Chicago has the fastest growing downtown in the country--again

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

People who can, who have the money, are moving from high crime areas to lower crime areas. Chicago's downtown core and much of the north side, especially near the lake is perceived to be safer than the near west side and much of the south side. Migration from high crime to low crime areas is happening in most cities. People want to be safe. The same thing happened after the collapse of the Roman Empire, when cities became smaller as people move behind the walls of the inner city to be safer, at least until the plague struck, and the cities emptied out again.

Interesting take. So poor people are moving to expensive areas?

[Steely Dan]

^ yeah, i don't think our friend from cali has a very strong handle on the shifts taking place here in chicago.

the people leaving the neighborhoods that saw the biggest declines (englewood, west englewood, roseland, south chicago, etc.) by and large are not moving into downtown highrises. they're mostly leaving the city for the burbs, or leaving chicagoland altogether for greener pastures elsewhere.* though black flight was thankfully MUCH reduced from the '00s, it still was chicago's biggest demographic headwind. all other macro demo-groups in chicago saw growth last decade, but sadly we still had a net decline of ~85K black people.

the gigantic influx of new downtown residents seems to be largely driven by transplants and former suburbanites.



(*) the big exception here are those green neighborhoods along the south lakefront that are starting to see middle class and up black people move into them, and some of those people may have indeed moved there from other city nabes.

as i said earlier in the thread, that's the best news from the 2020 census for the city of chicago. sure, the huge population growth downtown is cool and all, but that's been in full swing for a while now. to see the population numbers tick upwards in places like douglas, oakland, grand boulevard, kenwood, and washington park, now that's something new and promising! the rejuvenation of the south side has to start somewhere and it looks like the south lakefront is where those seeds are being planted. makes sense, the lakefront is an asset that can't be "disinvested" away.

[the urban politician]

The downtown area growth is definitely NOT a result of poor, huddled refugees finding shelter from the warzone. Also, the growth in the south lakefront is also not the same, it's gentrification, and in the case of the south lakefront I'm reading that it's middle class black (and other) folks buying and renting there. The poor are almost certainly moving in the opposite direction.

Many middle class blacks are also bailing for the burbs and other regions altogether.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Indeed, the Near West Side is a tale of two areas in the growth rates (note that this map has red=growth, blue=decline):

Ashland is the dividing line right through the "Near West Side" label.

here's what i get for growth last decade splitting up the near west side census tracts at ashland

(CT 8429 straddles ashland, but like 90% of the tract's 2,480 residents live east of ashland, so i put it in the "east of ashland" column).



sub-section: 2010 - 2020 - change

east of ashland: 39,130 - 51,199 - +12,069 (+30.8%)

west of ashland: 15,751 - 16,682 - +931 (+5.9%)
___________________________________________________

near west side overall: 54,881 - 67,881 - +13,000 (+23.7%)



so the lion's share of the growth of the near west side CA was east of ashland, as would be expected.

[Crawford]

A big portion of what's missed is the change in land use. So, for example, the West Loop and South Loop (and more recently, the Loop proper) likely show a large relative increase in population over the last few decades. Meanwhile, established core residential areas like Streeterville and River North show slower growth.

But this doesn't really mean that the South Loop is booming more than Streeterville, it simply means that the South Loop was largely nonresidential and parts were pretty empty. Growth seems more impressive when you're starting from a base of near-zero, as opposed to a mature residential neighborhood.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by TWAK

I love it that you included the timeframe when it was annexed, since it's probably one of my favorite parts of "urban" stuff. Was the airport there first or did the city build it after it was annexed? Also, just the fact that the city was able to annex or run an airport. Usually it's the county or some complicated group of stakeholders and special districts.

Would incorporated places actually want to join the city, or is that just something from the late 1800's? Cahokia is well known and it's cool that the area incorporated itself.

The city of Chicago did another large annex about 15 years ago for O'hare Airport. The town annexed tried to stop it but failed due to federal help in the matter. Very few suburban towns want to become part of Chicago, that's for sure. Someone said Oak Park should merge with Chicago on one of these threads... I think OP would fight to the death to stop that from happening!!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Meanwhile, established core residential areas like Streeterville and River North show slower growth.

not necessarily.

the loop proper is the only one of the 4 that saw a significantly higher growth rate last decade.

if we look at the "east of ashland" break-out i just did above for the MUCH too large near west side, the growth rates of the other three are all in the same wheelhouse, even if the numerical increases are quite different because of very different starting points.


