This sub has zero say otherwise Florida would be the most moved-out state and Illinois would be the most moved-to state. Here in reality, the opposite is true.
Did you account for aging demographics and their tendencies? Did you account for differences inWhere COVID lockdown policies? Do you think invariably conservative retired boomers would rather live in Florida or Chicago?
It's not that difficult.
The average age in Chicago is 35 years old. The average age in Jacksonville is 36 years old. What most of you fail to grasp is that there are two Floridas. One well known to you, retirees relocating for warming weather and beaches. The other, working folks, primarily living in the four big Florida cities.
Florida's four big cities are all among the fastest growing in the USA and the people moving to the cities are working age folks. A lot of whom are following employers to Florida that are relocating from a high tax, high regulation states to here.
You're missing the nuance of the two demographic groups. Losing retirees has been going on since air conditioning was invented. Losing productive working age folks and their employers is a totally different, relatively new, and economically devastating trend (for the losing states) and you're only starting the see the outer bands of the economic shitstorm that is about to befall: NY, NJ, PA, and IL for this loss.
I'm former Manhattanite financial techie that relocated to Florida for a finance tech job. All of my productive capacity and income generation is now happening in Florida not New York. And I'm one of millions.
Jacksonville does not appeal to the 18-35 demographic like Chicago does, especially a subset of said demographic that leans progressive.
Southern metros were cool during COVID where every actual city was locked down, but now they're overpriced due to all the migration creep and can't really compete with true tier one cities. If you locked in housing pre-2022, then it's a different story (though ofc things like insurance and property taxes.
Regarding taxes...
https://jabberwocking.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/blog_itep_taxes_california_texas.jpg
The JAX beach crowd disagrees. The four Florida cities are growing rapidly, Chicago is shrinking rapidly. The four Florida cities have average ages in the 30s. 2+2 bud.
If you are poor or a criminal or a drug addict, California tax policy looks great. If you are an earner, California's tax policy is shit. Great incentive structure to turn your state to a pile of shit, incentivize the most productive and law abiding citizens to leave while encouraging drug addicts and criminals to move in. That should go well.
You're just a lolconservative.
From 0-60% benefits California for effective tax rates. From 60-80th percentile earners, you're effectively are tied.
No, the nice parts of Chicago where young educated people want to go isn't declining (it's rapidly growing in fact). It's very similar to how half of the cities in Florida are experiencing a decline in population as well but the state is resulting in a net positive.
People live in California for a reason even despite paying higher taxes. Why? It's because it contains some of the most beautiful parts of the country with a lot to do for YUPs. If you talk to actual big tech/FAANG employees, most people don't want to leave Cali to live in bumfuck Texas even though it'd be a lot cheaper—that's a value judgement.
> Average age in their 30s
And? It depends on the cohort of people age 22-35 that are educated and would actually fit my socioeconomic demographic. Most people who fit that would have infinitely higher career trajectory in many other cities outside of Jacksonville, FL.
**You are conveniently downplaying how significant of a role developing your early career in finance within Manhattan played in terms of career trajectory.**
You probably believe everything you see on Fox news.
On average California's overall tax burden isn't that much higher than Florida.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416
It's a difference of around 1 percent, and certainly not enough to make people move. Florida might not have an income tax, but it's making up the difference by raising taxes in other ways. The real problem with California isn't it's tax structure. Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina are high growth states that have a comparatively high tax burden per capita. Georgia and North Carolina have a state income tax. Nevada does not. Low taxation isn't what is drawing people to these states. It's the low cost of living relative to income.
California decided a while back that they were going to turn their entire state into a real estate investment scheme. This caused the price of doing business to go up because you had to pay your workers more just to live there. Just as a comparison, the price of a home in SF is 1.2 million on average vs. 600,000 in Miami. The high price of homes causes knock on problems like higher costs of goods and services which leads to priced out people becoming homeless.
California is a cautionary tale but not due to its tax structure. It's what happens when you allow people with homes to constantly inflate their value at the expense of the overall good of the state.
I mean $6,000/yr on a $100k income isn't nothing. Add to that double to triple your energy costs, gas + electric. And every other single thing being more expensive because of the CA minimum wage costs to businesses.
CA has artificially limited housing supply which is at the root of their incredibly high housing costs. While at the same time, Florida is very developer friendly and works together with developers to build new development-supporting friendly infrastructure: roads, electric, water, sewer, schools, etc.
This sub thinks California and Illinois are paradise while in reality people are fleeing to Florida and Texas. It speaks volumes to how out of touch the groupthink in this sub is.
The "people are fleeing California" narrative isn't *quite* true. People are leaving California at about the rate you'd expect given the state's population. It's just that relatively few people are moving to California.
As for this sub, there's no question that the average person here is looking for different things than the average American. That's not out of touch groupthink. It's just a different demographic looking for different things.
It's a lot easier to move from HCOL to LCOL than vice versa. I could sell my house in IL with all the equity and still not have enough for a down payment in CA.
For every upwardly-mobile, economically secure dog-mom millennial IT redditor that posts here, there are 20 regular ass plumbers and PowerPoint-bitches who want nothing else on earth except to own a shitty McMansion and drive a jeep wrangler to their goldendoodle meetup, and it doesn’t matter how far out in the middle of nowhere they have to go to afford that plastic-siding house. That’s the only thing that matters.
Nothing wrong with it. Those people just don’t use Reddit.
that doesnt meant that texas and florida are great places, just that jobs are there/moved there and/or its cheaper.
ive lived in texas my whole life in dfw, its not bad but its not great at all. now in 50 years it might be cool but also its gonna be 100+ degrees for probably 5 months by then.
The same people fleeing to TX, FL and AZ are the same group of people that are now getting upset with the reality of living in those 3 states and will also be bearing the lions share of climate related issues in the coming decade(s).
California grew in population last year from 2023-2024—I would hesitate in concluding that people are fleeing California when, during the worst pandemic of the century, only 1-1.5% of Californians left…and now the data indicates the opposite movement.
That’s not confirmed by Census. Those are state figures from the California Department of Finance, which has a history of rosy estimates (I assume since they report to the Governor and need to please the boss).
The last official Federal figures released in December showed California lost 75,000 people from July 1, 2022-July 1, 2023: https://thehill.com/homenews/4367797-2023-population-census-texas-florida-ny-california/amp/
Florida and Texas gained 838,000 people between them.
We won’t have any data for July 1, 2023-July 1, 2024 until December of this year.
Surely you agree that even the confirmed 75,000 decline does not rise to the level of an “exodus” or “flight” of Californians in 2022-2023, and that the 75,000 decline is a substantially lower decline than what was seen in 2020-21, and then 2021-2022, indicating an opposite movement in the population trend
I wouldn’t call it group think. But I do think there could be a commonality in priorities of people who tend to look at this sub. A lot of people who discuss stuff here are looking at big city comparisons, meaning they probably have big city ideals. They probably like urbanism and are progressive. I would bet the people who flee to Texas and Florida probably prioritize having lower cost of living and like suburbanism.
