Detroit/MI Tries to Lure Back Young People From Chicago/IL to Detroit/MI

[wolverine]

Chicago is an appealing destination if you're young, single, and live in the Rust Belt.

Outside the Rust Belt, Chicago is considered a bigger version of Detroit. A few yuppie neighborhoods won't cover up the fact that the city is in deep decline.

Second worst population loss in the nation after Detroit, second worst recession job loss in the nation after Detroit, anemic income growth, highest murder totals in the U.S., highest foreclosure rate in the U.S.

So I'm not surprised that people on DYes always bring up Chicago, because, in most ways, it does look much more appealing than Detroit. But, compared to basically anywhere outside the Midwest, it's very unappealing.

If you want to see the real Chicago, check out the South and West Sides. They almost give Detroit a run for its money when it comes to hard-core urban blight. Downtown and the yuppie neighborhoods [[Lincoln Park/Lakeview) are nice though.

You've obviously never been to Chicago

[Hermod]

I doubt they make much of a difference. Are you saying that 20-somethings in the Midwest often live in Chicago because they went to school there?

The only truly elite university in Chicago is the University of Chicago, and it's pretty small [[undergrad). The other institutions aren't really nationally or globally renowned. There's Northwestern in the suburbs, which is excellent, and that's it in terms of global renown.

In contrast, the University of Michigan has more than twice the undergrad enrollment of those two institutions combined, yet it doesn't seem to create some giant critical mass of local 20-somethings.

I think other factors are at play. If you look at the most desirable cities for elite school grads [[NYC by a longshot, SF-Silicon Valley, maybe DC, maybe LA), I think you find that most of those grads didn't attend immediately local schools.

If you look at the next tier [[the big cities that draw bigtime from local geography), say Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, I think you would also see more regional focus for incoming 20-somethings [[so Chicago would get lots of Big 10, Atlanta would get lots of SEC, etc.)

Bham: You don't compare U of Chicago and Northwestern to U of M. You compare them to WSU and UDM [[where Detroit compares very unfavorably). You compare U of M in Ann Arbor with U of Illinois in Champaign-Urbanna. they are large universities which dominate the city they are in [[which at one time was a sleepy college town). In most states, THE university is not in the capitol city or in the largest city. It is somewhere else.

[Eber Brock Ward]

IMO UofC/NU more comparable to UM-Dearborn or UDM in terms of distance/impact.

UofC is on an island in Hyde Park, and a total pain in the ass to get to, even with Metro or the express busses. Green or Red line, fugghetaboutit mostly.

IMO the closest comparable to WSU is DePaul. It's in a "cool" area dominated by young people and professionals [[Lincoln Park), much like Midtown here is developing into.

[President Sekou]

You've obviously never been to Chicago

I don't know that sounds like a pretty accurate description of Chicago to me.

[wolverine]

It's the same lack of knowledge and ignorance Chicagoans have of Detroit Like anyone from Chicago that would visit Detroit, Downtown and maybe midtown is all they'll visit. Likewise folks from Michigan rarely go beyond the loop, go to Navy Pier, eat deep dish pizza, maybe make it up to Wrigleyville, and maybe...just maybe venture to Wicker Park.

There are 77 well defined neighborhoods in Chicago. Of those, 20 have seen trending growth and half of that have seen absolute growth since the 2011 census. Those areas are characterized by an influx of young professionals and over the past decade or decades...gentrified areas. It's hardly a few like Bham states...only because he's been to a few. Of that 20, I'm not counting areas that have resulted in growth as a result of immigration or even historically blue collar areas.

However, at least the other half of the 77 are either getting by with some problems or in decline with alot of violent crime. At least a half dozen neighborhoods are in a severe state of decline that posses blighted characteristics of some Detroit's worse neighborhoods. One of them is conveniently accessible if you want to validate your expectations. Englewood right off the Dan Ryan. But overall, the city is far more structurally intact with more corrective resources at its disposal.....so it's really not a bigger version of Detroit.

