Chicago community area populations 1950 vs. 2010

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Its a problem because fewer residents means fewer taxpayers, which will make paying off the unfunded liabilities even more difficult.

^ I think this is an oversimplification.

Wealthier households will bring in more tax revenue than lower income households. Also, some of the lowest income households pay very little in taxes and may actually be consuming more resources.

Finally, one of the major causes of population loss (children) don't actually pay taxes at all.

Don't forget that it's not the population that pays taxes, as the city does not have an income tax or a per head tax.

The major sources of revenue come from:

Property tax: I'm not sure Chicago is actually generating less property tax than it was 30-40 years ago, it's probably more, even adjusted for inflation, but I'm not sure I have the answer--anyone else know?
Sales tax: Definitely dependent on tourism
Hotel tax: Same as above
Tickets and fees (water/sewer/trash): Probably would go down as the population declines
O'Hare: Pretty much no relation to Chicago's population

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^
The major sources of revenue come from:

Property tax: I'm not sure Chicago is actually generating less property tax than it was 30-40 years ago, it's probably more, even adjusted for inflation, but I'm not sure I have the answer--anyone else know?
Sales tax: Definitely dependent on tourism
Hotel tax: Same as above
Tickets and fees (water/sewer/trash): Probably would go down as the population declines
O'Hare: Pretty much no relation to Chicago's population

Property taxes before the new increase were slightly below inflation.
In 1986 the city's levy was $465 mil.
2015 budgeted levy was $831 mil. By the CPI it should have been $1,005 mil.
With the new $450 mil increase it will be $1,280 mil.
This is just the city portion, it does not include schools, parks etc.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Property taxes before the new increase were slightly below inflation.
In 1986 the city's levy was $465 mil.
2015 budgeted levy was $831 mil. By the CPI it should have been $1,005 mil.
With the new $450 mil increase it will be $1,280 mil.
This is just the city portion, it does not include schools, parks etc.

The levy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the total assessed value of property, which is the more relevant metric. I read somewhere that the net change in total assessed value of all property in Chicago decreased slightly over the past 50-60 years. Unfortunately, I can't find the reference. It was in an article contrasting Chicago with Detroit (which lost about 90% of its assessed value over a comparable time scale).

Most of the people who are leaving are not gang banging non-taxpapers. They tend to be working class or middle class residents. I suppose you could make the argument that many of these city residents, even when productively employed, pay less in taxes (property, sales, etc) than they cost CPS to educate their kids. Still, I'm not sure if this calculus remains the same when you account for downstream sociologic effects caused by neighborhood depopulation.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by rlw777

We aren't overbuilding. Downtown's population has been growing steadily for quite a while now.

I worry that at some point the horrible financial picture starts affecting this trend negatively too. How close are we to this tipping point? Clearly developers aren't concerned enough to stop building. Hopefully they are correct and not pollyanna-isn.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

I worry that at some point the horrible financial picture starts affecting this trend negatively too. How close are we to this tipping point? Clearly developers aren't concerned enough to stop building. Hopefully they are correct and not pollyanna-isn.

every market experiences corrections. it will happen eventually, and my gut would say given several years of unabated bull markets and rising housing prices we're probably due for one sooner rather than later regardless of the state's financial situation.

[chris11]

Honestly after this past 8 years of publicity, if Chicago and Chicagoland can post a positive increase in 2020 I think we will be fine for time to come. I think once Obama is out of office we'll be able to get out of the spotlight and the city should recover because other than the terrible publicity (much of which is skewed but some is very true), the city has made great strides in the 21st Century to be more so desirable than it was in the 90s.

Also, I think that this run to the sunbelt craze is baby boomers last attempt to happiness, and it should stabilize within the coming years. As younger people are looking for urbanity and thats something the South just does not offer.

[marothisu]

People are giving too much importance to the number. The estimate which is used is known to be not very accurate, or at least - less accurate than the ACS. Also, it's the entire COUNTY. The entire 5+ million person county. There is no other level of geography provided lower than that. You can't derive what Chicago's population gain or decline is from that one bit even if it's correct. It's impossible given the data. You could have Chicago gaining 10K people - but you could have 20 towns/cities in the south suburbs lose an average of 550 people and you'd show a net loss for the county. Point being - it's literally impossible to derive what is happening in Chicago with these numbers since county is the only thing provided and Cook County is so big.