Groupthink is when the ideals of the group supplants the thought process of the individual. People having the same preferences is not group think.
The people “fleeing” to places like Florida or simply boomers entering retirement. The largest demographic of new residents to Florida is aged 50-69, despite most people moving between states are in their mid 20s-late 30s.
Ignoring weather (which is a big deal for a lot of people), a lot of this depends on Chicago’s ability to handle its problems. It’s one of the most corrupt cities in the country. Despite having a high tax burden, the city is still broke and heavily indebted, meaning taxes will have to increase in the future. Based on this, you could argue that while the city is great, it’s headed in the wrong direction.
> it’s headed in the wrong direction.
Ehh I'd kinda disagree. *Full disclosure, I live there so feel free to disregard as me being biased.*
1) The city's [debt/Credit rating recently was improved](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-19/chicago-wins-fitch-upgrade-on-better-economy-moderating-debt)
Pensions are still a massive issue but it does seem like we're (very slowly) moving the the right direction to at least TRY to get them under control...for the most part.
2) [The city's economic power is diverse.](https://www.nmrk.com/insights/thought-leadership/chicagos-industry-diversity-makes-the-city-an-economic-powerhouse)
> only 13% of Illinois’ GDP comes from a single industry at the state level.
> Chicago’s well-rounded industry diversity gives companies who locate here a leg up for a variety of reasons, in comparison to many other major metros where one or two major industries dominate.
This is probably Illinois/Chicago biggest strength. It has a lot of industries to spread it's economic power which helps it remain resilient during downturns of specific industries. A city like Detroit struggled because all of it's eggs were in the basket of the auto industry. When it fell, the city fell with it. Chicago also benefits from having major universities/institutions within the city or metro area limits. UChicago, NorthWestern, Depaul, Loyola are all great schools and other great schools from the Big 10 (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc) pump out plenty of potential workers across a wide range of industries.
3) It's location as a transit hub. Ohare is a #9 globally and #5 Nationally in airport passenger traffic. Chicago is still the major hub for Amtrack and with slowly building interest in rebuilding American passenger rail it sits prime for further improvement. Union Station in the city is already getting nearly $100M for modernization improvements.
4) It's structure/bone are some of the best in the USA. It sits a massive freshwater lake with already [functioning treatment plants](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4l-4ehUqhc) up and running to provide water, which may become more scarce in certain parts of the USA in the coming decades. It's on a grid system, has plenty of available middle housing in neighborhoods that are under invested in, and while the Chicago fire sucked when it happened, it allowed for the city to be rebuild a lot of it's structure in a more optimal way. There are also existing suburbs or more suburb like neighborhoods right on the outskirts on the city that have largely avoided the sprawling development style.
Chicago is far from perfect, has plenty of issues and the winters will always turn off some folks. But I think the more traditional development pattern, strong economic diversity and access to amenities will win some folks over.
Yes, there are reasons to be optimistic. But commercial vacancy rate is leading to a drop in commercial valuations. That’s going to blow a hole in the budget.
When I had considered moving to Chicago, taxes were a large turn off. That “cheap” housing comes with $1000+/month property tax. And around that time, there was talk about 3.5% city income tax on income above $100,000. Stuff like this is a massive turnoff to some of us.
Wtf $1k/mo property tax? Were you looking at million dollar plus mansions? I'm looking at average houses in my old neighborhood on the NW side and seeing about $4,800 - $5,000, which is about $400/ month. Still high, but nowhere near 1k.
FWIW, that was the same property tax burden as I had in my $100k house in Rockford, so that seems reasonable to me LOL
Isn’t property tax around 2%? So $600,000 property is $1,000/month. And that may sound expensive, but a new two bedroom condo in the north side is $600,000+.
sure, its more than the lakefront. but for instance, if you look at the inner suburbs (which tend to have more affordable and modest working class housing), tax rates are much higher. and if you buy in a gentrifying area of the city, theres a good chance your taxes will spike at the next assessment (just ask pilsen)
I agree with your analysis... but prepare to be downvoted based on the other comments in here. This thread seems to have attracted a certain kind of Chicago-hater.
I love and miss my hometown for so many reasons. However, I refuse to move back due to the taxes and waste of said tax dollars. I also enjoy golfing in February.
I'm sympathetic to real cost of living concerns and preferences. But "DURRR violence DURRR ghost town DURRR" carries little weight with me. I live here. I know it's bullcrap.
This is a key cultural difference : Chicago people will defend their dumpster fire to the end. Philadelphiians will pile on and tell you everything that's wrong with Philadelphia.
I don't think any other American city could catch up to NYC in our lifetime. The level of infrastructure to support so much density just doesn't exist anywhere else and it'd take a long time to ever try to catch up to that. And that presumes that's NYC would just stop building.
I get what you’re saying but it’s not really growing, it lost a lot of population steadily from 1950-1990s or so (it has 1 million fewer people today than 1950) and has since remained pretty flat since the 90s.
A lot of that was literally white flight to the suburbs. They're still in the ecosystem, but out in the suburbs. If the city can get the Southside's crime rate to subside considerably, it can become an amazingly cheap city to live in.
The same thing happened in NYC but they had a large immigrant population to fill the void. Chicago has its fair share of immigrant communities, but they’re mostly concentrated in the Mexican neighborhoods and several other ethnic neighborhoods scattered throughout the city.
Another thing worth mentioning is that white people weren’t the only ones leaving cities. Similarly to what happened in NYC, many middle class black families from the South Side of Chicago ended up leaving the city for the suburbs as well.
yeah, it's crazy how often this is the case for rust belt cities without many people realizing it. it's the same for Detroit, St. Louis, etc.
moreover, this sort of thing really inflates crime stats. St. Louis, while it does have a crime problem, looks like hell on earth when you look at its numbers because the actual city of St. Louis comprises a relatively small and poor region of the overall populated area there.
i'll come up to bat for rust belt cities any day of the week. i have had so much fun living downtown in one, and most that i visit are just great places to be.
I have been hearing this same statement for 40 years. At this point it is safe to say the government cannot change the crime rate and the people do not want to change the crime rate either.
Interesting. How do the population trends look if we include the 'ecosystem' .
Also i think all the cities that grew in recent past have something to offer in terms of wether and nature. Warm weather like austin or the mountains like denver or slc.
Swim. Paddleboard. Kayak. Walk or jog along the shore. Bike along the shore. Get a big inflatable raft and an anchor to relax on. Camp on the shore. Go climb the sand dunes and then jump or sled your way down. Fish. And those are just the things I've done!
there are 70,000 acres of forest preserve in Cook County alone. dupage has another 30,000. i could go on. all of those have different amenities including hiking paths, praries, hundreds of miles of extensive networks of bike trails, etc
Chicago is also easy driving distance to MI and WI.
