Chicago community area populations 1950 vs. 2010

[Chicago103]

Here is a list comparing the community area populations of Chicago of 1950 with 2010. Now some of these areas peaked as early as 1930 and many peaked later such as 1970 and some are at their peaks today but this kind of apples to apples comparison shows how much certain neighborhoods have declined and which have prospered better post-1950. I have highlighted the community areas that had a greater population in the 2010 census than they did in 1950 regardless of whether or not 2010 was it's peak population. My sources are from wikipedia via the 2010 census and this website for 1950: http://www.robparal.com/downloads/AC...cal%20Data.htm

# Community 1950 2010
1.Rogers Park: 62,252 54,991
2.West Ridge 47,930 71,942
3.Uptown 84,462 56,362
4.Lincoln Square 47,298 39,493
5.North Center 47,787 31,867
6.Lake View 124,824 94,368
7.Lincoln Park 102,396 64,116
8.Near North Side 89,196 80,484
9.Edison Park 7,843 11,187
10.Norwood Park 26,798 37,023
11.Jefferson Park 23,556 25,448
12.Forest Glen 12,189 18,508
13.North Park 15,291 17,931
14.Albany Park 52,995 51,542
15.Portage Park 64,736 64,124
16.Irving Park 64,881 53,359
17.Dunning 32,231 41,932
18.Montclare 11,166 13,426
19.Belmont Cragin 63,546 78,743
20.Hermosa 22,805 25,010
21.Avondale 45,313 39,262
22.Logan Square 106,763 73,595
23.Humboldt Park 76,199 56,323
24.West Town 161,620 81,432
25.Austin 132,180 98,514
26.West Garfield Park 48,443 18,001
27.East Garfield Park 70,091 20,567
28.Near West Side 160,362 54,881
29.North Lawndale 100,489 35,912
30.South Lawndale 66,977 79,288
31.Lower West Side 53,991 35,769
32.Loop 7,018 29,283
33.Near South Side 11,317 21,390
34.Armour Square 23,294 13,391
35.Douglas 78,745 18,238
36.Oakland 24,464 5,918
37.Fuller Park 17,174 2,876
38.Grand Boulevard 114,557 21,929
39.Kenwood 35,705 17,841
40.Washington Park 56,856 11,717
41.Hyde Park 55,206 25,681
42.Woodlawn 80,699 23,410
43.South Shore 79,336 49,767
44.Chatham 40,845 31,028
45.Avalon Park 11,358 10,185
46.South Chicago 55,715 31,198
47.Burnside 3,551 2,916
48.Calumet Heights 9,349 13,812
49.Roseland 56,705 44,619
50.Pullman 8,899 7,325
51.South Deering 17,476 15,109
52.East Side 21,619 23,042
53.West Pullman 29,265 29,651
54.Riverdale 9,790 6,482
55.Hegewisch 7,142 9,426
56.Garfield Ridge 12,900 34,513
57.Archer Heights 8,675 13,393
58.Brighton Park 41,345 45,368
59.McKinley Park 18,813 15,612
60.Bridgeport 46,070 31,925
61.New City 75,917 44,377
62.West Eldson 7,728 18,109
63.Gage Park 30,149 39,894
64.Clearing 10,591 23,139
65.West Lawn 14,460 33,355
66.Chicago Lawn 50,211 55,628
67.West Englewood 62,842 35,505
68.Englewood 94,134 30,654
69.Greater Grand Crossing 61,753 32,602
70.Ashburn 7,472 41,081
71.Auburn Gresham 60,978 48,743
72.Beverly 20,186 20,034
73.Washington Heights 24,488 26,493
74.Mount Greenwood 12,331 19,093
75.Morgan Park 22,618 22,544
76.O'Hare N/A 12,576
77.Edgewater 54,606 56,521
City of Chicago 3,620,962 2,695,598

[Chicago103]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2575921.html

The 2000 image for Garfield Ridge (56) and Archer Heights (57) is wrong BTW, they both are still majority white and/or White/Hispanic mixed.