[the urban politician]

^ True but there is little reason to doubt that the trend that led to the loss in the 2010 census didn't continue. You still have gangs, crime, and unemployment and families failing their schools (I use that appropriate term instead of saying "failing schools", a political buzzterm meant to garner votes which puts the blame as usual entirely on the schools and not on some of the families who aren't raising their children properly)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ True but there is little reason to doubt that the trend that led to the loss in the 2010 census didn't continue. You still have gangs, crime, and unemployment and families failing their schools (I use that appropriate term instead of saying "failing schools", a political buzzterm meant to garner votes which puts the blame as usual entirely on the schools and not on some of the families who aren't raising their children properly)

I disagree. The ACS is a much more comprehensive study than the numbers being quoted and much more granular. There is a reason why the study that has been quoted now by many people doesn't ever go below the county level. They don't collect data at a granular enough level to be more accurate than the ACS. The population estimates used in these articles (which is one of them) is very simple but also arcane. I know people who do this stuff for a living (in higher positions for demographics study and what not) who pay close to no attention to these and use ACS instead.

Furthermore, there's no doubt that there are areas of Chicago in decline. Anyone with an IQ of over 70 in Chicago would know that, but there's also areas that are the exact opposite. The continuous geographic area extending from Hyde Park east of the expressway and extending north into North Center - including areas like near west side, west town, and logan square had a population growth of somewhere between 3 and 4% if you compare the 2010 Census with the 2014 5 year ACS. The total population of that area is over 700K people and would make it larger than Detroit and the 18th largest US city. Using the same data, the greater downtown area in these 4 years was estimated to have somewhere between a 5% and 6% growth in population, which appears to be continuing as we all know since we all pay attention to development.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Furthermore, there's no doubt that there are areas of Chicago in decline. Anyone with an IQ of over 70 in Chicago would know that, but there's also areas that are the exact opposite. The continuous geographic area extending from Hyde Park east of the expressway and extending north into North Center - including areas like near west side, west town, and logan square had a population growth of somewhere between 3 and 4% if you compare the 2010 Census with the 2014 5 year ACS. The total population of that area is over 700K people and would make it larger than Detroit and the 18th largest US city. Using the same data, the greater downtown area in these 4 years was estimated to have somewhere between a 5% and 6% growth in population, which appears to be continuing as we all know since we all pay attention to development.

we're never going to have a healthy city if we dont seriously address the declines in the south and west sides. its like having a gaping abscess on your arm but covering it up with a shirt sleeve. the problem is still there.

one question is whether we're gaining more residents in wealthy areas than we're losing in poor areas. i think that remains to be seen. we certainly havent seen a turn around since 2010 in the communities that contributed to our overall population loss last time. if anything its gotten worse.

dont forget that we had a building boom in the early-mid 00's too. and yet everyone was still shocked by the results of the census.

we cant build our way out of this with glassy condos in a few select areas if we dont address structural poverty and violence (and not just by pushing those people from one neighborhood to the next).

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

we're never going to have a healthy city if we dont seriously address the declines in the south and west sides. its like having a gaping abscess on your arm but covering it up with a shirt sleeve. the problem is still there.

I don't think anybody with a sane mind disagrees with that at all.

one question is whether we're gaining more residents in wealthy areas than we're losing in poor areas. i think that remains to be seen. we certainly havent seen a turn around since 2010 in the communities that contributed to our overall population loss last time. if anything its gotten worse.

I have the data for the ACS - yes, the "wealthy" areas are seeing growth, at least according to the ACS. The greater downtown population shows a growth of +10K people between the 2014 ACS and 2010 census, for example. Lakeview's growth was +3600 people. North Center at +2948. Norwood Park at +4844. Lincoln Park at +1835.West Town at +2887. The areas of Chicago that were estimated to have grown, combined grew by 71,000 people. If you combined those areas, the population would be 1,858,231 people (making it 5th largest US city) and the growth rate is 3.98% which is a little over above both NYC and LA, as well as Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Honolulu, and about the same as Sacramento.

On the flip side though, there's 10 community areas only with a combined loss of over 24,000 people (South Lawndale, Englewood, New City, West Englewood, Auburn Gresham, South Chicago, etc). The "loss" areas combined is a little over 30K people. Combined today it's estimated those areas have a population of 877,000 with a population loss rate of 3.4% (still not as bad as the entire city of Detroit which has a few small growth sections). Pretty much mirror opposites.

There are also areas that have been estimated to have seen growth between 2010 and 2014 which most of us would not think so - Ashburn, Austin, Clearing, West Elsdon, West Garfield Park, McKinley Park, Riverdale, East Side, Chicago Lawn, Grand Boulevard, Oakland, Chatham, South Deering, Kenwood, etc

dont forget that we had a building boom in the early-mid 00's too. and yet everyone was still shocked by the results of the census.