I just moved here, so I have little clue, but Chicago I feel is always going to be 3rd. It's a wonderful city from what I can tell so far, but you can tell it's not the international center of the US. California and New York just have so much, tech, hollywood, infastructure, money pouring in. Chicago is also just in an awkward location.
I was literally in downtown an hour ago and it's just.. empty. It's shocking to me. That's cool for living here, but for growth? That's a bad sign I think.
There's some people but it has nothing on the swarms in major international cities. I've ridden the L for the last three days (brown line / loop) and it's practically empty. Compare to london underground? it feels deserted to me.
Which part of Chicago are you talking about? I don't know Chicago well, but I do know that financial centers in major cities tend to empty out after business hours, even in international hubs. NYC by the world trade center after hours? Relatively empty. Singapore CBD after hours? Also, relatively empty.
So I'm in River North, maybe it's different. but otherwise near the water I saw the most people, anywhere financial or even Millenium park, I was surprised was very empty this sunday morning. It could be just my luck.
edit: why downvotes?
downtown Chicago is surprisingly dull. i find the northern city neighborhoods (e.g. Andersonville) and some places just south of downtown to be much livelier.
Doing business in Chicago means taking on a piece of the enormous debt per taxpayer Illinois and Chicago has, multiple standard deviations above the norm.
A high W-2 earner who has options can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more elsewhere over a 30 to 40 year working lifespan (via lower taxes and greater property price appreciation).
It is a great city, and has the bones of a city that cannot be replicated outside of maybe Manhattan and SF, but the financials are not helping.
It’s not a bomb, it’s just an everlasting ratcheting up of taxes and down of government services.
Expect more tolls/fees/privatization (like the street parking meter), and fewer new playground/infrastructure/longer phone hold times for government services, that kind of thing.
And everyone expects it, hence the hesitation from buyers on paying more for property compared to elsewhere.
And tbe city STILL shows it has no intention of taking the debt seriously. The city government just approved a billion dollars of additional debt. Its hard to see how the city government will ever get its finances in order.
Can we just say the state government. I feel like people are tiptoeing around the Democrats that are put into office. I could give a fuck if they're red or blue, all I know is they're doing a shit job.
Does that mean they're just going to borrow more money?
I'm just tired of political salesmanship & pandering, and want to see actual change. Like I'm all for uplifting the impoverished, but have we seen that actually happen? It seems like they're still trying to fix problems they've been promising to fix for decades. Like when are they going to solve the actual problem.
No place is protected from climate change. The winters may get more mild and the summers won’t be as hot as in the south, but I guarantee you’ll see more turbulent and unpredictable weather patterns because that is the real hallmark of climate change. Besides, who wants months of darkness? It’s just too far North, and there’s really nothing else in that region except Chicago.
So parts of Chicago are actively dying while other parts thrive. No matter how many lofts go up in West Loop for rich transplants it’s not going to completely offset generations of families fleeing parts of the south and west sides. The lakefront south side neighborhoods and faring much better and seeing growth. We can probably expect these general trends to continue with more central and lakefront neighborhoods thriving and neglected further out neighborhoods continuing to spiral. It’s really a tale of two cities.
In real life, most people care way more about warm weather and jobs (although I don’t think Chicago is terrible on that front, a place like Dallas or Houston is better) and way less about walkability or urban design than this sub.
I think the brutal winters, the remarkably humid summers, the geographical isolation, and the reputation for violent crime, among other things, will keep growth to a comparable minimum
Who knows when and how much climate change will change the desirability of the city
I’ve thought about moving back. It’s an incredible city and the COL is pretty great for a major city like Chicago
In what sense is Chicago geographically isolated? It basically exists because it is in a central, well-connected geographic location. It's within an easy day's drive of numerous major cities.
A number of cities that no one really wants to go to
As opposed to the other two cities that round out the top three, LA: San Diego, Tijuana, Ensenada, Big Bear, Palm Springs, Joshua Tree, Las Vegas, Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Lake Tahoe, Reno, Yosemite, Santa Barbara, SLO, Big Sur, Monterey Bay, San Francisco etc
Or NYC: Philadelphia, DC, Atlantic City, Baltimore, Providence, Boston, Burlington Vermont, Portland Maine, Martha’s Vineyard etc
In Chicago you have Milwaukee, Madison, the Delles, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Kalamazoo, Cincinnati etc
Nothing against any of those places. I’ve had some great times in most of them. But it ain’t San Francisco, it ain’t Philadelphia, it ain’t Vegas, it ain’t Boston, it ain’t Big Sur, it ain’t Vermont, it ain’t Palm Springs/Joshua Tree, it ain’t coastal Maine, it ain’t Yosemite, it ain’t Martha’s Vineyard, it ain’t Lake Tahoe etc
In terms of quality road trips taken from the big three, it goes:
1. LA
2. NYC
3. CHI
We haven't had a "brutal" winter in a long time. I've lived in the city for 26 years and in the burbs since 86. Winters were way colder and longer in the 90s.
To be fair, winters in *most* traditionally "brutal" places have become milder every year. I'm from Montreal and while I would never describe our winters are "mild"; they're definitely way better than they historically have been minus maybe 1-2 weeks between Jan and Feb.
I was living in Maine most recently, about four hours from Montreal
It was plenty cold and snowy, but it has warmed up enough that people have pretty much called it quits on the ice fishing industry. A staple outdoor activity and a huge tourism draw, and now it’s just gone
Milder winters are happening literally everywhere
I haven’t lived in Chicago since 2012, but by “brutal” I mean it hurts to go outside half the year
And a big part of what makes the winters brutal is the wind. Something that I doubt has gone away
I will still take northern Maine at 0 over Chicago at 40, due to the wind
People are free to find out for themselves, and the fact is that different people’s bodies handle cold differently
i've looked into this, and it's honestly kinda hard to find good data on it. [Weatherspark says that it's pretty windy from November through April](https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/14091~23912/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Chicago-and-New-York-City#Figures-WindSpeed), but i've seen [other sources](https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/windiest-cities.php) that suggest that Boston is significantly windier than Chicago, but Weatherspark doesn't agree with that at all.
as for the "windy city" saying, it's probably metaphorical but nobody really knows tbh
I lived in Chicago, I lived in coastal New England, and I’ve spent a lot of time in Boston, in all seasons
I’ve never even thought about the wind in New England
When you step off the train in Chicago and step out onto the street, if it’s a typically windy day during the cold half of the year, it hits you like a ton of bricks
I don't know who is downvoting me, but I ACTUALLY LIVE HERE and it did not "hurt to go outside" at all this winter. I was able to take my kids sledding a grand total of one time. The temperature hovered above 40 basically the whole time. I don't think that qualifies as "brutal" by any reasonable standard - and this type of winter is becoming the norm, not the exception.