[dennis1]

I see the west and Northwest keep growing. Norwood Park and south shore are like two different planets.

[dc_denizen]

OT, but do Chicagoans view Immanuel as being a capable mayor? It doesn't seem like the guy has made the news nationally in the last few years, and he obviously has failed to solve the crime problem...

[Chicago103]

Most epic 60 year decline I would have to say is this:

38.Grand Boulevard 1950:114,557 2010:21,929 That is an 81% decline in population!

What is more tragic is the population density decline, this neighborhood's density used to be close to that of Harlem or the Grand Concourse area of the Bronx. In 1950 it had a population density of 66,218 people per square mile! That is nearly twice that of any community area of Chicago today. Today it's population density is slightly under 13K per square mile or about the citywide average. I was actually in this area last summer for the Bud Billiken parade and you could tell the place used to be pretty awesome but is now just a shell of it's former self. It's housing stock is basically all pretty large low and midrise apartment buildings or at minimum rowhouse flats. The thing is though that there are tons of vacant lots where no doubt similarly scaled buildings used to be and a number of the standing buildings are either vacant or in bad shape. Only some restored and/or well maintained buildings on King Drive give clues to the old grandeour of the neighborhood. A ride on the Green Line through the area is the best way to get a casual view of this area today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Boulevard,_Chicago

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by dennis1

I see the west and Northwest keep growing. Norwood Park and south shore are like two different planets.

Norwood Park was largely rural and/or small town streetcar suburb like until WWII, in fact it includes a farmhouse that is arguably the oldest building in the city. It benefited greatly from the post WWII housing boom that created a "suburbanization" within the city limits between 1945-1965, something my family took part in so a subject that has always fascinated me. Chicago had a less than 2% population decline in the 1950's due to these outlying neighborhoods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwood_Park,_Chicago

South Shore being a lakefront neighborhood meant that it is a traditional older urban neighborhood. However South Shore's population pretty much stayed about the same between 1930-1980 between 75K and 80K. The times of massive population decline were in the 1980's (in the 1990's it's population stayed pretty much dead even) and oddly enough the 2000's when it lost about 20% in both decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shore,_Chicago

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

OT, but do Chicagoans view Immanuel as being a capable mayor? It doesn't seem like the guy has made the news nationally in the last few years, and he obviously has failed to solve the crime problem...

Well Rahm is fairly popular with a few controversial issues such as his handling of the Chicago Teacher's Union strike and of course the crime issue. As far as being a national news maker I have seen him on national news quite a bit, at least as much as I would expect a Chicago mayor to be. Then again I am looking at this from a Chicago perspective where I am purposely looking for times our mayor is on any national media outlet and remember it well when he does, from the perspective of an outsider perhaps he isn't making news that often. In general Chicago mayors don't make the news as much as any mayor of NYC but generally Daley and Emanuel are closer to household names than LA mayors are but then again people living in the west coast media market might disagree with me. My bias is that I am a bit of an insular Chicagoan so I am keenly aware I might have a distorted view of what the nation and world thinks of our big news stories.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

OT, but do Chicagoans view Immanuel as being a capable mayor? It doesn't seem like the guy has made the news nationally in the last few years, and he obviously has failed to solve the crime problem...

I dunno. Depends who you ask. Emanuel is a master of the PR machine, so literally every little capital project and every corporate relocation or hiring move is trumpeted to the high heavens. I've caught myself feeling good about the Emanuel administration, but I'm not sure whether he's actually doing any better than Daley, or whether I'm getting fooled. It's good to hear regular updates about every facet of governance, though - it creates optimism and builds support. There isn't a department so obscure that Emanuel hasn't praised it in a press release.

That said, Emanuel has made strong commitments to increase/upgrade the bike-lane network and to rehabilitate the L system. He's definitely an improvement over Daley when it comes to transportation. He realizes that wealthy urbanites care about decent transit, and it gives him a way to push an elite agenda AND give lip service to the poor at the same time.