We also had an economic recession/disaster which made people lose tons of jobs all over the country, and made the unemployment rate skyrocket in most areas. Many people moved elsewhere and many businesses closed up shop. There is no question that the population in many of the largest economic centers was higher in say 2007 than 2009 and 2010.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Guys, let's look at this comment again:

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

It's interesting how the demographics have almost switched from the last half of the 20's century regarding blacks and whites in the city (from the census/American community survey):

2010 to 2014 Population Change - City of Chicago:

Hispanic: +38,000
Asian: +15,000
White: +13,000
Mixed: +10,000
Black: -53,000

Given the situation on the south/west sides this year between violence and schools - I fear what will happen to the black population in the next few years. It's already down around 250,000 from 1990.

So that split tells us a lot. First off, let's get this clear, we are not losing population because of an "image problem". The people who are leaving are not leaving because Obama is from Chicago so the media hates us. No, they are leaving because their lives actually fucking suck here. They are poor or even middle class, but they are sick of the violence, sick of the neglect, sick of the status quo. Now maybe there are fewer people moving here because of that negative coverage, but the actual population loss is quite distinctly occurring because of real problems and it is occurring in a very specific group of people from, as we all know, unfortunately well defined areas of town.

I think these numbers also tell us a lot of other things, but the questions are sticky and certainly open to some very politically incorrect inferences. I would say, for example, that it's probably not all that likely that this population loss is affecting the tax base. Most of the areas that are losing population are doing it for one of two reasons: 1. No one wants to live there 2. Everyone wants to live there. Either people are vacating places like Lawndale, Englewood, or Austin and moving to the South because it sucks to live in those war zones or people are vacating places like Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, or Lakeview because other people who are willing to pay more are forcing them out by bidding up prices. In case 1, I don't think we are losing much tax revenue because property prices are already cratered in those areas anyhow so population loss isn't going to have much effect on assessments. In case 2, you probably have a major net positive effect as people move into areas and build new buildings and renovate old ones.

Regardless of what answers you are seeking from the data, I think it's quite clear that population loss alone doesn't tell you anything. You have to look closely at who is moving where for what reasons. If you don't do that then all you get is fatalistic fretting about a number without even attempting to understand that number.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Regardless of what answers you are seeking from the data, I think it's quite clear that population loss alone doesn't tell you anything. You have to look closely at who is moving where for what reasons. If you don't do that then all you get is fatalistic fretting about a number without even attempting to understand that number.

Million percent agree. It tells you a lot - and there is more than enough data from the ACS to explore who is leaving and from where. You can also look at the income levels. If you lost 40 people who had a yearly income of $20K on average, and replaced it with 30 people with an average yearly income of $40K - the potential tax revenue from losing 10 net people is actually greater.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ They are both important - the headline trend, as well as the underlying segmentation. You need to look at, and understand both. Otherwise, you can get immersed in the detail, and causal factors for certain segment trends, etc, and completely lose sight of the forest. It can make one say ridiculous things such as "that population loss alone doesn't tell you anything" Of course it does: It tells you that the city of Chicago (at least using the last decennial census, 2010,) experienced a decline in population. It's still one city, at least officially (despite being among the most radically segregated in the US, and although I don't know if for a fact, I'd venture to guess among mature, western economies at large....just maybe?).....not something that highly successful cities make a habit of, to say the least.......

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^^ They are both important - the headline trend, as well as the underlying segmentation. You need to look at, and understand both.

The headline trend data set and the ACS are two completely different sources, and again - ask anyone who knows anything about BOTH of the sets and they will tell you that the ACS is much better at predicting things. Furthermore, the population of the MSA and Cook County is up since 2010 still. Trends are trends - not every single point when the long term is up, is also up. And again, you can NOT derive anything about the city of Chicago from the latest headlines. it's literally impossible. The media is playing to Chicago bashers and getting clicks/comments. The data is about Cook County, and is not available at any lower level than that, yet the headlines are all about Chicago. Do you think that's a mistake? if it is, then the journalists are some of the dumbest people out there who think that Cook County and Chicago are the same things.

[ardecila]

How does Norwood Park gain population? It's not seeing any housing growth and it's not "moving down" economically where you'd see larger families moving into houses (sometimes illegally). Just birth rates?

I guess in theory a young couple with kids replacing an empty nester is population growth...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ardecila

How does Norwood Park gain population? It's not seeing any housing growth and it's not "moving down" economically where you'd see larger families moving into houses (sometimes illegally). Just birth rates?

I guess in theory a young couple with kids replacing an empty nester is population growth...