Community Area: 2010 - 2020 - change

the loop: 29,283 - 42,298 - +13,015 (+44.5%)

near north: 80,484 - 105,481 - +24,997 (+31.1%)

near west:* 39,130 - 51,199 - +12,069 (+30.8%)

near south: 21,390 - 28,795 - +7,405 (+34.6%)
_______________________________________________

total: 170,287 - 227,773 - +57,486 (+33.8%)



(*) only the "east of ashland" portion

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Maybe there isn't a universal standard for each city, but once again when a radius of 2 miles from city hall was used for 2010 (as I stated before), Chicago way outgrew everybody else then using that same standard.

It's at least some kind of standard that approximates central area population growth. We will see if they do the same for 2020

2 miles from City Hall in Miami probably wouldn't even include Downtown (city hall is way outside of Downtown Miami)

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ yeah, i don't think our friend from cali has a very strong handle on the shifts taking place here in chicago.

the people leaving the neighborhoods that saw the biggest declines (englewood, west englewood, roseland, south chicago, etc.) by and large are not moving into downtown highrises. they're mostly leaving the city for the burbs, or leaving chicagoland altogether for greener pastures elsewhere.* though black flight was thankfully MUCH reduced from the '00s, it still was chicago's biggest demographic headwind. all other macro demo-groups in chicago saw growth last decade, but sadly we still had a net decline of ~85K black people.

the gigantic influx of new downtown residents seems to be largely driven by transplants and former suburbanites.



(*) the big exception here are those green neighborhoods along the south lakefront that are starting to see middle class and up black people move into them, and some of those people may have indeed moved there from other city nabes.

as i said earlier in the thread, that's the best news from the 2020 census for the city of chicago. sure, the huge population growth downtown is cool and all, but that's been in full swing for a while now. to see the population numbers tick upwards in places like douglas, oakland, grand boulevard, kenwood, and washington park, now that's something new and promising! the rejuvenation of the south side has to start somewhere and it looks like the south lakefront is where those seeds are being planted. makes sense, the lakefront is an asset that can't be "disinvested" away.

Maybe I was thinking of the 1970s T.V. show Jeffersons, middle class blacks and Latinos who might be moving into downtown highrises and also far southside gentrifying lakefront areas with growth. "Moving on up, to the eastside, a deluxe apartment in the sky". But yeah, that was New York, and I know that many who are poor are leaving the area entirely to escape gang violence and crime, not having the financial means to move downtown even if they wanted to. Atlanta is seeing many African Americans seeing more opportunity there moving in from many cities, including L.A. and perhaps Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland etc.. As they leave, Latinos are moving into the vacated units. In South Central L.A., once black neighborhoods are now mostly Latino. Compton and Watts are majority Latino. Many African Americans have left South Central, either for the inland empire, Palmdale-Lancaster, or to more western gentrifying areas nearer the beach like Baldwin Hills, Crenshaw, Inglewood, etc., or have left the area entirely (Atlanta?). Some have moved into downtown highrises. Downtown L.A. has doubled in pop. over the past decade or two.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dave8721

2 miles from City Hall in Miami probably wouldn't even include Downtown (city hall is way outside of Downtown Miami)

yeah, Miami is a bit of an outlier. most major US cities don't place their city halls 4 miles outside of downtown like miami did.

now, often times they're located in some downtown-adjacent civic district, not right in the very beating heart of the CBD, but 4 miles out is definitely well outside the norm.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Maybe I was thinking of the 1970s T.V. show Jeffersons, middle class blacks and Latinos who might be moving into downtown highrises and also far southside gentrifying lakefront areas with growth. "Moving on up, to the eastside, a deluxe apartment in the sky".

well, there's almost certainly some of that going on, but your earlier post made it sound like you thought the main driver of population growth in downtown chicago over the past decade was people fleeing the violence of neighborhoods like englewood, and that's not really what's going on, for the most part.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago’s downtown still fastest growing in country, report says
AJ LATRACE NOVEMBER 2, 2021



In the years leading up the pandemic, Chicago’s downtown was witnessing unprecedented growth — both in population and construction activity. Dozens of high-rises were being built at a time, adding thousands of rental units and hotel rooms to the city each year. And despite the downturn caused by the pandemic, Chicago’s Loop and broader central business district is still the fastest growing neighborhood in the city, and the fastest growing downtown in the nation, a report from the Chicago Loop Alliance suggests.

