Chicago still headed for megacity status: report

maru2501 · #1 Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 8:47 PM**

For my money, it needs to overcome the crime problem. But incoming corporate jobs help...

https://convene.com/catalyst/chicago...gacities-2030/

The world is becoming more urbanized, a trend that will welcome new cities into the ranks of so-called ‘megacities’ across the next decade.

Among the expected newcomers—Chicago.

Zapatan · #2 Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 9:06 PM**

Sounds about right.

The US will have 3 megacities, that's pretty cool

Yuri · #3 Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 9:18 PM**

Chicago was one of the largest cities in the world throughout most of XX century and megacity status was a matter of time, specially after the very strong 1990's. But then, the metro area stopped completely right before the 10 million benchmark.

I also have the impression the Chicago's world brand was much stronger up to the 1990's. They lost a lot of ground since then.

Sun Belt · #4 Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 10:10 PM**

Chicago should be home to 20 million people already.

They were my top city in the other thread about cities that under shot.

Emprise du Lion · #5 Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 10:42 PM**

Is it just me or this just something Chicago can use for marketing purposes and that's about it? It's not like an additional 100,000 to 500,000 people (CSA vs MSA) is going to change the nature of the city, especially if it's spread across Illinois exurbs and towns in Wisconsin and Indiana. That number getting added to the city proper, however, could actually change Chicago's feel to a degree.

Just my 2¢.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Chicago should be home to 20 million people already.

They were my top city in the other thread about cities that under shot.

If Chicagoland was going to undershoot unless it hit 20 million people, the same size as NYC's MSA, then it was always going to underperform. I don't deny that the city stalled, but 20 million? No.

IrishIllini · #6 Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 10:46 PM**

Is there not already a thread similar to this one? Why should Chicago be home to 20m? I'd love to live to see 12-13m here w/o including Milwaukee.

Emprise du Lion · #7 Posted **Oct 23, 2018, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Is there not already a thread similar to this one? Why should Chicago be home to 20m? I'd love to live to see 12-13m here w/o including Milwaukee.

Same. I'd also like to keep Rockford separate.

maru2501 · #8 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 12:12 AM**

next census should be interesting

Sun Belt · #9 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 3:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Is there not already a thread similar to this one? Why should Chicago be home to 20m? I'd love to live to see 12-13m here w/o including Milwaukee.

Because it has what nearly every single other city does not have.

Cheap, flat, easily developable land and an endless source of abundant accessible fresh water.

Urbanguy · #10 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 3:38 AM**

I'd imagine that the next metros (after Chicago) for North America would be Toronto, San Francisco & Washington D.C.

Most Metro's especially as defined by CSAs are so inflated and IMO designed more for attracting investment & bragging rights than what it's really like on the ground, per se. For example, in Portland's CSA it now includes places like Corvallis which is around 84 miles away! They're not even in the same TV Market -- most of their local TV stations are based out of Eugene which is around 47 miles from Corvallis.

Sun Belt · #11 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Is it just me or this just something Chicago can use for marketing purposes and that's about it? It's not like an additional 100,000 to 500,000 people (CSA vs MSA) is going to change the nature of the city, especially if it's spread across Illinois exurbs and towns in Wisconsin and Indiana. That number getting added to the city proper, however, could actually change Chicago's feel to a degree.

Chicago city limits could easily hold 3.5 - 4 million. There's a lot of empty, underutilized land in the Southside.

Steely Dan · #12 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Because it has what nearly every single other city does not have.

Cheap, flat, easily developable land and an endless source of abundant accessible fresh water.

Toronto, detroit, cleveland, milwaukee, and buffalo all enjoy the same, yet none of them have 20 million either.

Endless flat land and a great lake clearly do not preordain a 20 million person metropolis.

Sun Belt · #13 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Toronto, detroit, cleveland, milwaukee, and buffalo all enjoy the same, yet none of them have 20 million either.

Endless land and a great lake clearly does not preordain a 20 million person metropolis.

That's because they're not the 2nd City.

Chicago has always had the second largest core in America, but it under shot. It should be a region of 20 million.

Steely Dan · #14 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's because they're not the 2nd City.

Chicago has always had the second largest core in America, but it under shot. It should be a region of 20 million.

Philly once had the 2nd largest core in america.

And that was before chicago was even a thing.

It should have 30 million now. What a failure.

Sun Belt · #15 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Philly once had the 2nd largest core in america.

And that was before chicago was even a thing.

It should have 30 million now. What a failure.

Philly and NYC are practically connected.

Philly was never called the second city. Chicago's core is much larger than Philly's. - You know that, though.

JManc · #16 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:28 PM**

New York barely has 20 million (MSA) so why would we expect Chicago to have that much?

the urban politician · #17 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:44 PM**

I don’t get the obsession with population here. We all know that America just doesn’t build 20 million people megapoli like China and India do. People here like their houses and big yards, and that takes up tons of space. As mentioned above, even greater NY has hardly achieved that status.

Are we trying to create Calcutta or Mexico City here? What are we actually going for?

The real challenge for Chicago is to turn around areas on the south and west sides. The focus really shouldn’t be on the 10 million mark.

Steely Dan · #18 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Philly and NYC are practically connected.

neat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Philly was never called the second city.

well, the origins of that particular nickname are a bit nebulous.

some sources say that chicago earned the nickname "the second city" after "the first city" was destroyed in the great fire, which would have nothing to so with any other city anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Chicago's core is much larger than Philly's.

in 1850, philly had a MUCH larger core than chicago. it really should have at least 30 million people today. what a failure.

and even today, philly's urban core isn't a great deal smaller than chicago's.

check out these same scale tract density maps. philly is a real city, one of the realest on the continent.

Vlajos · #19 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

New York barely has 20 million (MSA) so why would we expect Chicago to have that much?

Only Sunbelt thinks that.

dimondpark · #20 Posted **Oct 24, 2018, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Chicago was one of the largest cities in the world throughout most of XX century and megacity status was a matter of time, specially after the very strong 1990's. But then, the metro area stopped completely right before the 10 million benchmark.

I also have the impression the Chicago's world brand was much stronger up to the 1990's. They lost a lot of ground since then.

Chicago grew fast in the 1990s due to a large influx of Hispanics during that decade.

The interesting thing about growth and Chicago is that if you visit the city now, you will see development continues uninterrupted, the downtown is as near to a masterpiece as a US downtown can be imo, it's a showplace, and is very vibrant. There is literally no hint of stagnation in downtown Chicago imo. It feels like it's growing.

Which is why population figures seem so odd.