Violent crime and young professionals moving to this city have very little to do with each other. The north and central parts of Chicago have a contiguous population of 1.1 million people and total yearly homicides in the teens. To the people that are moving here and commute to downtown offices, violent crime in Chicago is something you can only connect with in the Tribune or Suntimes. 5 miles south may as well be a far off place.

[LeannaM]

Chicago was nice to visit. I wouldn't want to live there, too big for my tastes.

Chicago can offer a lot that smaller cities in the Midwest [[like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis) can't, so the smaller cities need to focus on their attributes, like their own attractions, cost of living, other positives. Having some public transit, even if it's not extensive, probably helps. One thing smaller cities have that Chicago and New York don't is that in those smaller cities you can probably actually afford to buy a house in a nice neighborhood. I think a lot of people spend their college years in Chicago and then move some place they can actually afford. Maybe rather than try to compete with Chicago Detroit needs to focus on what it has going for it and market that. Don't forget about attracting couples, families, and empty nesters as well. They also generate revenue.

Smaller cities can't compete with Chicago, so they need to attract people in their own ways.

St. Louis used some clever ads to get Chicagoans to visit St. Louis. They hired a Chicago actor who had never been to St. Louis and took him to different St. Louis attractions and recorded his genuine reactions. People who read the ads had to figure out where he had been kidnapped to. They did it first in 2010 and again this year.
https://lonelybrand.com/blog/kidnapp...of-the-minute/

You have to be clever when marketing a smaller city. Chicago doesn't really have to market itself, but most cities do.

[wolverine]

Chicago was nice to visit. I wouldn't want to live there, too big for my tastes.

Chicago can offer a lot that smaller cities in the Midwest [[like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis) can't, so the smaller cities need to focus on their attributes, like their own attractions, cost of living, other positives. Having some public transit, even if it's not extensive, probably helps. One thing smaller cities have that Chicago and New York don't is that in those smaller cities you can probably actually afford to buy a house in a nice neighborhood. I think a lot of people spend their college years in Chicago and then move some place they can actually afford. Maybe rather than try to compete with Chicago Detroit needs to focus on what it has going for it and market that. Don't forget about attracting couples, families, and empty nesters as well. They also generate revenue.

Smaller cities can't compete with Chicago, so they need to attract people in their own ways.

St. Louis used some clever ads to get Chicagoans to visit St. Louis. They hired a Chicago actor who had never been to St. Louis and took him to different St. Louis attractions and recorded his genuine reactions. People who read the ads had to figure out where he had been kidnapped to. They did it first in 2010 and again this year.
https://lonelybrand.com/blog/kidnapp...of-the-minute/

You have to be clever when marketing a smaller city. Chicago doesn't really have to market itself, but most cities do.

You make a very good point. I think places like Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and St. Louis are very underrated. While Cincy and Milwaukee may not have transit, their most dense neighborhoods are close and compact to the city core. They have unbroken fabric of historic homes, safe neighborhoods, reasonably functioning city governments and a constant stream of new development.

[President Sekou]

Chicago as a whole is a city in decline. It doesn't compare oranges to oranges to Detroit but it is at least oranges to tangerines.

I could go on and on about how the city [[which I consider my second home btw hell I still have an apartment in the area) is in fact like a lot like Bham stated, largely loved by immigrants and mid westerners and seriously declining over 2/3 of it, but that is beside the point.

What is encouraging to me about Chicago is nothing it does is impossible for Detroit to do and eventually do better.

Chicago to most people who don't know it is jobs, nightlife, and urbanity. All of this in the mind of many a prospective transplant exist in the area of the city north of the Stevenson and east of the river. And it is these three qualities [[and yes I know I am generalizing a bit, there are other qualities) that draw the young college grad from the mid west to the city in the first place, it drew me. The troubles, in fact many troubles, of the majority of the city might as well happen in Iraq for most of these transplants because it is so far removed from their idea of what Chicago is to them it hardly exist.