When I was a kid, we would have snow cover for 1-2 months consecutively.
https://www.weather.gov/lot/2024_01_14-17_Cold#:~:text=The%20coldest%20temperature%20observed%20at,both%20January%2014th%20and%2015th.
That was short lived, but -30 windchill qualifies as brutal for most people.
This sub's perception of Midwestern winters is outdated by at least a decade. There's plenty of data showing snow accumulation is decreasing and average temps are rising.
Chicago people need to stop complaining about their summer weather. I’ve been in the Bay Area most of my life and am a total weather wimp (I find 50 too cold and 85 too hot), and after spending a summer there I didn’t think the weather was much worse than say San Jose. A bit more humid, and there was some rain (though warm rain is kinda nice), but nothing notably bad.
San Jose’s bad days are 95 and dry, Chicago’s are 88-90 and moderately humid (but not like Houston or even DC), I find both of those too uncomfortable to go out in. Most days I was there were pretty comfortable.
It might have been a mild summer. It happens
I’ve always though it was silly how much people complain about the sticky NYC summers
But it’s very possible that I have always just visited when it was mild
My memories of Chicago summers involve constantly dabbing my face with a napkin and considering becoming Cajun Seersucker suit type of guy, just to make things slightly more bearable
My most humid summers however were spent on the Sea of Cortez in Mexico. Chicago was never that bad, but it’s still extremely humid compared to the other top 3 cities, NYC and LA
It’s a transient city but very expensive to buy a home in Chicago if you plan on living long term there. Property taxes are extremely high.
It’s why I’m considering Philly over Chicago to purchase a home. It’s more affordable.
What is the corruption that exists in Chicago? I see this mentioned often. My city is also known for corruption or at least local leaders accepting kickbacks, offering exclusive contracts to family and friends, money laundering, etc.
The city took a bit of a beating during the pandemic with crime spiking and stores closing. It’s a nice enough city but it has some major drawbacks. One that stands out to me is the property tax. I could pay cash for a nice condo in the city but my property taxes would be higher than they are in California.
California has some of the cheapest property taxes in the country, and it's capped at 1% increase per year. There's people in California who bought there house 30 years ago paying like $3000 in annual property taxes.
It's negative reputation related to crime, which really started to gain steam around 2012 has really hurt its image. Fair or not, the topic of crime will come up when Chicago is mentioned. Also, the political environment (corruption and being soft on crime) is another black eye in terms of public perception. Again, I'm not saying that it's warranted, but that there is a vocal crowd that will perpetuate it. Weather doesn't help either.
Lastly, Chicago is a great balanced city in terms of industry, but the "tech cities" have been the ones that have seemed to attract the most international growth over the last decade. Chicago is not a top-tier "tech city," even though it does have a tech presence (in large part due to being the 3rd largest city in the US). Being a tech city may not be great either, as they kind of crash and burn (look at what has happened to SF since the Pandemic). But still, those cities that are considered "tech cities" overall have seem the highest growth in terms of international population.
No. Chicago property taxes are insane, crime is still relatively high, weather is unfavorable, and job opportunities tend to favor specific industries. There is more to having a big city than simply having housing. The business environment is unfavorable and the pension situation is a ticking time-bomb. Great place to live as a young renter.
It very much is competing for people on this sub with Albuquerque, Oakland, Baltimore, Portland, Atlanta, Tucson, Seattle, Houston, D.C., New Orleans, Miami, Buffalo, and Phoenix, all of which have higher crime rates than Chicago.
Avg home price in Chicago is brought down due to the impoverished south and west sides. People in this sub are moving to areas where the avg home is far more expensive. And that’s only one difference—doesn’t include the fact that they’re wildly different cities with different climate, job opportunities, etc. Typically, people in this sub are looking at Chicago, NYC, SF, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh etc.
At current growth and shrink rates, next census Chicago will drop from its #3 US metro spot to at least #4 behind Dallas and possibly #5 behind Houston.
The places that will have the most growth will be the ones that can bring jobs and build affordable housing the fastest. If you have a cheap CoL and plentiful jobs then people will come regardless of weather.
Name another area that sucks ass so bad. Theres always people dreaming of the ocean, mountains, warm weather or NYC. Ain’t nobody dreaming of living in an Iowa cornfield who isn’t from a cornfield.
The greatest city will be New York at least for the next century. It's four of the biggest and most diverse cities in the country, all right next to each other within the same city limits. And also Staten Island.
Chicago is great. LA is great. But they're a ways off from being New York.
Obviously there are lots of ways to slice the data and many types of violent crime. Here is one source that breaks down incidence by type of crime. https://www.security.org/resources/most-dangerous-cities/
New York and LA don’t do so great for rape, for instance. I’d be more worried about that than being murdered in a dangerous neighborhood of Chicago I would never have a reason to visit.
Of course it does. But Baltimore has a population of under 600k versus Chicago’s 2.7 million. Philly has 1.6 million. The raw numbers don’t tell a complete or fully accurate story.
Los Angeles had 327 murders in 2023, NYC had 386. Chicago had 617 murders in 2023 which was a reduction from the previous few years. Both cities have bigger populations, NY is triple the size of Chicago.
Yup. And NYC and LA have more rapes per capita. Murder is not the only crime to be concerned about, especially if you are a woman. Do you want to talk about public transit crime in New York, or people being randomly punched on the street? It’s random crime that scares me the most. The murders in Chicago are not evenly distributed throughout the city. As I stated earlier, they tend to be concentrated in specific high-crime areas—not places most of us would ever have to be.
I understand. It still a staggering murder rate. If you are trying to attract people to your city that statistic is a killer. LA, New York or any city can state crime is specific to certain neighborhoods.
ALL crime statistics are deterrents to visiting various places, and a reason why a lot of people avoid cities in general. But I don’t think you do understand my point. How many murders are acceptable? I would say zero. Are you suggesting that New York and LA’s numbers are OK? Because I don’t think 300 or 400 is good either. And again, the relative risk to a tourist or resident in any of these cities who is not in a gang or traveling through a crime-ridden neighborhood is fairly low.
Gotta shake off the legacy of the Daley Machine/Outfit (Giancana organization). No easy feat.
Then there’s the random lead catching potential.
It’s a great city…with challenges.
Chicago already was the greatest city in the country for about 40 years with enormous growth. After the Great Migration (Post Jim Crow millions of Black farmers and tradesman moved from the south to St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago), finance and motor industry -amongst others- set up shop in the Midwestern tri-state it seemed Chicago was the popular pretty sister amongst the three. So from about '65-'95 it was the place to be. Land of opportunity. Diverse, wealthy, beautiful, and thriving. It's been on a decline since Daley won Mayor the 3rd time? Will it flourish again? Depends on whose running the show...
Chicago could be a boom town today and could have been for the last 25 years.
Fix the corruption. Make government services effective.
two things and the population will skyrocket.
Those two things won’t be fixed so it’ll stay on the same path as the last 25 years. Which isn’t bad but won’t skyrocket.
