U.S. Population: Nearly 309 Million, Census Says

[the urban politician]

^ I think Chicago also suffered from unusually high underreporting for the census.

I really hope Chicago takes this data and asks some tougher questions. The city cannot continue to shrink like this and remain healthy.

[MayorOfChicago]

Over 200,000! I certainly wasn't expecting it to be THAT much. That's a new all time low for the city by a long shot.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

Over 200,000! I certainly wasn't expecting it to be THAT much. That's a new all time low for the city by a long shot.

There must be some underreporting.

How could there be such a large discrepancy between the annual community area counts and the official census count?

I also look forward to seeing the neighborhood counts.

[the urban politician]

^ This is a situation where I think Chicago would benefit from paying for a census recount. I too agree that underreporting must have contributed a fair deal to such a discrepancy.

Having said that, it's still time to ask the tough questions, Chicago

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

2.695 million.

Largely due to black flight.

Ouch. Chicago took a big hit...

That is less than the 1990 census figure of 2.783 million.

Ah Shit, this is very dissapointing, there was alot of writing on the wall recently that the 2010 census would not be what we expected a few years ago even that there would be a small decrease given the census estimates and other data but not this bad.

It seems the 2010 census is the exact opposite of what the 2000 Census was. In the 1990's census estimates it was said that Chicago was still losing population when in reality it gained 112K people. In the 2000's census estimates again said Chicago was losing people but this time the official figures were worse than the estimates. This means that Richard M. Daley leaves as mayor of a slightly smaller city than what he started with in 1989. Its sad because so many viewed the 2000 census results as a sign that Chicago was on an upward trajectory and not just a one time thing. I am still optomisitic for the future and now that the public housing demolition has probably already taken away most of the people that will leave the city it can start to increase again.

I guess a city can have a sense of renewed vibrancy even with a population loss because whenever you are in any Chicago neighbohrood that is not a ghetto I get a sense that the neighborhoods are in better shape then they were 10 or 20 years ago.

I am also very curious how this works on a community area by community area basis. Will the gentrified areas still show population increases even if they are less? Is there still significant population increases in gentrified areas meaning that there was MASSIVE population losses in the ghettos?

[SD_Phil]

I'm really surprised at the Chicago numbers. I assume they'll appeal the census count with their own data but that is a serious hit.

[Tex17]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Wow, guess I hit a nerve saying Austin is liberal.

Lets look at the past elections.

2008: Every major Texas city voted for Obama (Austin, Dallas, Houston, EP, and SA)
2004: Kerry got Austin and El Paso, Bush got Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio
2000: Every city voted Bush
1992 and 1996: Clinton got Austin, El Paso, and San Antonio while Houston and Dallas voted for Dole
1988: Dukakis got Austin and EP, rest voted Bush Sr.
1984: Reagan carried the state.
1980: Only Austin voted for Carter while Dallas, Houston, EP and SA voted Regan.
1976: Entire state voted for Carter
1972: Entire state voted for Nixon
1968: Humphrey got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted Nixon.
1964: LBJ so obviously all Texans voted for him.
1960: Kennedy got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted for Nixon.

It goes on and on like that. Some might even call it a trend.... Lets take the final number. Times a city voted D and time they voted R.

Austin: D-10 R-3
Dallas: D-4 R-9
El Paso: D-9 R-4
Houston: D-4 R-9
San Antonio: D-6 R-7

And with what you call "show off liberalism" what do you expect from a city with over 100k students and the 3 main factors that make up that city are education, politics and music. Just because we are more vocal doesn't make us less liberal. Look at the election results they speak for themselves.

I suggested to another poster asking how the cities might have changed with the influx of people and in that post I said I believe Austin hasn't while Houston, and Dallas have become more liberal. I also said that was my guess about the other cities and invited you guys from those cities to state if that was right or not. However rather than state what change your cities might have experienced you go and say my assessment of my own city is inaccurate? Really?

Why'd you leave out Fort Worth?

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ This is a situation where I think Chicago would benefit from paying for a census recount. I too agree that underreporting must have contributed a fair deal to such a discrepancy.

Having said that, it's still time to ask the tough questions, Chicago

Yes it is worth an appeal, especially as we get more information. How do they deal with underreporting anyways? Is there anyway to scientficially calculate the people who never filled out a form? I know I did my part in the Garfield Ridge/Clearing neighborhoods as a census enumerator, can't wait until that infor comes out but just going door to door you have no idea how your information compares to the 2000 census numbers. I guess neighborhood by neighborhood is the only bragging points left, if the middle class white (I say white because its clear that blacks of every income are leaving the city as a fact and not because I think it is good) areas are at least stable it will show that there isn't some fundamental problem with the middle class in the city that transcends racial lines.

[Steely Dan]

disappointing chicago figure, but the fact is that central area of the city is healthier and more vibrant than it has been in generations. if the ghettos and former projects continue to bleed people to the burbs and to atlanta, it's not the end of the world. sure, it looks bad on paper, but the core is what matters to me because i spend very, VERY little time in chicago's ghetto shit-holes as it is.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Haha, good point steely!

