Guess Which City Is Number One On This Link!

[A2Mike]

I don't know if Chicago being number two on the list should be a comfort of some kind, but sometimes supporting Detroit does make one feel like a member of some South Pacific cargo cult.

http://www.citiesjournal.com/top-15-cities-you-should-move-away-from/

[Dan Wesson]

http://www.citiesjournal.com/top-15-...ove-away-from/
I don't know if Chicago being number two on the list should be a comfort of some kind, but sometimes supporting Detroit does make one feel like a member of some South Pacific cargo cult.

Too many clicks to find out....cash for clicks site imho

[Zacha341]

Yes, very ANNOYING 'click-to-click' site but I went thru it to see the rankings and very brief detailing.

[Danny]

When you have minorities moving into major American cites looking for work and escape racial oppression, middle class white folks don't want to be around them. So they pack up, move out their homes and take their regional jobs with them to green suburban pastures. Then let the minorities clean up the mess in their hoods.

[A2Mike]

I've run into this format with too many lists lately. There must be a scroll or another way to do this; perhaps a plain text list with separate pictures.

[iheartthed]

http://www.citiesjournal.com/top-15-...ove-away-from/
I don't know if Chicago being number two on the list should be a comfort of some kind, but sometimes supporting Detroit does make one feel like a member of some South Pacific cargo cult.

Chicago's population shrank by 200,000 according to the 2010 census, so a lot of people are moving from there too.

[DetroitPlanner]

I've run into this format with too many lists lately. There must be a scroll or another way to do this; perhaps a plain text list with separate pictures.

They do it to sell more ads, not to be convenient for the reader.

[Honky Tonk]

Chicago's population shrank by 200,000 according to the 2010 census, so a lot of people are moving from there too.

Chicago has always had a hard time with gang issues. For a while there they seemed to have had it under control, but within the last few years, it seems to be escalating again. The article is nothing more then "new journalism" tripe. The photos are larger then actual content. It's designed for shock value and nothing more.

[313WX]

Chicago's population shrank by 200,000 according to the 2010 census, so a lot of people are moving from there too.

But consider that it grew by 100,000 as well from 1990 to 2000. So there's not enough evidence to suggest Chicago's population headed one direction or another.

Overall, Chicago's population has been stagnant [[in the city proper).

[Gistok]

Yup... never made it past the first page... these sites are such a pain to get thru... but in this case that's good... so probably the majority of people don't make it to the end....

[Lowell]

There is a whole new industry built around what is called 'content creation' whose sole purpose is to lure visitors to click through web pages loaded with ads.

Hottest among those are lists because they offer the countdown aspect. We all want to see who is number 1. The content like this example is generally brief, vapid, uninformed and devoid of facts.

So just write something like, say, "15 Ways Your Girlfriend, Deep Down, Actually Despises You" and you are in business.

The latest trend of this is 'surveys' where they not only get your eyeballs, they learn your preferences for future targeting of ads and spam email. They do not warrant discussion as they merely opinion, with no facts. But they work and make money.

Caveat Emptor!

[illwill]

Some people are all about the sunbelt cities. Most of us LOVE most of the cities named on that list. Detroit, Buffalo, Chicago, Philly etc...

Either you appreciate the old school rust belt, North & North East cities or you don't. I LOVE these cities and the regions. If you're from Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Colorado or some Western town [[that you choose to call a city) then so be it. But to me, those places aren't real cities.

[Bham1982]

But consider that it grew by 100,000 as well from 1990 to 2000.

It didn't, though. The Census methodology was changed between 1990 and 2000, so those counts aren't directly comparable.

So there's not enough evidence to suggest Chicago's population headed one direction or another.

At this moment, you're right. There's no data until 2020. The annual estimates use very limited sampling and are notoriously inaccurate.

Overall, Chicago's population has been stagnant [[in the city proper).

Nope. Chicago's population, at least per the Census, has been non-stop decline since the 1950's.

Maybe this will change in the future, but there has never been hard evidence of growth in around 60 years.

[313WX]

Maybe this will change in the future, but there has never been hard evidence of growth in around 60 years.

I didn't say Chicago proper has been growing in the past 60 years.

At the same time, there's also not enough hard evidence to say it's been experiencing a non-stop decline since the 1950s. Maybe through the 1980s census, but not since then.

[Bham1982]

I didn't say Chicago proper has been growing in the past 60 years.

At the same time, there's also not enough hard evidence to say it's been experiencing a non-stop decline since the 1950s. Maybe through the 1980s census, but not since then.

Well, yeah, the overall Chicagoland metro area has been growing. Slow-growth, but pretty consistent growth.

The current estimates actually show Metro Detroit growing faster than Metro Chicago, but these annual estimates are not to be trusted. I would wait until the 2020 Census to get something approaching accuracy.

[iheartthed]

Chicago has always had a hard time with gang issues. For a while there they seemed to have had it under control, but within the last few years, it seems to be escalating again. The article is nothing more then "new journalism" tripe. The photos are larger then actual content. It's designed for shock value and nothing more.

Los Angeles has had by far the worst problem with gangs in the country and has never ever shrank, ever.

[iheartthed]

But consider that it grew by 100,000 as well from 1990 to 2000. So there's not enough evidence to suggest Chicago's population headed one direction or another.

Overall, Chicago's population has been stagnant [[in the city proper).

Except for the past half century before that?

Look, I'm not saying that Chicago is in the same straits as Detroit [[pun intended), but I also don't think that Chicago should be held up as the holy grail of good urban planning. They've had their own serious issues and the only reason people aren't talking more about it is because Detroit's are worse.

[313WX]

Except for the past half century before that?