Detroit just like Chicago can create, and in fact is in the process of creating, a similar type of "green zone" idealized Detroit in which they sell as a city of the young and hip where jobs, transit, and nightlife exist and can at least stop the bleeding as it related to this brain drain.

So I am encouraged, truly encouraged. And while I will spend the prime of my life enjoying what other more established cities have to offer I am positive the next generation may find that Detroit is a viable option for them to live, play, love, and eventually settle down. That is if what positive momentum we all see building here continues to move forward.

[Gistok]

Chicago and Toronto are very expensive cities to live in. Yes they have more nightlife... but if you're settled down... then that's no longer as important... another reason why some people may decide to move to other cities.

I sometimes watch a show from Toronto about 2 brothers who have a TV show on home renovation... and it amazes me at the high cost of houses there... $400K is a fixer upper there.... and a palatial Indian Village mansion here...

[Honky Tonk]

Chicago and Toronto are very expensive cities to live in. Yes they have more nightlife... but if you're settled down... then that's no longer as important... another reason why some people may decide to move to other cities.

I sometimes watch a show from Toronto about 2 brothers who have a TV show on home renovation... and it amazes me at the high cost of houses there... $400K is a fixer upper there.... and a palatial Indian Village mansion here...

Though I agree with your cost comparison analisys, the difference is once your done in Toronto, you will have a nice house in a nice neighborhood, and a good life. Once you're done in IV, you will have a nice house, in an Ok neighborhood, and you will spend your life defending what you've accumulated. Please spare me the racist jargon and pie charts and crime statistics. I know people who live there and what goes on daily. It's Detroit, there's a reason it's cheaper.

[Hermod]

It's a very concrete chicken-or-egg dilemma we're facing here, and you're also addressing a crowd of young people that are segmented into several camps. Using my Michigan MBA graduating class as a benchmark from a few years back, I'd say the split looks like this:

"If you build it, or if it's already built, I will come." -- 90% of young people with mobility
"I will build it, and others will come." -- ~8% of young people with mobility
"I don't care either way; I'm going where the money is." -- ​2%

I am quite a few years older than you, but my graduating engineering class looked for the jobs they wanted without a whole lot of thought as to where the jobs might be located.

[wolverine]

But what do your taxes get you in Indian Village? A pothole fixed same day when you call it in? 2 minute police response? Free graffit removal? Transit that will become more valuable as you get older? Peace of mind my home is less likely to get broken into?

[michimoby]

I am quite a few years older than you, but my graduating engineering class looked for the jobs they wanted without a whole lot of thought as to where the jobs might be located.

For engineers, this is a different situation. Most of them aren't commanding six-figure salaries like recent MBA graduates are. Furthermore, most engineering firms don't have their offices in major urban centers [[Boeing's are outside Seattle; Caterpillar's in semi-rural Illinois; Rolls-Royce is in Indianapolis, etc.) unlike the finance, marketing and consulting positions MBAs are undertaking.

[Hermod]

For engineers, this is a different situation. Most of them aren't commanding six-figure salaries like recent MBA graduates are. Furthermore, most engineering firms don't have their offices in major urban centers [[Boeing's are outside Seattle; Caterpillar's in semi-rural Illinois; Rolls-Royce is in Indianapolis, etc.) unlike the finance, marketing and consulting positions MBAs are undertaking.

And no MBA's work at Boeing or Caterpillar?

We would probably all be better off economically if we didn't allow MBAs to work in banking, brokerage, or venture capital firms in the big cities.

[Bham1982]

There are 77 well defined neighborhoods in Chicago. Of those, 20 have seen trending growth and half of that have seen absolute growth since the 2011 census.

What is "trending growth"? Decreasing decline? LOL

The fact is, by your own admission, the vast majority of Chicago neighborhoods suffer from population and economic decline. The city lost hundreds of thousands of residents since the last Census, second only to Detroit.