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

disappointing chicago figure, but the fact is that central area of the city is healthier and more vibrant than it has been in generations. if the ghettos and former projects continue to bleed people to the burbs and to the south, it's not the end of the world. sure, it looks bad on paper, but the core is what matters to me because i spend very, VERY little time in chicago's ghetto shit-holes as it is.

That's the only solace we have left Dan, we need to keep our fingers crossed that the central parts of the city/gentrified areas and middle class areas are growing or at the very least stable.

Does anyone know how long it will be before we have community area data? Does that pretty much come at the same time?

[fflint]

Keep in mind the role household size can play in a city's fluctuating population. Even where vacancy rates are relatively stable or indeed where there has been significant new infill, if families with children move out of an area and are replaced by childless couples or singles, then the official population can still drop. I'm not saying that is what happened for sure in Chicago, but it could help explain why there's been a steep drop in overall population despite the revival of many Northern and core districts. The number and size of households in Chicago may help us understand the new numbers. I'd wager the number of households hasn't dropped 6.9%, but I could be wrong.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

disappointing chicago figure, but the fact is that central area of the city is healthier and more vibrant than it has been in generations. if the ghettos and former projects continue to bleed people to the burbs and to atlanta, it's not the end of the world. sure, it looks bad on paper, but the core is what matters to me because i spend very, VERY little time in chicago's ghetto shit-holes as it is.

^ This is a very strange statement coming from a guy who, in the Chicago Mayoral Thread (when somebody asked why we should care about extending the Red Line to 130th street when none of us would benefit from it) replied that he cares about the well-being of the entire city, not just the part of the city where he lives and spends most of his time.

This is not good news. Chicago needs to fix this.

[lawfin]

Here is a link to CMAP analysis of census participation rated for city:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documen...6-7a733e0963c6

[Steely Dan]

^^ urb. don't get me wrong, i would like for the whole city to be healthy and vibrant and thriving, but i'm also a realist. chicago has a crapload of ghetto shit-holes and i can TOTALLY understand why people would flee them if given the choice. i know i would if i were in a similar situation. thankfully, i have the means to live in one of the awesome parts of chicago that just keeps getting better and better.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ This is a very strange statement coming from a guy who, in the Chicago Mayoral Thread (when somebody asked why we should care about extending the Red Line to 130th street when none of us would benefit from it) replied that he cares about the well-being of the entire city, not just the part of the city where he lives and spends most of his time.

This is not good news. Chicago needs to fix this.

I don't want to speak for him but I don't think that is what he meant. I know I am in shock myself and I think believing that most of this decline if from the ghetto (as preliminary info strongly points to) is better than believing that there is some city wide issue at play here. I guess we have to wait and see how the gentfrified areas did.

[ChiMIchael]

I honestly thin the city should appeal it too but this is just another slap in the face for the city.

[bnk]

Listening to WGN on the radio it said that for the Chicago city limits the white and asian populations grew and the Hispanic population stayed about the same. So Blacks alone account for the -200 K figure. The finishing of the demolishing of the housing projects are just about over. The region and areas I traverse still appear dense and vibrant. And just based upon the growth in the state of Illinois it is clear Chicagoland is still growing in population. Now we just need to repopulate the dead zones in the west and south side.

http://www.wbez.org/blog/lee-bey/201...-chicagos-prio

Chica-grow: Should creating a significantly more populous city be Chicago's priority?

by Lee Bey | Feb. 15, 2011


When I was high up in Trump Tower a few weeks ago for that event I told you about, I couldn't get the words of a prominent Chicago urban planner out of my mind.

Let's not forget about the overall gains Chicagoland made.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3579208.story



The city’s population when census workers counted the state’s residents last April was 2,695,598, a drop of almost 7 percent from the population of 2,896,016 recorded in the 2000 census. Cook Country dropped in population from 5,376,741 in 2000 to 5,194,675, reflecting the city’s loss.

In general the suburban collar counties continued to grow, some spectacularly. The biggest gainers were Will County, growing by 34.9 percent in the last 10 years to 677,560 residents, Kane County, growing 27.5 percent to 515,269 and McHenry Country, growing 18.7 percent to 308,760.
The older suburban collar counties also grew, but at a much slower pace. Lake County grew by 9.2 percent to 703,462 residents in 2010, DuPage County by 1.4 percent to 916,924.
Several suburban cities also experienced phenomenal growth, including Joliet, growing by 38.8 percent to 147,433 residents in 2010, Aurora by 38.4 percent to 197,899, Bolingbrook, by 30.3 percent to 73,366, Elgin, by 14.5 percent to 108,188, and Naperville by 10.5 percent to 141,853.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

disappointing chicago figure, but the fact is that central area of the city is healthier and more vibrant than it has been in generations. if the ghettos and former projects continue to bleed people to the burbs and to atlanta, it's not the end of the world. sure, it looks bad on paper, but the core is what matters to me because i spend very, VERY little time in chicago's ghetto shit-holes as it is.

Do you have any clue what an a** you sound like? And guess what, the people in those "shit holes" (I would guess by your definition, over 2/3 of the city) pay taxes too, which keep your precious planter boxes watered and wrought iron painted. What happens when they're gone?

All the glassy luxury skyscrapers in the world will not address the challenges currently facing us.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

What happens when they're gone?

less crime and social dysfunction. just a hunch.