Economically, he seems to be serving the corporate world far more than the people. There hasn't been a whole lot of industrial growth, or growth in other blue-collar sectors. Crime is obviously a huge issue that hasn't been tackled properly. It's unclear to me what would solve the problem - the only surefire solution is hiring more cops, which there's no money for. The recent swell of opinion for gun control has given Emanuel a scapegoat, and he can put political pressure on Washington lawmakers without spending any real money back in Chicago, and claim to be addressing the crime problem. As callous as it sounds, I think we need to simply ride out the crime wave.

[nei]

How'd Hyde Park lose over half its population? It looked like it's doing fine.

[montréaliste]

ardecila/The recent swell of opinion for gun control has given Emanuel a scapegoat, and he can put political pressure on Washington lawmakers without spending any real money back in Chicago, and claim to be addressing the crime problem. As callous as it sounds, I think we need to simply ride out the crime wave

Just do the time honored thing; let the status quo in race relations be the great equalizer. Poor choice.

[Austinlee]

District 34; The most asian district. Is this a Chicago Chinatown? Or just a modern asian-american community. Or both?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by nei

How'd Hyde Park lose over half its population? It looked like it's doing fine.

In the case of Hyde Park, massive urban renewal in the 1950s and subsequently the expansion of the University have removed a great deal of the housing stock.

More generally, it's important to put certain population declines in perspective: no one would say West Town has been doing badly, despite it's 50% reduction since its peak population... the difference is how a gentrified neighborhood looks demographically compared to Victorian-era industrial slums.

Remember, many portions of Paris, London, and all other great European cities have seen major population declines in many neighborhoods, and in some cases, have seen comparable inner municipality population declines over the course of deindustrialization in the latter half of the 20th century.

e.g.
Inner London population in 1911: 5.0 million, 2009: 3.06 million
Paris 5th Arr (Latin Quarter) population in 1911: 121k, 2005: 60k

Point being, population decline is not always a negative indicator, particularly in the cities that were the major industrial centers circa 1900.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

In the case of Hyde Park, massive urban renewal in the 1950s and subsequently the expansion of the University have removed a great deal of the housing stock.

More generally, it's important to put certain population declines in perspective: no one would say West Town has been doing badly, despite it's 50% reduction since its peak population... the difference is how a gentrified neighborhood looks demographically compared to Victorian-era industrial slums.

Remember, many portions of Paris, London, and all other great European cities have seen major population declines in many neighborhoods, and in some cases, have seen comparable inner municipality population declines over the course of deindustrialization in the latter half of the 20th century.

e.g.
Inner London population in 1911: 5.0 million, 2009: 3.06 million
Paris 5th Arr (Latin Quarter) population in 1911: 121k, 2005: 60k

Point being, population decline is not always a negative indicator, particularly in the cities that were the major industrial centers circa 1900.

^ ABSOLUTELY!

Very well put. While some neighborhoods of Chicago have lost population due to decline of jobs, crime, etc, others have lost population due to gentrification. In one extreme case, a set of 5 or 6 lots in Lincoln Park meant for townhomes was purchased by a billionaire who is now constructing a mansion on that very property. Now does that mean that Lincoln Park is declining? Obviously not, it's overrun by wealthy professionals, millionaires, etc who "like to have their breathing room".

All in all, Chicago has become a much more diverse city, as evidenced by Chicago103's neat diagram above from the Huffington Post. I wonder if another community area besides Chinatown will turn green. My guess is that it will either be West Ridge or the one representing Bridgeport, if it does. Among all ethnic groups, Asians are the only group that are rapidly increasing in population, albeit they still represent a small group.

My only concern is the very heavily African American areas of Chicago which have not only seen population decline and loss of housing stock, but some are basically gang warfare zones at this point. I really don't see anything resembling a good future for these areas for many, many years to come.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

District 34; The most asian district. Is this a Chicago Chinatown? Or just a modern asian-american community. Or both?