In terms of raw numbers, The Loop, saw an increase from 29,000 residents in the 2010 census to 42,300 residents in 2020 — its highest population yet. This is roughly a 45% gain, the report details, meaning that Chicago’s Loop remains the fastest growing community within the city. To put this in perspective however, Edgewater, one of the city’s most densely populated neighborhoods has a population of 56,300 residents while trendy Logan Square has just over 71,000 residents.

The Loop’s population growth has been significant in the last couple of decades, but the neighborhood still has a long ways to go in catching up with many other Chicago neighborhoods in total resident count.


But when we take a step back and look at the broader downtown area, which includes neighborhoods like River North, Streeterville, the West Loop, South Loop, and others, the numbers become even more significant. The report pegs the total population of Chicago’s downtown at 244,445 residents, or roughly 9% of Chicago’s total population. Double-digit growth in the Near North Side and Near South Side has helped Chicago’s downtown grow faster than any other major downtown district in the country, the Chicago Loop Alliance report proclaims.

While downtown Chicago has growth at a rapid pace in the last decade, the story is much different for the city’s far south side. Neighborhoods like Englewood, Roseland, West Pullman, and Fuller Park all witnessed double-digit population loss. The lop-sided downtown growth and far south side decline meant that the entire city of Chicago only had a 2% population gain between 2010 and 2020, bringing the city’s current population to 2,746,388.

if you replaced chicago with the cleveland version it would be practically the same news.

a real yin and yang there -- and i dk what to think about it.

its really impressive how the downtowns are stepping up, but not great people in other parts of the city are still leaving.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

well, there's almost certainly some of that going on, but your earlier post made it sound like you thought the main driver of population growth in downtown chicago over the past decade was people fleeing the violence of neighborhoods like englewood, and that's not really what's going on, for the most part.

There is certainly a community of black residents in West Loop/South Loop, mostly professionals, and even businesses that serve that community. I get the sense that South/West Loop feels more comfortable to them than an established white area like Lakeview or Lincoln Park, and if they have family on the South/West Sides it's closer to home as well.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Maybe I was thinking of the 1970s T.V. show Jeffersons, middle class blacks and Latinos who might be moving into downtown highrises and also far southside gentrifying lakefront areas with growth. "Moving on up, to the eastside, a deluxe apartment in the sky". But yeah, that was New York, and I know that many who are poor are leaving the area entirely to escape gang violence and crime, not having the financial means to move downtown even if they wanted to.

Basically, the majority of the North side is people who moved to Chicago from out-of-state and their children. People from out-of-state are not that knowledgeable about the Chicago metro, and most of the people in their social networks are also not from Chicago.

So the North side is an intense cluster of transplants who behave like an immigrant enclave.

Working-class Latino immigrants and their children have been increasingly moving into black neighborhoods to the West and Southwest.

Middle and upper-class black families have been opting for the South lakefront when given the choice, but college graduates from out-of-state are also beginning to compete for those areas.






https://www.google.com/amp/s/danielk...?client=safari

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ardecila

There is certainly a community of black residents in West Loop/South Loop, mostly professionals, and even businesses that serve that community. I get the sense that South/West Loop feels more comfortable to them than an established white area like Lakeview or Lincoln Park, and if they have family on the South/West Sides it's closer to home as well.

Yeah, I've noticed this. Pre-pandemic, I was regularly in Chicago with family and my kid played at various playgrounds in/around downtown.

The South Loop playgrounds were easily the most diverse, with a high % of African American and Asian families. I suspect South Loop condos have a decent share of both demographics. South Asians, in particular, near the lake, and African Americans around the Dearborn Park area. In contrast, the Lincoln Park and Gold Coast playgrounds were almost entirely white.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

There is certainly a community of black residents in West Loop/South Loop, mostly professionals, and even businesses that serve that community. I get the sense that South/West Loop feels more comfortable to them than an established white area like Lakeview or Lincoln Park, and if they have family on the South/West Sides it's closer to home as well.