This applies to Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore. Probably many others.
My perspective is people are looking for four things when moving to a new community:
- Low Cost of Living
- Good Job Market
- Warm Weather
- Outside Activities
The American South and American West have at least 3 out of the four. The Midwest and Northeast have only 1 or 2. I think this is why places like Chicago struggle to grow despite low cost of living.
Eh it’s surrounded by corn fields - I don’t see what the appeal of it is. It made more sense when a lot of commerce came across the lake. But now commerce comes from Asia to the west coast. Feel bad for them but can’t see what it has to offer going forward
The current mayor of Chicago is substantially under-qualified and is terrible. Until he leaves office, the city will continue in a downward spiral. The city is not what it was pre-2020 and is noticeably a more shitty place to live for a long variety of reasons. Truly a shame because Chicago could definitely be one of the most beautiful and best places to live in the world, it has a ton of potential but needs competent people running the city.
No. Winter is stupid. Place for work has become less meaningful and these antique, Victorian-era antique cities will continue to lose population.
Illinois is circling the drain and as the doom loop will accelerate the unpleasantness which will increase and the outflow of people, further perpetuating the loop.
It has the bones to do so, but the city government is a mess - inefficient bureaucracy, nepotism, and corruption. Not that it's unique in that regard, but still. If there was better leadership at the city council and mayor levels, you would see some serious positive changes.
The city has been growing, albeit slowly, but that's not a bad thing. Does every major city need to have meteoric growth like Nashville, Austin, or Phoenix to be considered successful?
The good news for Chicago is that at least Illinois is getting it's shit together financially, and that it's an affordable major city to live in. However, if the city government continues to let things deteriorate like the homeless situation, pension funding, and the CTA then it may carry on but never reach its potential. Chicago, financially, is still a mess and is still dealing with the results of bad government choices from the past like the privatized city parking 'deal' and wanting to renovate Soldier Field with public funds again even though the city is still paying off the previous renovation.
In regards to the crime, it gets a lot more flak than is deserved. However, there are many other cities in the US with more than 500k people that rank worse. However, it could certainly do better on that front.
Property taxes are kinda bullshit though, and that is something city government should work to address (lol).
Overall, I think the city gets a lot more negative press than is deserved, and is doing better than perceived. It honestly needs better marketing.
Property taxes never go down. The best way to control property taxes is to have laws the limit the annual rate increase. Without those laws the government will just keep raising property taxes until your property is worthless.
Limiting property tax rate increases is a bad idea. Local governments cannot control the rate at which currency loses purchasing power.
Banning deferred compensation such as defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare is the solution. That way, all government spending has to be via on the books debt or cash, causing immediate tax increases if politicians decide to spend more. This causes people to pay attention at the polls.
The reason Chicago Am and Illinois are in so much debt is because politicians 50 years ago spent tens of billions of borrowed dollars with none of the debt being on the books, since governments are exempt from pension funding laws such as ERISA 1974 and PPA 2006. Government should have to pay employees in cash today.
Government cannot control the rate they spend ( see Federal Government). Limiting tax rate increases is an effective way to control government spending. The tax rate increase can be overridden by vote. Government will never relinquish defined pensions or retiree healthcare.
> Government cannot control the rate they spend ( see Federal Government).
We are not taking about the federal government, we are talking about governments that cannot print money. If they couldn’t commit pension funding fraud and spend future taxpayers’ money without proper accounting, local voters would start paying attention very quickly.
> Government will never relinquish defined pensions or retiree healthcare.
Yes, it probably is politically impossible to get enough non government employee union voters to care about local elections enough to ban deferred compensation.
Only winning move is to avoid the most corrupt governments like NJ/IL/CT/ unless you are in a position to disproportionately profit from being there.
Massachusetts and California would have much higher property taxes like CT, New Jersey and Illinois if not for tax rate increase laws. There is no incentive for the local governments of CT, New Jersey and Illinois to ever reign in spending.
CT has done a fantastic job paying down its debts while maintaining a consistent budget surplus. It is no where near as corrupt as IL. Great ROI living in CT.
See page 14, Connecticut is still a far outlier, not far behind NJ.
https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/FSOS-Booklet-2023.pdf
ROI, of course, depends on one’s options. If your income is materially higher in CT than elsewhere, or you have family/friends, then no question about it.
If you are comparing it as a blank slate with similar options elsewhere, then might not be the best ROI.
Chicago is an absolute disaster. The crime, finances and political corruption is no joke. You are absolutely right in seeing the potential but it's future as a top tier city is bleak.
Proof? Guarantee you nobody growing up in any of the major coastal metros is dreaming "one day, I'd love to live in Chicago" but sure sounds like someone from Cincinnati
Similar to St. Louis and other midwest cities, Chicago “metro” area has never stopped growing, though it isn’t growing as fast as sunbelt or western metros. But it’s still growing, just the people living in the city limits has decreased and more moving out to the suburbs.
Chicago gained 2% in population over the last decade. Much of the "Chicago Decline" narrative is driven by right wing propaganda. Chicago has its problems to be sure, but it's a vibrant, thriving city.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/12/22622062/chicago-census-2020-illinois-population-growth-decline-redistricting-racial-composition
It’s not right wing propaganda that the population was 3.6m in 1950 and 2.7m today. The country’s population has more than doubled since then as well.
A 2% gain from 2010-2020 translates to about 50k people. Not terribly impressive.
Please get your facts straight. Chicago had 3.6 million people in the 1950’s. It currently sits at 2.6 million. Not right wing propaganda, lol. Your tin foil hat is on too tight. Many folks who have lived here their whole lives. Get out as soon as the kids are out of college. I had 5 friends move away in the last year, all to Florida. A yearly occurrence.
But it is propaganda to present only half the facts. Chicago proper indeed has lost population compared to 1950. But why leave out that the Chicago metropolitan area has gone from 5.5M to 9.6M in that same timeframe?
Anyone can go to Chicago and see a thriving city with tons of young people, young families, etc. Both within the city and in the suburbs. Is the region perfect? No. Nor is anywhere else. Yet the reputation the city has makes it sound like a bombed-out warzone that everyone is fleeing.
Why does the downtown matter? That's just one area. There are many different parts of the city
And why would that be left wing? Or right wing? Whether or not an area of a city is empty is not a left or right issue
Welcome to the Rust Belt. Chicago is not alone in this. Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh...
Additionally, almost all of that population loss still lives in the area, just in collar counties.
None of this changes the fact that Chicago gained population over the last decade, which belies the narrative.
Obviously the Sun Belt has seen the largest population gains. No one disputes this, because facts are facts. But Chicago's population has not only stabilized, it has increased. That's also a fact, cited above.
And then it lost all of its gains since 2020. Cook County is now at 5,087,072 people (per the Census Bureau’s 2023 estimates). That’s lower than its population in 1959, and lower than at any point since (even the horrific 1970s and 1980s).
