That's not true though. San Francisco and Boston are both denser than Chicago.
NYC's density is actually closer to 28,000 people per square mile. So you have NYC at nearly 28k, Chicago at 11k, and Detroit at 5k.
I certainly agree that Chicago is on another level than Detroit in terms of urban feel, but I think the density numbers show that Chicago is much closer to a Detroit level of density than a New York level.
Chicago has slightly more than twice Detroit's density, while NYC has nearly three times Chicago's density.
Or, looking at numeric gap, Chicago has 6,000 more folks per square mile than Detroit, while NYC has 17,000 more folks per square mile than Chicago.
We'll see in the coming decades, but I don't see evidence for the optimism.
If you look at the Census data, Chicago isn't just suffering population loss in the black ghettos on the South Side. There is also very significant white population loss, and the immigrant neghborhoods are also losing families to the suburbs.
And keep in mind that Chicago requires city employees to live in the city limits. Despite this strict regulation [[a rule that growing cities like NYC and SF don't have), the "cop and firefighter" neighborhoods are losing population.
And this is why I think that cities can't rely on the hipsters and downtown yuppies as their salvation. There aren't enough to fix our cities, and Chicago, despite the tons of downtown yuppies, is still overall growing emptier and in a deeper financial hole by the day.
Chicago will be fine.
Unlike Detroit, Chicago's regional population continues to skyrocket [[it has doubled in the last 50 years) and the state of Illinois actually WANTS to funnel capital into the city and actually WANTS Chicago to represent all of what's Illinois.
"Unlike Detroit, Chicago's regional population continues to skyrocket [[it has doubled in the last 50 years) and the state of Illinois actually WANTS to funnel capital into the city and actually WANTS Chicago to represent all of what's Illinois."
But is the suburban model of growth sustainable for 50 years? All evidence in the US points to "no". As for what Illinois wants, I wouldn't confuse what the power brokers in Chicago want from the state with what the rest of the state wants. Like the negative attitudes about Detroit, most people outside Chicago have a strong distrust for the city and feel like Chicago is benefiting at their expense.
I would say sprawl in cities such as Chicago [[and even Los Angeles) is more sustainable than in cities such as Detroit, since their expansion in land area correlated with their population growth, where as in Detroit we just shifted people around. Though honestly, I'd prefer if we didn't have any type of sprawl.
Also unlike in Detroit, their expansion in land area correlated with their population growth.
Perhaps there are more total alums, but the recent trend is concerning. A 2009 Detroit News article revealed that half of our university graduates are leaving the state: http://detnews.com/article/20090403/...-flee-Michigan
Quote:
Half of Michigan's college grads now leave the state within a year of graduation, taking with them their diplomas and the talent needed to help rebuild Michigan's economy.
One of the most die-hard Spartan sports bars is west of campus -- 225 miles west, in the trendy Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago. There are more recent MSU grads in Chicago than in any other metro area -- including any community in Michigan. While the Windy City has always been a destination for Spartan grads, the number going there -- and other vibrant urban centers such as Minneapolis and New York -- is growing.
The number leaving the state has doubled since 2001, from 24 percent to 49 percent, according to a school survey. Michigan-native grads of the University of Michigan are even more likely to leave -- 53 percent left in 2008, according to U-M. By contrast, a similar survey at North Carolina State, found only 30 percent of graduates left North Carolina.
Other Michigan colleges are witnessing the same exodus. A first-of-its-kind survey of all 2007 Michigan public university graduates, conducted by Michigan Future, Inc., revealed that half of grads left the state within a year.
The biggest beneficiaries [...] so far have been states like Washington, where officials bluntly describe the influx of thousands of college-educated workers from Michigan as a cost-effective approach to education.
"That we can attract those people [[with degrees) is a benefit to the state," said Washington state Rep. Glenn Anderson, the ranking Republican on the higher education committee. "We are importing intellectual capital at a very low cost to ourselves."
I'm not concerned about grads leaving. We need those grads to go out and see some of the world. Why would we want a workforce that's built entirely on people who have never left SE Michigan? Plus, many grads have degrees in fields where staying in SE Michigan isn't going to lead them to the top of their profession. The bigger concern is that we don't have the jobs that will attract grads in fields where Michigan is well-established, like the auto industry and related fields. Likewise, we don't have the communities to attract those who are ready to settle down and have a family or want to put down some roots and have a choice of where they can work and live. When those grads who go to NYC or LA or London or Beijing are ready to come back to Michigan, what do we have to bring them back?
Young person here: it definitely doesn't look good when the state keeps trying to push an anti-gay bible thumping agenda. I don't care if you and your church believe marriage is between a man and a woman: your religious beliefs should not be affecting my life in that way. Mine won't affect yours because I'm not the majority but they shouldn't anyway. That states have had continuous referenda on a minority rights issue is troubling. That our state legislators have found the time to stab at my feet with multiple anti-gay initiatives while they could be dealing with the economic crisis is infuriating.