Chicago has huge black losses, huge white losses, and the Hispanic population is stable/stagnant. The only areas that show population growth are the Loop and the yuppie areas [[Lincoln Park/Lakeview/Wicker Park, etc).

There is basically no growth in the outer neighborhoods. Even the immigrant neighborhoods show no growth.

So, again, compared to Detroit , I will agree that Chicago is a success, and desirable. This is especially true for 20-somethings, because of all the wonderful amenities to serve that demographic.

But compared to anywhere else in the country, Chicago is considered a city in decline, and the numbers support this contention. Ask someone in California or Florida or Massachusetts if they think Chicago is a desirable location.

[michimoby]

And no MBA's work at Boeing or Caterpillar?

We would probably all be better off economically if we didn't allow MBAs to work in banking, brokerage, or venture capital firms in the big cities.

1. Some recent MBA graduates from top schools [[Harvard, Wharton, Michigan) work at Boeing and Caterpillar. The majority do not. In my graduating class, about 60 of us went into strategy consulting; two went to Boeing.

2. ...and THAT'S not insulting at all. Geez. Where do you suppose we MBAs should go, sir?

[poobert]

Chicago lost 6.9% of its population from 2000 - 2010 and gained 4% from 1990 - 2000.

Meanwhile, Detroit lost more than 25% of its population and has never seen population growth since 1952. Despite the country growing from 2000 - 2010 by 9.7%, Michigan was the only state in the union to lose population, by 0.6%.

Yeah, I know Chicago is in the Rust Belt. I've seen a map. It has experienced decline. To point to it in comparison to the black hole that is Metro Detroit is delusional. Okay, so somebody from Dubai won't be impressed by it. Big fucking deal, I sure am. Of course Metro Detroit's answer to its never-ending population loss and deep dysfunctionality is to obfuscate.

[iheartthed]

But compared to anywhere else in the country, Chicago is considered a city in decline, and the numbers support this contention. Ask someone in California or Florida or Massachusetts if they think Chicago is a desirable location.

I know plenty of people from the coasts who would consider living in Chicago but scoff at the idea of living in Detroit.

Chicago certainly has its flaws, but I don't think it's perceived as being anything close to a failed city like Detroit... fair or not.

[Bham1982]

Chicago lost 6.9% of its population from 2000 - 2010 and gained 4% from 1990 - 2000. .

Chicago likely didn't gain population in the 1990's. Per the Census, they have most likely had consistent population loss since around 1950. They've lost more than a million residents, which, while great compared to Detroit, is borderline catastrophic compared to most global cities.

Census results for the period 1990-2000 generally aren't used by demographers. During the Clinton administration, there was a change in the decennial Census counting methodology, where sampling was allowed.

So basically every city had inflated numbers in 2000. NYC gained a million residents per Census, when the actual year-over-year estimates were closer to a few hundred thousand gain. Chicago showed a slight gain per Census, when the year-over-year showed a few hundred thousand loss. Detroit also showed a massive decrease in population loss, which likely didn't happen.

Basically, cities with immigrants, nonwhites, high poverty and other "hard to reach" population cohorts were given "bonuses" in 2000, and those "bonuses" weren't present in any of the preceding counts.

[QUOTE=poobert;354883
Yeah, I know Chicago is in the Rust Belt. I've seen a map. It has experienced decline. To point to it in comparison to the black hole that is Metro Detroit is delusional. Okay, so somebody from Dubai won't be impressed by it. Big fucking deal, I sure am. Of course Metro Detroit's answer to its never-ending population loss and deep dysfunctionality is to obfuscate.[/QUOTE]

Again, NO ONE said that Chicago is in similar shape to Detroit. But the facts show that Chicago is in pretty bad shape compared to anywhere that isn't Detroit.

