Chicago still headed for megacity status: report

[Crawford]

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.

Why would these be factors in city growth? LA has shown the most dramatic U.S. growth over the past century and has neither. The fastest growing cities generally have neither.

Has any person in modern U.S. history ever said "I'm moving to City X because of cheap, flat, easily developable land and an endless sources of abundant fresh water"?

[maru2501]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

tale of two cities.

the core is thriving.

the ghettos are emptying out.

you should check out englewood on your next trip to chicago.

Right, which is why it's so interesting. Can the influx of young white collars overcome the emptying of neighborhoods with longtime social problems. And how have the immigration policies of the Trump administration affected Hispanic pop. levels in one of the country's top sanctuary cities...

This dynamic has left the overall population figure relatively flat recently. (slightly up and slightly down depending on the year)

And it's the answer when people ask how Chicago has so many cranes and incoming HQs when it looks on paper like the population is flat. Read into the numbers...

[iheartthed]

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.

Technically, Philly was the largest city in the country for the first couple of decades (Philadelphia + Northern Liberties + Southwark).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Technically, Philly was the largest city in the country for the first couple of decades (Philadelphia + Northern Liberties + Southwark).

Yeah, Philly, by modern municipal boundaries, was probably the largest U.S. city till about 1800, at least.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would these be factors in city growth? LA has shown the most dramatic U.S. growth over the past century and has neither. The fastest growing cities generally have neither.

This is the point. L.A. once had cheap, flat, easily developable land [San Fernando Valley]. Fresh water was an issue, [as it was in NY as well] until both cities built aqueducts to bring fresh water to the basin / coast and transform the desert to an oasis. This is one less obstacle that a place like Chicago would even have to deal with.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Has any person in modern U.S. history ever said "I'm moving to City X because of cheap, flat, easily developable land and an endless sources of abundant fresh water"?

^Yes. People move to affordable places all the time. They are affordable because they have cheap abundant, easily developable land. Think DFW [Plano]. It's a warmer Chicagoland, but with less sources of fresh water available.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

^Yes. People move to affordable places all the time. They are affordable because they have cheap abundant, easily developable land. Think DFW [Plano]. It's a warmer Chicagoland, but with less sources of fresh water available.

No one is moving to Dallas for water and land. That makes no sense. Dallas has less land/water than most interior metros and is generally more expensive. 400k will get you much less in Dallas than in most metros.

Let's look at the fastest growing North American metros in the last century or so.

Mexico City- only place with jobs
Toronto- immigration
Metros in Florida/Arizona- weather and generous northern pensions
Vegas- casinos
Bay Area/Seattle- tech
Texas- energy jobs + border with Mex
Atlanta/Charlotte- misery of postwar rural South + cheap homes with jobs
Raleigh- eds + meds
LA/SD- weather, govt and CA postwar rep. as nirvana
DC- govt

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by emathias

Chicago could handle about 5.25 million without too many problems. We have 234 square miles. If we had 150 square miles at the population density of Logan Square, 50 square miles at the density of Lakeview, 25 square miles with the density of Niles, and 9 square miles at the density of Madrid, Chicago would be 5.325 million people, and I don't think those densities, in those quantities, would overly tax our infrastructure, nor would they spur any significant new amount of NIMBYism.



What distance radius is Detroit denser than Chicago? Is that counting Canadians? If so, it's hardly a fair comparison.

Detroit is within 250 miles (as crow flies) of Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Cincinnati, and Buffalo. That's roughly the same radius as the northeast megalopolis centered around NYC.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit is within 250 miles (as crow flies) of Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Cincinnati, and Buffalo. That's roughly the same radius as the northeast megalopolis centered around NYC.

But it's a lot less connected. There's a pretty solid development corridor from Boston to DC.

If you're driving from Detroit to Toronto there's basically nothing. Windsor to London or Sarnia to London is a sea of nothing. Detroit to Chicago has no such empty zones but is still pretty patchy. There isn't much between Ann Arbor and Indiana. Biggest metro along the route would be Kalamazoo.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But it's a lot less connected. There's a pretty solid wave of development from Boston to DC.

If you're driving from Detroit to Toronto there's basically nothing. Windsor to London or Sarnia to London is a sea of nothing. Detroit to Chicago has no such empty zones but is still pretty patchy. There isn't much between Ann Arbor and Indiana.

My claim wasn't that it is as connected as the northeast corridor... although it is the most contiguously developed region in North America outside of the northeast corridor.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No one is moving to Dallas for water and land. That makes no sense. Dallas has less land/water than most interior metros and is generally more expensive. 400k will get you much less in Dallas than in most metros.

Disagree. People are moving to Texas, DFW for one, because it's cheap. It's cheap because there is tons of land that is easily developed. It's easily developed due to pro growth political policies and the fact that the land is easy to develop and it's endless.

Chicago actually has an advantage over a Dallas, because it has the land AND an endless supply of fresh water that doesn't require billions of dollars to move water around.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

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.