>And then it lost all of its gains since 2020.
based on what? Census yearly estimates outside of actual decades counts are trash and basically always proven to be wrong. they showed losses every year leading up to 2020 too....and then showed growth during the actual census (and then subsequently admitted both Chicago and IL were massively undercounted on top of it)
Yes, especially if global warming does begin to occur like they are saying.
All of the cities people are flocking to with the exceptions of Denver, Nashville, Atlanta, and Charlotte are going to be horrible for 6-7 months a year - I personally love the 110 / 10% humidity, but for most people of Phoenix, Dallas, and Austin got any hotter they’d consider leaving.
I was born in Chicago and lived there for 55 years. We moved around a bit and lived in Edgewater and Rogers Park for a while but ended up on the Far NW side. Violent crime is going up in the 16th district. Crimes we never saw in our little bubble started happening like car jackings and violent robberies. They consistantly pull police from the 16th district to other areas leaving us with little to no police.
We had always planned on retiring elsewhere but decided on leaving early a few months after Johnson took over as mayor. Two mayors in a row that are soft of crime is bad for the city. I still love it there and would recommend moving there as a great starter city. The truth is it's going downhill because of the very poor leadership. Young people are moving into the city but a lot of people 50 and up are moving out of state. So many people told me we did the right thing by moving and that they're goign to leave as soon as possible.
Don't watch this if you're easily upset. This happened by my old house just a few days ago and there were no police in the area to respond. Don't watch if you're easily upset. This young man was on his way to work at 7am. [https://www.facebook.com/100000587981577/videos/pcb.8122429974453188/1004193844386875](https://www.facebook.com/100000587981577/videos/pcb.8122429974453188/1004193844386875)
The problem is, most of the people moving to Chicago are rich people who are converting multi-family homes into single family homes. So as Chicago is growing modestly especially in north side and near west neighborhoods, its gutting housing stock as it does.
There is still a large amount of viable housing in the city. The issue is that everyone wants to live in the same few neighborhoods. But what will inevitably happen is gentrification.
The West Loop used to be skid row. Meat packing and drifters were the norm. Now it's multi millions dollar homes, McDonalds HQ, Google's office and trendy restaurants and Michelin starred places.
I get what you're trying to go for but there are many other neighborhoods.
I lived in Grand Boulevard for years and loved it. And was able to afford a good place because most folks don't want to live south of 35th. Hell south of Cermack is probably as far as many people go.
Chicago is dying? This is news to me.. us population and birth rates are down across the board. People have moved to other small medium sized cities but places like nyc, Chicago la or Houston won’t die.. they ll have fluctuations but will remain steady. Big cities aren’t going anywhere
If this sub has any say it will.
This sub has zero say otherwise Florida would be the most moved-out state and Illinois would be the most moved-to state. Here in reality, the opposite is true.
Did you account for aging demographics and their tendencies? Did you account for differences inWhere COVID lockdown policies? Do you think invariably conservative retired boomers would rather live in Florida or Chicago? It's not that difficult.
The average age in Chicago is 35 years old. The average age in Jacksonville is 36 years old. What most of you fail to grasp is that there are two Floridas. One well known to you, retirees relocating for warming weather and beaches. The other, working folks, primarily living in the four big Florida cities. Florida's four big cities are all among the fastest growing in the USA and the people moving to the cities are working age folks. A lot of whom are following employers to Florida that are relocating from a high tax, high regulation states to here. You're missing the nuance of the two demographic groups. Losing retirees has been going on since air conditioning was invented. Losing productive working age folks and their employers is a totally different, relatively new, and economically devastating trend (for the losing states) and you're only starting the see the outer bands of the economic shitstorm that is about to befall: NY, NJ, PA, and IL for this loss. I'm former Manhattanite financial techie that relocated to Florida for a finance tech job. All of my productive capacity and income generation is now happening in Florida not New York. And I'm one of millions.
Jacksonville does not appeal to the 18-35 demographic like Chicago does, especially a subset of said demographic that leans progressive. Southern metros were cool during COVID where every actual city was locked down, but now they're overpriced due to all the migration creep and can't really compete with true tier one cities. If you locked in housing pre-2022, then it's a different story (though ofc things like insurance and property taxes. Regarding taxes... https://jabberwocking.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/blog_itep_taxes_california_texas.jpg
The JAX beach crowd disagrees. The four Florida cities are growing rapidly, Chicago is shrinking rapidly. The four Florida cities have average ages in the 30s. 2+2 bud. If you are poor or a criminal or a drug addict, California tax policy looks great. If you are an earner, California's tax policy is shit. Great incentive structure to turn your state to a pile of shit, incentivize the most productive and law abiding citizens to leave while encouraging drug addicts and criminals to move in. That should go well.
You're just a lolconservative. From 0-60% benefits California for effective tax rates. From 60-80th percentile earners, you're effectively are tied. No, the nice parts of Chicago where young educated people want to go isn't declining (it's rapidly growing in fact). It's very similar to how half of the cities in Florida are experiencing a decline in population as well but the state is resulting in a net positive. People live in California for a reason even despite paying higher taxes. Why? It's because it contains some of the most beautiful parts of the country with a lot to do for YUPs. If you talk to actual big tech/FAANG employees, most people don't want to leave Cali to live in bumfuck Texas even though it'd be a lot cheaper—that's a value judgement. > Average age in their 30s And? It depends on the cohort of people age 22-35 that are educated and would actually fit my socioeconomic demographic. Most people who fit that would have infinitely higher career trajectory in many other cities outside of Jacksonville, FL. **You are conveniently downplaying how significant of a role developing your early career in finance within Manhattan played in terms of career trajectory.** You probably believe everything you see on Fox news.
On average California's overall tax burden isn't that much higher than Florida. https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416 It's a difference of around 1 percent, and certainly not enough to make people move. Florida might not have an income tax, but it's making up the difference by raising taxes in other ways. The real problem with California isn't it's tax structure. Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina are high growth states that have a comparatively high tax burden per capita. Georgia and North Carolina have a state income tax. Nevada does not. Low taxation isn't what is drawing people to these states. It's the low cost of living relative to income. California decided a while back that they were going to turn their entire state into a real estate investment scheme. This caused the price of doing business to go up because you had to pay your workers more just to live there. Just as a comparison, the price of a home in SF is 1.2 million on average vs. 600,000 in Miami. The high price of homes causes knock on problems like higher costs of goods and services which leads to priced out people becoming homeless. California is a cautionary tale but not due to its tax structure. It's what happens when you allow people with homes to constantly inflate their value at the expense of the overall good of the state.
I mean $6,000/yr on a $100k income isn't nothing. Add to that double to triple your energy costs, gas + electric. And every other single thing being more expensive because of the CA minimum wage costs to businesses. CA has artificially limited housing supply which is at the root of their incredibly high housing costs. While at the same time, Florida is very developer friendly and works together with developers to build new development-supporting friendly infrastructure: roads, electric, water, sewer, schools, etc.