Spot on, Norwood Park seems to be attracting a lot of young couples looking to have a family. I know several people who moved over there because they have jobs in the suburbs, but still want a semi urban neighborhood. Sure enough two of the three couples I know are pregnant (with the third couple about to get engaged). All the "millenials" that Salon is predicting will "flee to the suburbs" are actually fleeing to lower density urban neighborhoods like Norwood Park, Portage Park, Irving Park, Andersonville, etc where you can get a bunglow with a 30' lot or a single family home with rooms to spare for a more reasonable price. I think people tend to lose site of the fact that not only were generations upon generations of children raised in the city with little to no ill effect, but large parts of what we now consider "the city" were once considered roomy, lavish, suburbs. Perception is all relative and, if you just spent the last 10 years sharing a three bedroom in Wicker Park with roommates, then a bungalow in Norwood Park for jsut you and your spouse seems like an immense amount of space on the very edge of the urban amenities you are accustomed to.

I know for my girlfriend and I that the two of us probably couldn't last a month in any area beyond the Kennedy split. We've become too spoiled with the convenience of living in a Logan Square style urban area. Perhaps I could see her demanding a move to a more family friendly place like Roscoe Village or Lincoln Square once we have kids some day, but I just can't imagine spending large parts of my day commuting via automobile. Most people think that kids require suburbs, but I can't think of anything more anti-family than spending large amounts of time trying to shuffle the family around via car when you can live somewhere walkable. I would much rather live walking distance to school, daycare, groceries, etc. If I'm really in a hurry, Chicago is still drivable enough that I could use the car if I wanted, I'd just be driving like 3/4 mile instead of 20.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^^ They are both important - the headline trend, as well as the underlying segmentation. You need to look at, and understand both. Otherwise, you can get immersed in the detail, and causal factors for certain segment trends, etc, and completely lose sight of the forest. It can make one say ridiculous things such as "that population loss alone doesn't tell you anything" Of course it does: It tells you that the city of Chicago (at least using the last decennial census, 2010,) experienced a decline in population. It's still one city, at least officially (despite being among the most radically segregated in the US, and although I don't know if for a fact, I'd venture to guess among mature, western economies at large....just maybe?).....not something that highly successful cities make a habit of, to say the least.......

No one is suggesting that we dwell on the details, I am suggesting that we look at the actual trends with at least some level of resolution. Overall population loss means nothing on it's face, at least not in the context of questions like "will tax revenue fall" or "why are people leaving". You need to know the details of who is leaving if you are going to ask detailed questions regarding the implications and causes of the current population trends. I forge the name of the specific fallacy, but that's a classic logic failure. Trying to use simplistic facts to answer detailed questions.

That's like asking "Is Chicago's population falling?" and answering with "no, the population of the United States is increasing". There is no way you can logically answer that question with a more general data set. Same goes for fretful questions about Chicago's population. You can't ask a detail reliant question with "Yes, Chicago's population is falling". You can't answer a question that involves tax revenue unless you have data that actually involves or strongly correlates with tax revenue.

[marothisu]

Let me specify something else about what I said above. The above was comparing 2010 census to the 2014 ACS. HOWEVER - here's the important note. The ACS doesn't actually update their estimates based on what they found from the decennial census for some reason. Some tracts were estimated extremely well - others though? Pretty bad. The worst in Cook County was the tract in the eastern section of the Loop between something like Madison, Harrison, Michigan, and State. They under-estimated it by 2000 people. Then in 2014, they estimated that it would have grown about 2000 people, but if you compare it to the 2010 census instead of 2010 ACS, it looks like it only grew by 5 people - which is probably big big bullshit.. So basically - if they really think the tract grew by 2000 people - is their 2014 estimate actually low by around 2000 people? This was by far the worst tract, but there were other tracts in the downtown area which were mis-estimated (usually underestimated) by around 20-25%.

Anyway - If you just look at the change from ACS and not 2010 decennial census, then Norwood Park was estimated to have lost 948 people. For that, here are the highest and lowest gainers (again, just comparing 2010 to 2014 ACS):

Largest gainers:
1) Loop: +10,649 people
2) Near West Side: +9111
3) Near North Side: +8086
4) Near South Side: +4143
5) Chicago Lawn: +2170
6) Morgan Park: +1987
7) Woodlawn: +1864
8) West Town: +1738
9) Irving Park: +1637
10) O'Hare: +1570


Biggest losers:
1) Englewood: -5735 people
2) Auburn Gresham: -5390
3) West Pullman: -4485
4) West Englewood: -4436
5) South Chicago: -3886
6) Chatham: -3530
7) Roseland: -3379
8) Uptown: -2278
9) Greater Grand Crossing: -1990
10) New City: -1984

If you added all of these together, the net would be something like +4000 to +5000 people.

[Via Chicago]

how about replacing all the lead pipes in the city as a start