Community area 34 does include part of Chinatown area but it is kind of both. To the west is Bridgeport 60 that also has a good number of asians as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour_Square,_Chicago

With its location being immediately south of Chinatown, today the neighborhood also has a large Asian population as well.





Population (2010)
• Total
13,391

• Density
14,000/sq mi (5,200/km2)

Demographics 2010

• White
12.26%

• Black
10.6%

• Hispanic
3.47%

• Asian
72.59%

• Other
1.08%

[Segun]

Here's what Grand Boulevard/Bronzeville looked like (from HistoricAerials.com)

1950

http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...2285&year=1952


1988

http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...2285&year=1988


2002
http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...2285&year=2002


2007
http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...2285&year=2007

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Most epic 60 year decline I would have to say is this:

38.Grand Boulevard 1950:114,557 2010:21,929 That is an 81% decline in population!

What is more tragic is the population density decline, this neighborhood's density used to be close to that of Harlem or the Grand Concourse area of the Bronx. In 1950 it had a population density of 66,218 people per square mile! That is nearly twice that of any community area of Chicago today. Today it's population density is slightly under 13K per square mile or about the citywide average. I was actually in this area last summer for the Bud Billiken parade and you could tell the place used to be pretty awesome but is now just a shell of it's former self. It's housing stock is basically all pretty large low and midrise apartment buildings or at minimum rowhouse flats. The thing is though that there are tons of vacant lots where no doubt similarly scaled buildings used to be and a number of the standing buildings are either vacant or in bad shape. Only some restored and/or well maintained buildings on King Drive give clues to the old grandeour of the neighborhood. A ride on the Green Line through the area is the best way to get a casual view of this area today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Boulevard,_Chicago

Of course at its peak, this neighborhood was an overcrowded and run-down with people bursting out of the seams. Blacks lived there in substandard housing at very high densities because they were prohibited from living in other neighborhoods.

Charles Cushman took a bunch of color photos documenting life in old Chicago. Here's some pictures of Bronzeville. http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cush...49&action=roll

[Mr Downtown]

"Armour Square" is a perfect example of how useless Chicago's Community Areas can be for sociological analysis. Even at the time it was drawn, it was a bizarre mashup of Chinese at the north, Italians in the middle, and Germans, Bohemians, Swedes, and Irish at the south—with Negroes along the eastern edge. They each had their own community institutions and businesses, their own leaders and politics. The only thing they had in common was that they lived between a pair of railroad viaducts, isolating their communities from the ones around them. But that didn't mean they had much in common with each other.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

6.Lake View 124,824 94,368
7.Lincoln Park 102,396 64,116
22.Logan Square 106,763 73,595
41.Hyde Park 55,206 25,681

These are good examples of neighborhoods that have gotten less dense because they've gentrified. Places like Woodlawn, Washington Park and Englewood, on the other hand, are just bombed out.

[Mikemak27]

26.West Garfield Park 48,443 18,001
27.East Garfield Park 70,091 20,567
28.Near West Side 160,362 54,881
29.North Lawndale 100,489 35,912

Wow has the west side emptied out. Long term, I can see this area gentrifying from east to west as the core downtown neighborhoods expand and become more populated.

[Thundertubs]

No matter how many times I see these numbers, it's astonishing how the inner West and South sides have been destroyed. Rioting and burning stuff down is never good for a neighborhood. It breaks my heart to drive down formerly great streets like Madison and see miles of empty lots n both sides.

Originally Posted by nei

How'd Hyde Park lose over half its population? It looked like it's doing fine.

It wasn't back then. Hyde Park was sliding into being a slum like all of it's surrounding areas. There was a major urban renewal that removed lots of housing in addition to the neighborhood's main urban commercial district on 55th. It destroyed some of the neighborhood, but stabilized it. When my parents lived there in the early 70's it was still a dicey area.

The University of Chicago was mulling leaving the city in the 50's because of how fast the surrounding area was decaying.