yes, i wasn't trying to say that no one has ever moved from a super-violent neighborhood like englewood into downtown for safety reasons, just that it's not the main driver of downtown's population growth. that's all.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The South Loop playgrounds were easily the most diverse, with a high % of African American and Asian families. I suspect South Loop condos have a decent share of both demographics. South Asians, in particular, near the lake, and African Americans around the Dearborn Park area. In contrast, the Lincoln Park and Gold Coast playgrounds were almost entirely white.

for sure, near south, near west, and the loop itself definitely have greater overall diversity (or at least are much less NH-white) than the inner north lakefront neighborhoods (by the time you get up to uptown, things start getting much less white again).

in fact, after rogers park, i think they might come closer to mirroring city-wide demographics better than any other CAs (though both are light on latinos and heavy on asians, relatively speaking).



lincoln park: 77.1% NH-white

lakeview: 74.9% NH-white

near north: 70.1% NH-white

the loop: 57.0% NH-white

near south: 44.4% NH-white

near west: 42.9% NH-white

source: https://gist.github.com/bread-fixer/...2412bda847de28

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

its really impressive how the downtowns are stepping up, but not great people in other parts of the city are still leaving.

black flight in both cases (along with a fair bit of continued white flight in cleveland's case, which surprised me a bit, woulda thought it had bottomed out by now).

i don't think there's a major rust belt city left that isn't being significantly impacted by black flight.

even milwaukee, one of the last holdouts, saw its black population decrease last decade for the first time ever.

i know that, at least for chicago and detroit, the black flight loss last decade was much lower (roughly halved) than in the '00s, so at least the loss curves are beginning to bend the right way in some of these cities.

I'm not sure where cleveland is at in the process.

[Steely Dan]

i was curious to see how chicago's greater downtown core is doing since its nadir in the 1990 census. that census year, the near north, near west, and near south sides all reached their all-time bottoms, after the previous 4 decades of urban flight had knee-capped them well and good. the loop wasn't at an all time bottom in 1990, but it wasn't an area of terribly significant residential population at any point in the 20th century, so.....


Community Area: 1990 - 2020 - change

the loop: 11,954 - 42,298 - +30,344 (+253.8%)

near north: 62,842 - 105,481 - +42,639 (+67.9%)

near west: 46,197 - 67,881 - +21,684 (+46.9%)

near south: 6,828 - 28,795 - +15,139 (+221.7%)
_______________________________________________

total: 127,821 - 244,445 - +116,624 (+91.2%)


so, a damn near doubling over the past 3 decades, not too shabby at all.


for historical reference, those 4 communtiy areas had a combined population high of 267,893 back in 1950 (with over half of that in the near west side alone).

if current trends continue this decade, we'll blow past that mark by 2030 to set a new all time population high for greater downtown chicago!

[left of center]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

if you replaced chicago with the cleveland version it would be practically the same news.

One difference I feel the need to mention is that while Cleveland lost 25k residents in the 2020 census, Chicago gained 50k. While nowhere near the gain of cities in the Sun Belt or NYC, it definitely is notable that the city stopped the losses from the 2010 census.

That said, Chicago does need to work more towards stabilizing the neighborhoods that continue to see population loss in order to fully prosper and grow to its full potential. Progress has been made in that regard since prior censuses, especially along the south lakefront.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by left of center

One difference I feel the need to mention is that while Cleveland lost 25k residents in the 2020 census, Chicago gained 50k.

like all rust belt cities, cleveland is dealing with a very stiff black flight demographic headwind, but as i mentioned earlier, unlike some rust-belters it also still saw some significant white flight as well.

Cleveland demographic changes 2010-2020:

black: -31,395 (-15.1%)
white: -13,163 (-9.9%)
latino: +9,165 (+23.2%)
asian: +3,177 (+44.0%)
other: +8,025 (+87.7%)
_______________________

total: -24,191 (-6.1%)


now, it did see very strong percentage growths in the other demos, but they were starting from such relatively small bases that they weren't able to overcome the 1 - 2 punch of both continued black and white flight.



in chicago's case, we too experienced a large amount of black flight (-85K, -9.7%), but it was more than off set by positive gains in all the other groups (+135K, +7.4%), to more than make up the difference with a net gain of +50K, +1.9%.

i believe chicago and buffalo were the only two major rust-belt central cities that saw population growth last decade. buffalo is a bit of an outlier because it actually saw a very modest gain in its black population, but also experienced some continued white flight. very strong gains in latinos, asians, and others powered it to the best city-proper growth of the major rust-belters (+6.5%)