neither push or nor pull factors strong enough to make them move and they don't have the resources to move for lifestyle.

Chicago seems like it would be actually very desirable to a bunch of people who are the least likely to be able to move there.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

The people who aren't moving at all would be the silent majority of people who are middle class in income and increasingly poor in assets and getting eaten by inflation. They are moderately educated and would probably sacrifice some things for living in a place that fits their desires. But they can't go anywhere because moving is impractical. Someone who lives in Indianapolis has neither push or nor pull factors strong enough to make them move and they don't have the resources to move for lifestyle.

Chicago seems like it would be actually very desirable to a bunch of people who are the least likely to be able to move there.

To be a broken record, the silent majority households mostly relocate when the next generation leave for college or other study or right after graduation. The educated children see their parents’ malaise or hardships and don’t stick around.

The main trouble that Chicago has had over the years is that several decades ago it began with a massive population of manufacturing workers with limited higher education and other workers that catered to them.

Just starting from the 1990s, China joined the WTO in 2001, followed directly by the financial crisis and triggered a catastrophe in the manufacturing Job market.

So of course the overall population was not growing. Every single new office worker in the city was replacing a manufacturing family who left.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It's why the suburbs see much better growth in Chicagoland.

that's not true anymore.

city of chicago growth 2010 - 2020: +1.9%

the rest of the MSA 2010 - 2020: +1.6%

[Acajack]

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.

And NYC and LA used gentrification and housing shortages to get rid of the people those cities didn’t like.

Chicago is the media’s whipping boy, but it’s not unique among major cities in the slightest.

Quite true though when Canadians (and other people from developed countries) move to the US, they generally move to the least dysfunctional parts of the country.

[llamaorama]

Sure, but that's starting to be the past and not the present. As your graph shows those jobs bottomed out a decade ago.

We don't know what the future holds, either. Personally, I'd predict AI and automation will impact back office corporate jobs and warehouse/fulfillment center jobs in the Sunbelt the way Asia impacted auto and steel workers in the Midwest. Chicago has a lot of those things but Dallas and Atlanta are pretty much 100% dependent on having a massive amount of those types of jobs. It won't stop those cities from growing but it would pull out the rug on the lower middle class and with no safety net and already rampant violent crime I predict those places will start looking frayed.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quite true though when Canadians (and other people from developed countries) move to the US, they generally move to the least dysfunctional parts of the country.

Immigration from the developed world to the U.S. is so low that it’s almost statistically insignificant. Many immigrants from overseas are educated, but not necessarily from highly developed regions.

Slavic immigration alone outnumbers almost half of Western European immigration (-UK), and a huge proportion end up in Illinois.

Immigration is mostly about jobs, social networks and available housing in that order.


México - 10.7 million
Germany - 180,000
France - 260,000
Poland - 400,000

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quite true though when Canadians (and other people from developed countries) move to the US, they generally move to the least dysfunctional parts of the country.

When people from developed nations moved to the U.S., they move to places like Chicago.

The most dysfunctional places in the U.S., by far, are rural America. You aren't finding many Canadians, Germans or Aussies in Bumbelfunk, Arkansas. They're in NY, LA, etc.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's not more of a hassle than Florida/Texas summers. Trust me

"Perception is reality", though. Whether it's about Chicago crime or Chicago winters.

Florida crime is no joke either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

When people from developed nations moved to the U.S., they move to places like Chicago.

The most dysfunctional places in the U.S., by far, are rural America. You aren't finding many Canadians, Germans or Aussies in Bumbelfunk, Arkansas. They're in NY, LA, etc.

Chicago is at best a middling place in terms of Canadians moving to the US. In the northern US Canadians move Boston, NYC, DC, Seattle... not so much Chicago.

And then of course a bunch of places further south.

[Northern Light]

While I am a certainly familiar with and have been to Chicago; I'm loathe to pretend some level of expertise in assessing the region's demographic/economic challenges.
That said, I did a quick scan online of news pieces and academic work using terms such as Chicago, Decline, Stagnation etc. to see what turned up and gave them a quick skim.

Lets start at the high level. The Region's population is not in collapse, but is flat to declining.
The City is not unhealthy when measured at the macro level, so much as it isn't booming and has something of a brand-image, and maybe a self-image issue.
There's no question that there has been growth in The Loop/DT Chicago area; and material decline in more challenged areas of Chicago, particularly on the south side.

Is violent crime an issue? Probably, at the margins, in as much as many (not all) of the areas seeing the steepest declines also have inordinate crime.
But that's almost certainly too simplistic an analysis. It would beg questions as to why residents aren't migrating from a higher crime area of Chicago to a lower crime one; and why more prosperous, lower-crime areas of Chicago aren't attracting sufficient overall growth to offset any losses. I don't think one can discount problems with crime, or bad schools or the like as having an impact, but there is surely more at play.

I saw some online discussion about the fact Chicago is merely mirroring Illinois as a whole; which is seeing state-wide population losses. I think that's important to the extent its true, because when you think of booming City's California in the recent past, or Texas or Georgia now, you're thinking of places where the State as a whole is seeing positive growth. Granted, that growth is often driven by the Alpha City or Cities of said states, and same would likely be true of Chicago and Illinois.
However, I also saw indications, that state-wide, Illinois has inordinately high property taxes, as well as higher sales taxes than many other U.S. States. That would seem to have some potential impact; though, again, my instinct is that overall, this is at the margins.

I say that, because many of the most desired, high-growth cities over the last few years, both in the U.S. and globally are high-tax or higher-tax jurisdictions, the thing is, there were another positive factors favouring growth that made those penalties worth paying.

It would seem this was less true in Chicago.

****

If I had to take a guess, and I'd look for input from others more knowledgeable about the region than I......

I would say that:

1) The region is not heavy into the tech industry or other recent high-growth sectors.

Very similar to Toronto in its 1980 economic composition (Toronto was a centre of heavy industry) as those those jobs declined both due to the shifting of jobs to Mexico/China etc.; but also due to modernization of equipment, Toronto shifted gears, to become a financial services and tech. hub. Chicago may not have had the latitude to do the former (given the presence of NYC) but surely could have done the latter.

I noted much online discussion that state-subisides in Illinois and city-subsidies in Chicago were inordinately geared to subsidizing aging corporate giants like Sears, rather than fostering growth in new and emerging sectors.

I think its important to consider that while people may move for lower crime or cheaper property, one of the most common reasons to move is for a job.
If financial services and tech are growing sectors, you think NYC, Boston, The Bay area, and Austin, in the U.S. and Toronto and Vancouver in Canada.
Chicago isn't front and centre in that conversation.

****

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.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Chicago is at best a middling place in terms of Canadians moving to the US. In the northern US Canadians move Boston, NYC, DC, Seattle... not so much Chicago.

And then of course a bunch of places further south.

Canadian immigration to the U.S. is rather meh overall. (Also, very little migration to DC.) If they’re working or going to school, they stay close to the Canadian border. Otherwise, most Canadian immigrants are soon to enter retirement with half the population over 55.

Canadian immigration for most U.S. metros areas is a pretty much a rounding error.

In 2019, Canadian immigrants were on average older than both the overall foreign-born population and the U.S. born. The Canadian median age was 54 years, compared to 46 years for all immigrants and 37 years for the native born

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...naturalization

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

DC is expensive and nearly fully built out, and gentrification is already happening in the cities worst neighborhoods. In Chicago it's a different story, the worst of Chicago will not be gentrified in any of our lifetimes, there is too much land and the real estate values just won't warrant it.

This is my theory about Chicago too, and I don't see how the city can return to sustained growth without substantial "gentrification" of the historically poor areas.