Always interesting to hear outside voices on what they see. As a lifelong Chicago Metro resident, I often think about what Chicago's downtown (if not the larger city) is lacking or how it could definitely be improved. Still so many empty lots and potential public spaces yet unrealized.

I would suggest that Chicago is likely the most bi-polar city in the US. It has tremendous growth and vibrancy downtown and on much of the north and near west/south sides and then in huge swaths of the west and south side, it is a place many residents are attempting to flee. If NYC and Detroit somehow had a love child.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don’t get the obsession with population here.

This. I don't understand the population orgasm either. A massive population doesn't ensure a high quality of life. In the US it mostly ensures that you'll be wading through other people's garbage.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

This. I don't understand the population orgasm either. A massive population doesn't ensure a high quality of life. In the US it mostly ensures that you'll be wading through other people's garbage.

Well, yeah Lagos is not New York, however population growth and decline are great indicators of a city's health when kept in context. A city's health determines many things to the people residing there.

A growing city will have expanding city services. A declining city will see services and infrastructure decline and cut back to balance the budget.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Disagree. People are moving to Texas, DFW for one, because it's cheap. It's cheap because there is tons of land that is easily developed. It's easily developed due to pro growth political policies and the fact that the land is easy to develop and it's endless.

Dallas might be the most expensive major metro in the south-central part of the U.S. How do explain "expensive" cities growing faster than "cheap" cities?

Why is Seattle booming? It's expensive as hell. Why isn't Cleveland booming? Dirt-cheap. Cleveland makes Detroit look like Bay Area in terms of metro home prices. Why is Nashville booming while cheap Memphis is totally stagnant?

LA metro has had the largest numeric population growth of any U.S. metro since WW2 and it was never cheap. Even in the 1970's, you were paying a ton to be in the desirable climate zones near the ocean. Those folks moving from Iowa to OC tract homes in the 50's-60's were paying more for less home.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Dallas might be the most expensive major metro in the south-central part of the U.S. How do explain "expensive" cities growing faster than "cheap" cities?

Why is Seattle booming? It's expensive as hell. Why isn't Cleveland booming? Dirt-cheap. Cleveland makes Detroit look like Bay Area in terms of metro home prices. Why is Nashville booming while cheap Memphis is totally stagnant?

LA metro has had the largest numeric population growth of any U.S. metro since WW2 and it was never cheap. Even in the 1970's, you were paying a ton to be in the desirable climate zones near the ocean. Those folks moving from Iowa to OC tract homes in the 50's-60's were paying more for less home.

Dallas is cheap compared to Los Angeles and New York.

As for the Rust Belt, we all know why they declined, hit rock bottom and will likely bounce back this century.

You've stated before that you have some great aunt in Newport [one of the the wealthiest enclaves in the nation] that bought her house for a 100k.

The Golden State used to be a place of opportunity, affordable single family homes. Those days are gone, it's now one of the worst states in terms of affordability and has the highest poverty rates in the country.

[M II A II R II K]

Also would a contiguous built up area surrounding Chicago even include the parts that spread out into Wisconsin and Indiana.

Which would be like including the New Jersey suburbs into an NYC area count.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Also would a contiguous built up area surrounding Chicago even include the parts that spread out into Wisconsin and Indiana.

Which would be like including the New Jersey suburbs into an NYC area count.

There's actually a much larger NY Metro population living in suburban NJ than in suburban NY. The NY State side is mostly protected lands once you get past postwar suburbs.

NY is the only metro (unless you want to count DC) where most suburbanites live in another state. Something like 70% of suburban NY residents live in another state (NJ, CT and a tiny portion of PA).

[IrishIllini]

Dallas was cheap. Austin is expensive. Houston is still relatively affordable, but it's not far from Chicago or Philly prices. Same with San Antonio.

Aren't both the biggest drivers of population growth in Dallas and Houston immigration and birth rates? Communities with the highest inflow of immigrants also typically have high outbound migration as well. Dallas and Houston probably haven't fully grown into the "big city problems" that other metros have. Dramatic increases in traffic and housing costs will slow anyone. Climate change adds additional complications, especially for flood-prone Houston and drought-prone, landlocked Dallas.

They could overcome the odds, or they could stall out like literally every other metro to experience a massive wave of growth has...especially ones in mature and aging first world countries like the United States.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Aren't both the biggest drivers of population growth in Dallas and Houston immigration and birth rates?

Is there any other way for population growth? lol

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is there any other way for population growth? lol

Domestic migration. TX has a very different growth trajectory than, say, FL.

TX is mostly growing because it's very young, meaning a huge cohort of child-bearing age (esp. because Hispanics). TX has, by far, the highest birthrates of any large state.

FL is growing because of domestic relocations. It's a very old state, and has low birthrates. Median ages in FL are more like PA or OH; median ages in TX are more like the Mormon-heavy states.