At least they passed the anti-bullying legislation without the religious excuse. Unfortunately the story hit the national wires because our tone deaf legislator tried to pander to the Michigan Family Association.
But I'm at Wayne State in a city that has had a anti-discrimination statue that includes LGBT people for decades. Not that the city has the resources to enforce that.
The state needs to do a lot to retain young people. Luckily most of the policy changes really aren't that hard. It just takes a new regime of freedom and openness. We've got to cut the far right discrimination nonsense. This is not the south.
We've got to loosen up. We should not have prohibitive liquor laws. We should not be clamping down on medical marijuana. We should not have silly strip club laws where here you need pasties but not in Windsor.
We need trains. We need to fix the roads. We need to push to loosen up the border and allow pedestrians and bikes across on the bus and/or on the new bridge.
We've already got great music. Some awesome expansive parks that need some TLC. We've got tons of diverse neighborhoods with great food. We have the best block parties and great festivals. We've got some of the easiest urban biking in the country. We've got the DSO which goes out into the parks around town where you can bike up for free and experience an excellent orchestra's sound mingle with the urban sounds in and interesting mash up.
We've got swimming and chilling at the beach in the summer in Belle Isle. We've got the Tour de Troit and Critical Mass. We've got cheap bars, fancy bars, sports bars, and coffee houses.
There is so much here it just needs to be run well and cleaned regularly and maintained and enhanced.
But the Tea Party? The Mayor of Troy? The West Michigan Conservatives? Fiscal restraint is fine but you guys need to get the hell out of my bedroom, out of my relationships, out of my body, and tend to your own personal lives.
Amen! Personally, I could care less about gays getting married. For the state legislature to make that into an issue more important than the revival of Detroit, I find that stupid.
If that's what the state legislature is doing with my money, I want my money back.
Well said, laphoque. But, hey, what can I say? Michigan is largely a state of yahoos who don't travel often, don't understand different ways of living, and fear and mistrust people who they perceive to be different. And when you want to give your rich buddies tax breaks and cut services, one way to help get that done is to scare the yahoos into thinking that teh gays are coming for them. Gary Glenn and Tom McMillin have made whole careers out of this BS, precisely because it works on the yahoos.
Divide and conquer...
Of the list of things holding Michigan back, west michigan christianists are pretty far down on that list. Its not like Michigan is the ONLY state with mouthbreathers in political office or with a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. In every single state that it's come up to vote [[33? 34?)...including CALIFORNIA...the haters won. In most states [[like michigan) by rather large margins.
I'm sure for a tiny fraction of people, the fact that Illinois recognizes sorta marriage for gays is a decider. However, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that decision isn't between Detroit and Chicago. It's between Ann Arbor and Chicago. Or Chicago and Seattle.
Lack of a gayborhood in metro detroit isn't making kids who graduate from MSU move to Chicago... its the lack of a JOB or JOB Prospect. all that other stuff is just frosting. you need to bake the cake before you start spreading the frosting.
California allows civil unions. Michigan doesn't.
The initiative passed in every Michigan county except Washtenaw. Unfortunately, it's not just west Michigan Christians... http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pa...ounty.000.html
I personally do think there is a relationship between the more provincial attitudes of the general electorate and the degrading of the city's ability to create a cosmopolitan place. [[Yes, I know that the measure passed in Detroit too, but I'm talking about the general idea of a "city"... the places that "create jobs".) I think functioning urban areas are libertarian by nature.
Ok, i don't generally disagree with you here. But civil unions are not marriage. In many cases, they can be disregarded by any entity for any purpose. yes, it's nice and a measure of security. however, grand scheme of things, "california" type civil unions are nothing that can not be mostly accomplished through the assistance of a lawyer here in Michigan. And each and every one of those civil unions stop at the state line....until you get to a state that chooses to recognize them. And none, even states that have "gay" marriages, are recognized by the federal government.
I just think the whole "we must attract teh gheys/creative class because Richard Florida says so" is bullshit and is over played. All those people will come when there is job here for them and/or a monied class of people to buy their services. Detroit, Michigan is a hostile place to do business because it is a thirdworld city "no one" wants to live it. Moving the block of overtly gay friendly establishments 3 miles down Woodward isnt going to change that.
And speaking of places that create jobs... Texas the fastest growing state in the last decade just approved this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2WTCdlWdW0...TexasPlate.jpg
If that aint "provincial" bible beating wackjobedness I don't know what is.
I doubt civil union legislation makes much of a difference. If anything, it's a pretty harsh insult against gays, because it legislates second-class status.
Nothing less than legal recognition of civil marriage is necessary for real equality, IMO. Otherwise, don't even bother with civil union BS.