I don't mean Dubai; I mean pick out any big city in the developed world that isn't in the American Rust Belt and you will likely have better outcomes. That's why some of us are tired of the constant references to Chicago.

It's like some yokels from Shelby Township visit some mall chain stores on Michigan Ave., see lots of tall buildings, and actual prosperous urban neighborhoods, and then start gee whiz yammering on about it. The whole world has prosperous urban cores with prosperous people except for a few tired burgs here and there.

[iheartthed]

Chicago likely didn't gain population in the 1990's. Per the Census, they have most likely had consistent population loss since around 1950. They've lost more than a million residents, which, while great compared to Detroit, is borderline catastrophic compared to most global cities.

Census results for the period 1990-2000 generally aren't used by demographers. During the Clinton administration, there was a change in the decennial Census counting methodology, where sampling was allowed.

So basically every city had inflated numbers in 2000. NYC gained a million residents per Census, when the actual year-over-year estimates were closer to a few hundred thousand gain. Chicago showed a slight gain per Census, when the year-over-year showed a few hundred thousand loss. Detroit also showed a massive decrease in population loss, which likely didn't happen.

Basically, cities with immigrants, nonwhites, high poverty and other "hard to reach" population cohorts were given "bonuses" in 2000, and those "bonuses" weren't present in any of the preceding counts.



Again, NO ONE said that Chicago is in similar shape to Detroit. But the facts show that Chicago is in pretty bad shape compared to anywhere that isn't Detroit.

I don't mean Dubai; I mean pick out any big city in the developed world that isn't in the American Rust Belt and you will likely have better outcomes. That's why some of us are tired of the constant references to Chicago.

It's like some yokels from Shelby Township visit some mall chain stores on Michigan Ave., see lots of tall buildings, and actual prosperous urban neighborhoods, and then start gee whiz yammering on about it. The whole world has prosperous urban cores with prosperous people except for a few tired burgs here and there.

Okay, I see what you're getting at. Yeah, I agree.

[wolverine]

Bham, I'm speaking on statistical census data pertinent to this discussion of young college grads moving to the city. It's absolutely had success in Chicago's global reputation as a city's that's growing with young professionals but losing a low income working class. Unfortunately, the number of young professionals moving in wont offset the losses on the south and west sides. But those professionals will reside in the north and central regions of around a million people that saw growth between 2000-present. South and west sides feel geographically distant to young college grads. While thats more than half of the city neighborhoods that saw population loss, its nowhere near the structural losses other rust belt cities have seen....so there's still a chance to reverse that and Chicago has the resources and leadership. But grads aren't thinking about those places anyway when they choose to move here.

Of course anyone could argue and NY, DC, SF are better in all areas than here in flyover land. I don't disagree. The choice is personal. But for the sake of original discussion....why are Michican grads going to Chicago? The answer is...Its nothing like Detroit, there's plenty going on, it's close to home it's got a high standard of living for young professionals for reasonable cost.

I have no doubt in time Detroit will turn itself around. As dysfunctional as the city government may be and the frustration of decades of decline there is certainly bright spots. I only wish improvements had happened earlier before my decision to leave. If Snyder is willing to assist and introduce policies to bring more growth to Michigan urban centers, there would be no need to ask the question.

[illwill]

I have to agree with several of comments on this topic. Chicago is a mess. But it's a different kind of mess than Detroit. Chicago is still a densely populated city which is really the ONLY leg they're able to standing on. Chicagoans for the most part are holding on to everything they have despite the crime and horrible schools and they hate living in the suburbs. Many have tried it and most return to thecity.

Chicago alone can make a comeback but the State is their biggest setback at this time. The laws of Illinois are designed to keep Chicagoans voiceless. This is not a place I'd want to raise a family. It's a bad example to pass along to your kids...that you live in a dictator-driven society. The state is broke, they've opened up the prison doors and let the worst of the worst back onto the streets and have cut out programs causing mental facilities to close. Crime in Chicago is MUCH WORSE than Detroit no matter what ANYONE tells you. And it's alive and well on the North side and Downtown too.