Most major cities in the NE and Midwest experienced population decline in the mid-late 20th century. The difference is, many of these cities have found ways to stem this decline, or the decline has been relatively minor in proportion to their size, especially in the case of Chicago and Philadelphia who have more or less stabilized after only losing 25% of their peak population.

Look, I'm not saying that Chicago is in the same straits as Detroit [[pun intended), but I also don't think that Chicago should be held up as the holy grail of good urban planning. They've had their own serious issues and the only reason people aren't talking more about it is because Detroit's are worse.

Are you sure you mean urban planning, or socio-economic development? Chicago [[outside of New York and possibly San Francisco) has the best urban infrastructure in the country, and the strongest urban core outside of NYC.

I understand Chicago has its problems when it comes to the economy, corruption and racism like Detroit, but at the same time, unlike Detroit they have managed to put those things aside and still remain a successful city that many people are proud to call home, visit and be associated with.

[iheartthed]

Are you sure you mean urban planning, or socio-economic development? Chicago [[outside of New York and possibly San Francisco) has the best urban infrastructure in the country, and the strongest urban core outside of NYC.

I do not agree. Boston, Philly and Washington all have infrastructure as good as Chicago, or better.

I understand Chicago has its problems when it comes to the economy, corruption and racism like Detroit, but at the same time, unlike Detroit they have managed to put those things aside and still remain a successful city that many people are proud to call home, visit and be associated with.

I'm comparing Chicago to cities that are not Detroit. Chicago is one of the most poorly performing of the resurgent big cities in the Northeast and Midwest. I exclude Detroit from this group because it has shown no meaningful signs of resurgence, unlike New York, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia and Chicago. Of those five cities that I just named, Chicago is the only one that shrank from 2000-2010.

[Scottathew]

It's just some click-bait site. That's why they put Chicago at #2.

[rooms222]

I agree with the "appreciate the Rust Belt or not" hypothesis. We have discussed this on the forum before. One way this has been discussed has been looking at born in USA net migration and immigration from other countries to Detroit. Detroit has had very little native migration [[and significant out-migration when economic times are bad). Detroit has had a slightly positive non-US born in-migration [[auto industry and Canada are drivers of this), better than many of its peers in the Rust Belt, but much worse than Chicago, the coasts, and much of the South.

There are two new fine points to this concept. One, there have been recent studies that many non-native born Americans are moving to warmer southern climes as they become more established and/or retire.

Secondly, the new migration to downtown Detroit, where are those people coming from? Many are from suburban Detroit and some are from elsewhere.

[Bham1982]

The difference is, many of these cities have found ways to stem this decline, or the decline has been relatively minor in proportion to their size, especially in the case of Chicago and Philadelphia who have more or less stabilized after only losing 25% of their peak population.

Again, Chicago shows no evidence of "more or less stablized". Chicago shows the second worst population loss in the U.S. in the most recent Census.

Philadelphia does appear to have stabilized, but overall, has pretty bad population losses.

Are you sure you mean urban planning, or socio-economic development? Chicago [[outside of New York and possibly San Francisco) has the best urban infrastructure in the country, and the strongest urban core outside of NYC.

I think this is highly debatable. NYC, SF, Boston, and DC all have much more expensive cores, which serves as a rough proxy for relative desirability. They also all have higher transit share, lower vacancy, and more robust construction activity, other good indicators of relative desirability.

I would argue that all these cities have equal or better urban cores than Chicago, though Chicago is relatively strong too. Philly is probably ahead of Chicago too in terms of quality of urban core, but to a lesser extent.

Chicago does have a huge core [[probably #2 in size in the U.S.), but it's nowhere near the most desirable urban living in the country. Even lesser cities like Seattle, Miami and San Diego have more expensive urban living.

[DetBill]

This list is typical of what we have been seeing for the last 20 years.. I always think Im just odd but my favorite cities to live and visit have always been the older, often rust bucket cities.. Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago,, Cities like LA, San Fran, NYC, Miami I feel are great fun to visit but Im always happy to come home, I like old culture, old buildings, old museums, long traditionalized sports teams , being on water and always appreciate the affordability of living here. We have our problems but I live a very well rounded lifestyle. lots of fun places to go, real nice people, and get tons of bang for the buck living accomodation wise..I also know a few friends who think exactly the same way. I guess water seeks its own level, but I just have no interest in putting myself in a crazy, expensive, environment where daily life is a struggle just to survive financially, and inturn frustrate myself because I couldnt afford to do many of the things I can here.. Our state with its tons of lakes, hiking, skiing within reasonalbe drives and the culture of the city here makes me quite content. I also enjoy the four seasons, and even enjoy winter, [[ well Im getting a little tired of it now), they each bring a new pyschological well being as each change occurs.

[poobert]

I think this is highly debatable. NYC, SF, Boston, and DC all have much more expensive cores, which serves as a rough proxy for relative desirability. They also all have higher transit share, lower vacancy, and more robust construction activity, other good indicators of relative desirability.

OH.MY.GOD. It's highly debatable for YOU, because every time Chicago is mentioned, you pull out this same tired act. I don't even like Chicago, but it's really a bore to hear this all the time.

It's enough for me to look at middling Chicago real estate prices essentially anywhere north of the southside and see they're virtually on par with precious Birmingham. Chicago is okay, Detroit is fucked. Even its "tony" suburbs.

[Bham1982]

OH.MY.GOD. It's highly debatable for YOU, because every time Chicago is mentioned, you pull out this same tired act. I don't even like Chicago, but it's really a bore to hear this all the time.

No, actually the problem is you, because every time Chicago is mentioned, you feel the need to criticize others, even when we're just posting corrections.

If you don't like things like "facts", then fine. Feel free to ignore posts dealing in reality. Ignore the Census, and other reputable sources, and cling to whatever worldview you prefer.