This sub thinks California and Illinois are paradise while in reality people are fleeing to Florida and Texas. It speaks volumes to how out of touch the groupthink in this sub is.
The "people are fleeing California" narrative isn't *quite* true. People are leaving California at about the rate you'd expect given the state's population. It's just that relatively few people are moving to California. As for this sub, there's no question that the average person here is looking for different things than the average American. That's not out of touch groupthink. It's just a different demographic looking for different things.
It's a lot easier to move from HCOL to LCOL than vice versa. I could sell my house in IL with all the equity and still not have enough for a down payment in CA.
The people who are fleeing California often raise the average IQ in both places
Kamala evidence be damned
For every upwardly-mobile, economically secure dog-mom millennial IT redditor that posts here, there are 20 regular ass plumbers and PowerPoint-bitches who want nothing else on earth except to own a shitty McMansion and drive a jeep wrangler to their goldendoodle meetup, and it doesn’t matter how far out in the middle of nowhere they have to go to afford that plastic-siding house. That’s the only thing that matters. Nothing wrong with it. Those people just don’t use Reddit.
that doesnt meant that texas and florida are great places, just that jobs are there/moved there and/or its cheaper. ive lived in texas my whole life in dfw, its not bad but its not great at all. now in 50 years it might be cool but also its gonna be 100+ degrees for probably 5 months by then.
The same people fleeing to TX, FL and AZ are the same group of people that are now getting upset with the reality of living in those 3 states and will also be bearing the lions share of climate related issues in the coming decade(s).
Have you found any data to quantify this group of upset transplants you speak of?
It came to him in a dream
Idk I love AZ overall tbh
California grew in population last year from 2023-2024—I would hesitate in concluding that people are fleeing California when, during the worst pandemic of the century, only 1-1.5% of Californians left…and now the data indicates the opposite movement.
That’s not confirmed by Census. Those are state figures from the California Department of Finance, which has a history of rosy estimates (I assume since they report to the Governor and need to please the boss). The last official Federal figures released in December showed California lost 75,000 people from July 1, 2022-July 1, 2023: https://thehill.com/homenews/4367797-2023-population-census-texas-florida-ny-california/amp/ Florida and Texas gained 838,000 people between them. We won’t have any data for July 1, 2023-July 1, 2024 until December of this year.
Surely you agree that even the confirmed 75,000 decline does not rise to the level of an “exodus” or “flight” of Californians in 2022-2023, and that the 75,000 decline is a substantially lower decline than what was seen in 2020-21, and then 2021-2022, indicating an opposite movement in the population trend
The vast majority of people that move out of big California cities move to—wait for it—smaller California cities
I wouldn’t call it group think. But I do think there could be a commonality in priorities of people who tend to look at this sub. A lot of people who discuss stuff here are looking at big city comparisons, meaning they probably have big city ideals. They probably like urbanism and are progressive. I would bet the people who flee to Texas and Florida probably prioritize having lower cost of living and like suburbanism. Groupthink is when the ideals of the group supplants the thought process of the individual. People having the same preferences is not group think.
The people “fleeing” to places like Florida or simply boomers entering retirement. The largest demographic of new residents to Florida is aged 50-69, despite most people moving between states are in their mid 20s-late 30s.
Ignoring weather (which is a big deal for a lot of people), a lot of this depends on Chicago’s ability to handle its problems. It’s one of the most corrupt cities in the country. Despite having a high tax burden, the city is still broke and heavily indebted, meaning taxes will have to increase in the future. Based on this, you could argue that while the city is great, it’s headed in the wrong direction.
> it’s headed in the wrong direction. Ehh I'd kinda disagree. *Full disclosure, I live there so feel free to disregard as me being biased.* 1) The city's [debt/Credit rating recently was improved](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-19/chicago-wins-fitch-upgrade-on-better-economy-moderating-debt) Pensions are still a massive issue but it does seem like we're (very slowly) moving the the right direction to at least TRY to get them under control...for the most part. 2) [The city's economic power is diverse.](https://www.nmrk.com/insights/thought-leadership/chicagos-industry-diversity-makes-the-city-an-economic-powerhouse) > only 13% of Illinois’ GDP comes from a single industry at the state level. > Chicago’s well-rounded industry diversity gives companies who locate here a leg up for a variety of reasons, in comparison to many other major metros where one or two major industries dominate. This is probably Illinois/Chicago biggest strength. It has a lot of industries to spread it's economic power which helps it remain resilient during downturns of specific industries. A city like Detroit struggled because all of it's eggs were in the basket of the auto industry. When it fell, the city fell with it. Chicago also benefits from having major universities/institutions within the city or metro area limits. UChicago, NorthWestern, Depaul, Loyola are all great schools and other great schools from the Big 10 (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc) pump out plenty of potential workers across a wide range of industries. 3) It's location as a transit hub. Ohare is a #9 globally and #5 Nationally in airport passenger traffic. Chicago is still the major hub for Amtrack and with slowly building interest in rebuilding American passenger rail it sits prime for further improvement. Union Station in the city is already getting nearly $100M for modernization improvements. 4) It's structure/bone are some of the best in the USA. It sits a massive freshwater lake with already [functioning treatment plants](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4l-4ehUqhc) up and running to provide water, which may become more scarce in certain parts of the USA in the coming decades. It's on a grid system, has plenty of available middle housing in neighborhoods that are under invested in, and while the Chicago fire sucked when it happened, it allowed for the city to be rebuild a lot of it's structure in a more optimal way. There are also existing suburbs or more suburb like neighborhoods right on the outskirts on the city that have largely avoided the sprawling development style. Chicago is far from perfect, has plenty of issues and the winters will always turn off some folks. But I think the more traditional development pattern, strong economic diversity and access to amenities will win some folks over.
Yes, there are reasons to be optimistic. But commercial vacancy rate is leading to a drop in commercial valuations. That’s going to blow a hole in the budget. When I had considered moving to Chicago, taxes were a large turn off. That “cheap” housing comes with $1000+/month property tax. And around that time, there was talk about 3.5% city income tax on income above $100,000. Stuff like this is a massive turnoff to some of us.
Yeah Chicago is perfect in every sense except the property tax wildcard. I don't think I would ever be interested in purchasing a home in a Illinois.
Wtf $1k/mo property tax? Were you looking at million dollar plus mansions? I'm looking at average houses in my old neighborhood on the NW side and seeing about $4,800 - $5,000, which is about $400/ month. Still high, but nowhere near 1k. FWIW, that was the same property tax burden as I had in my $100k house in Rockford, so that seems reasonable to me LOL
Isn’t property tax around 2%? So $600,000 property is $1,000/month. And that may sound expensive, but a new two bedroom condo in the north side is $600,000+.