The Mayor will not hire more cops leaving the residents scared to go outside after dark and most businesses close at 6pm or 7pm because of stick ups. BUT, I give Emanuel credit for sticking to his guns and making the VERY UNPOPULAR decisions that are needed in Chicago, because by the end of his first term, Chicago's budget will be balanced and he might even have a surplus. That's his goal. Despite that they'll still have even bigger problems that are out oftheir hands. The State of Illinois will continue to hold Chicago back from being as successful as it can be.

On the other hand, In Michigan, our state is doing well but the city of Detroitis the only region [[big city) that is struggling. Sort of a reverse situation of Illinois. Of course other cities are struggling as well but Detroit is the heart of Michigan's economy and Detroit is NOT holding Michigan back. The state has moved on. Once Detroit gets back on track [[which I think it will after we file BR) we'll be one of the strongest states in the union. We need to write off our debts and restructure for a smaller city. We have everything in Michigan except a thriving big city. I think this will come in Detroit.

One other thing... the size of a city doesn't matter because it's all about the people. I know for a fact that people in S.E. Michigan are nicer, we have morals, values, we have pride, we work harder, we're more innovative and creative, we're better educated than those in Chicago. This makes our region a more appealing place to me.

Chicago will ALWAYS be the dominate big city of all the rust belt states but I'll put my money on Detroit & Michigan as the best place to live and a far better quality of living.


…One thing I have to say to Bham. It disappoints me that you give so little credit to Rust belt cities [[people) and so much praise to the people on the Coast. People are people wherever you go [[except maybe Chicago and a couple other cities). I think you’re sucking up to the coast a little too much or believing too much hype. I love living among the Great Lakes. What more do the coastal cities offer that the Great Lakes don’t? Of course Cali has the weather…but what else?

Many New Yorkers and Chicagoans have discovered our Michigan coastal cities/towns in recent years and they’re flocking here in great numbers. We must offer something?

[Bham1982]

Bham, I'm speaking on statistical census data pertinent to this discussion of young college grads moving to the city. It's absolutely had success in Chicago's global reputation as a city's that's growing with young professionals but losing a low income working class.

I agree that Chicago has been very successful in attracting young professionals. Chicago sucks up Midwest college grads like a giant Hoover vac. On this, Chicago hits a home run.

But I'm not sure if that's a recipe for overall success. Most people aren't postcollegiate professionals, and most of those professionals eventually leave once marriage and kids are in the picture.

So I would say that Chicago's success in this measure is a notable feather in its cap, but overall, the situation is still pretty grim. Can you build a successful city around a successful core, if the rest of the city is mostly rotting away?

I think it's all relative. If we're talking immediate Midwest, then, yes, I get it. If you're thinking nationally or globally, my biases come in and I don't get the Chicago praise.

[old guy]

I know for a fact that people in S.E. Michigan are nicer, we have morals, values, we have pride, we work harder, we're more innovative and creative, we're better educated than those in Chicago. This makes our region a more appealing place to me.

Seems like kind of a broad, simplistic statement. I think you could find all of those qualities in both locations. And the lack of in both locations.

[iheartthed]

On the other hand, In Michigan, our state is doing well but the city of Detroitis the only region [[big city) that is struggling. Sort of a reverse situation of Illinois. Of course other cities are struggling as well but Detroit is the heart of Michigan's economy and Detroit is NOT holding Michigan back. The state has moved on. Once Detroit gets back on track [[which I think it will after we file BR) we'll be one of the strongest states in the union. We need to write off our debts and restructure for a smaller city. We have everything in Michigan except a thriving big city. I think this will come in Detroit.

With the exception of Ann Arbor, and some optimism bubbling around Grand Rapids, all of Michigan's major cities are a hot ass mess. If anything, Detroit's been able to hold out longer than others... such as Flint or Saginaw.