HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 1:13 AM
Justin_Chicago Justin_Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
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.
I bet you Uptown and West Pullman will be net positive for the full decade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 2:36 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
how about replacing all the lead pipes in the city as a start
Good idea, but that would cost what, $10 billion?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 3:50 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
how about replacing all the lead pipes in the city as a start
If the water is properly treated then the lead pipes are not a big issue and we can spend that $ on more value-added projects. Where Flint went wrong is they didn't treat the water properly. Not that the lead pipes don't need to be replaced... eventually... but it's not an immediate health hazard if handled competently. Plus I would imagine the city is slowly replacing lead pipes as they age and become deficient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 4:00 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
^^^ I'm sure the city would love to force everyone to get rid of the lead pipes. Half of the buildings in this city have an old lead waterline tapping into the city mains. I am in the middle of a construction project on the SW side and permitting alone for my new copper main is close to $10,000. Luckily I have a sidewalk vault that puts me extremely close to the main so I only need to do a little digging. Hopefully the city won't force me to fill my vault because it contains my sump, my catch basin, my gas line, and my water meter/line. Not going to be cheap if they make me relocate all that stuff 6 feet over so it's inside my building.

The fact is lead is not actually dangerous if you are not using an acidic water supply. The city is also basically forcing everyone who renovates a new building to put in a new water line whether they need it or not. The city is also already in the midst of totally replacing all infrastructure under our streets (hence why they are systematically ripping up every street in the city, block by block). It won't be long before the city's part of the infrastructure is lead free and it is just up to the building owners to get a new line or eventually be forced to when they want permits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 6:04 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ I've had to do that twice, and now for a third time. Replacing the water service into your property is now standard as a part of any plan review submitted to the city.

$10k automatically added to your construction budget. They usually make you install a booster bump, but I've got a neat trick if you want to bypass that. Feel free to contact me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 6:23 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post

The fact is lead is not actually dangerous if you are not using an acidic water supply. The city is also basically forcing everyone who renovates a new building to put in a new water line whether they need it or not. The city is also already in the midst of totally replacing all infrastructure under our streets (hence why they are systematically ripping up every street in the city, block by block). It won't be long before the city's part of the infrastructure is lead free and it is just up to the building owners to get a new line or eventually be forced to when they want permits.
but the problem actually arises when the city digs up the pipes in the street and the protective coating gets disrupted on the feeder pipes. theres no way to know this has happened to your water supply. and as the Tribune investigation has revealed, the actual testing of the water supply for lead is laughable as it only targets a few homes.

as usual, this will adversely affect the poor who cant afford to drop big money on ripping out pipes, or dont even know they have a problem in the first place. there is no safe level of lead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2016, 12:36 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Who cares really? The population of Paris, for example has been pretty stagnant for over 15 years (if not longer). But it's still busy and vibrant and constructing new buildings like crazy to meet residential and commercial demand, so it's immaterial that the population hasn't grown/remained flat/had a net loss of a few thousand.
Paris has grown substantially over the last 15 years, by about 150,000 residents. So not at all similar to Chicago.

And Paris is a pretty terrible comparison to Chicago, because A. The City of Paris is a tiny geography that only encompasses the city center and B. It's impossible to build anything in most parts of the city proper. It would be like if the City of Chicago were only downtown and environs, and then you banned new construction.

And Paris proper is fiendishly expensive. I don't think too many people would argue that the South and West Sides of Chicago are emptying out because they're fiendishly expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2016, 4:06 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
...
And Paris is a pretty terrible comparison to Chicago, because A. The City of Paris is a tiny geography that only encompasses the city center and B. It's impossible to build anything in most parts of the city proper. It would be like if the City of Chicago were only downtown and environs, and then you banned new construction.
...
I agree that Paris is a poor comparison. I've compared Chicago and Paris in a few, specific ways, but they're not similar at all in general.

Paris proper is only 40 square miles, more comparable to San Francisco, except nearly three times as many people as San Francisco. Really, in the US only Manhattan can compare to Paris and even then it's not a very good comparison due to the radically different built environment.

Because of the density differences, even comparing subsets of Chicago to Paris is problematic. I mean if you cut out a part of Chicago that was between the Lakefront, Irving Park Rd at Kedzie, and 47th Street at Ashland, you'd have approximately the land area of Paris, but less than 1/3 of Paris' population. Even if you changed that to be from Congress to Howard and 4 miles west of the lakefront in order to pull in more dense neighborhoods, you'd still be only a little over 1/3 of Paris population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.