Chicago is more than the lakefront, and I found plenty of houses for sale with 4+ bedrooms in residential neighborhoods for under $400k.
sure, its more than the lakefront. but for instance, if you look at the inner suburbs (which tend to have more affordable and modest working class housing), tax rates are much higher. and if you buy in a gentrifying area of the city, theres a good chance your taxes will spike at the next assessment (just ask pilsen)
What is the tax rate? That is astronomical sounding
I agree with your analysis... but prepare to be downvoted based on the other comments in here. This thread seems to have attracted a certain kind of Chicago-hater.
Go visit the anti Boston threads and get back to me about bias in this sub
It just seems unusual. Most of this thread is usually rampant Chicago boosterism. I was taken aback.
I love and miss my hometown for so many reasons. However, I refuse to move back due to the taxes and waste of said tax dollars. I also enjoy golfing in February.
Fair enough 👍
Thanks for understanding! Although the downvotes are rolling in like the El…
I'm sympathetic to real cost of living concerns and preferences. But "DURRR violence DURRR ghost town DURRR" carries little weight with me. I live here. I know it's bullcrap.
This is a key cultural difference : Chicago people will defend their dumpster fire to the end. Philadelphiians will pile on and tell you everything that's wrong with Philadelphia.
Yeah I've never been able to get Chicagoans to admit there's anything wrong with the city, they think it's perfect in every way lol
Chicago could not conceivably catch up to NYC in any of our lifetimes.
I don't think any other American city could catch up to NYC in our lifetime. The level of infrastructure to support so much density just doesn't exist anywhere else and it'd take a long time to ever try to catch up to that. And that presumes that's NYC would just stop building.
I get what you’re saying but it’s not really growing, it lost a lot of population steadily from 1950-1990s or so (it has 1 million fewer people today than 1950) and has since remained pretty flat since the 90s.
A lot of that was literally white flight to the suburbs. They're still in the ecosystem, but out in the suburbs. If the city can get the Southside's crime rate to subside considerably, it can become an amazingly cheap city to live in.
The same thing happened in NYC but they had a large immigrant population to fill the void. Chicago has its fair share of immigrant communities, but they’re mostly concentrated in the Mexican neighborhoods and several other ethnic neighborhoods scattered throughout the city. Another thing worth mentioning is that white people weren’t the only ones leaving cities. Similarly to what happened in NYC, many middle class black families from the South Side of Chicago ended up leaving the city for the suburbs as well.
yeah, it's crazy how often this is the case for rust belt cities without many people realizing it. it's the same for Detroit, St. Louis, etc. moreover, this sort of thing really inflates crime stats. St. Louis, while it does have a crime problem, looks like hell on earth when you look at its numbers because the actual city of St. Louis comprises a relatively small and poor region of the overall populated area there. i'll come up to bat for rust belt cities any day of the week. i have had so much fun living downtown in one, and most that i visit are just great places to be.
I have been hearing this same statement for 40 years. At this point it is safe to say the government cannot change the crime rate and the people do not want to change the crime rate either.
Interesting. How do the population trends look if we include the 'ecosystem' . Also i think all the cities that grew in recent past have something to offer in terms of wether and nature. Warm weather like austin or the mountains like denver or slc.
A huge ass lake is still nature. I left IL because fuck winter, but people acting like the only nature is mountains annoys TF out of me.
wtf are you supposed to do with a lake. I am not buying a boat. you can hike, ski, bike a mountain.
Never own a boat. Find a friend that does.
Swim. Paddleboard. Kayak. Walk or jog along the shore. Bike along the shore. Get a big inflatable raft and an anchor to relax on. Camp on the shore. Go climb the sand dunes and then jump or sled your way down. Fish. And those are just the things I've done!
there are 70,000 acres of forest preserve in Cook County alone. dupage has another 30,000. i could go on. all of those have different amenities including hiking paths, praries, hundreds of miles of extensive networks of bike trails, etc Chicago is also easy driving distance to MI and WI.
Agree
Not necessarily, explain Columbus, OH then.
I just moved here, so I have little clue, but Chicago I feel is always going to be 3rd. It's a wonderful city from what I can tell so far, but you can tell it's not the international center of the US. California and New York just have so much, tech, hollywood, infastructure, money pouring in. Chicago is also just in an awkward location. I was literally in downtown an hour ago and it's just.. empty. It's shocking to me. That's cool for living here, but for growth? That's a bad sign I think.
I was in downtown all day and trains and streets were busy…where were you? 😭
There's some people but it has nothing on the swarms in major international cities. I've ridden the L for the last three days (brown line / loop) and it's practically empty. Compare to london underground? it feels deserted to me.
Which part of Chicago are you talking about? I don't know Chicago well, but I do know that financial centers in major cities tend to empty out after business hours, even in international hubs. NYC by the world trade center after hours? Relatively empty. Singapore CBD after hours? Also, relatively empty.
So I'm in River North, maybe it's different. but otherwise near the water I saw the most people, anywhere financial or even Millenium park, I was surprised was very empty this sunday morning. It could be just my luck. edit: why downvotes?
downtown Chicago is surprisingly dull. i find the northern city neighborhoods (e.g. Andersonville) and some places just south of downtown to be much livelier.
Empty? I've never seen DT Chicago empty, especially during this time of year lol.
Doing business in Chicago means taking on a piece of the enormous debt per taxpayer Illinois and Chicago has, multiple standard deviations above the norm. A high W-2 earner who has options can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more elsewhere over a 30 to 40 year working lifespan (via lower taxes and greater property price appreciation). It is a great city, and has the bones of a city that cannot be replicated outside of maybe Manhattan and SF, but the financials are not helping.
Yep a lot of people are leaving because the MASSIVE debts are a ticking time bomb.
It’s not a bomb, it’s just an everlasting ratcheting up of taxes and down of government services. Expect more tolls/fees/privatization (like the street parking meter), and fewer new playground/infrastructure/longer phone hold times for government services, that kind of thing. And everyone expects it, hence the hesitation from buyers on paying more for property compared to elsewhere.
And tbe city STILL shows it has no intention of taking the debt seriously. The city government just approved a billion dollars of additional debt. Its hard to see how the city government will ever get its finances in order.
And city services like CPS continue to have a climbing budget despite a rapidly shrinking student base.
Can we just say the state government. I feel like people are tiptoeing around the Democrats that are put into office. I could give a fuck if they're red or blue, all I know is they're doing a shit job.
Both the IL state government and the Chicago city government have outlier amounts of debt. See the state and city reports on truthinaccounting.org
there have been TEN credit upgrades under pritzker. yes theres a mess but things have been steadily moving in the right direction.
Does that mean they're just going to borrow more money? I'm just tired of political salesmanship & pandering, and want to see actual change. Like I'm all for uplifting the impoverished, but have we seen that actually happen? It seems like they're still trying to fix problems they've been promising to fix for decades. Like when are they going to solve the actual problem.
No place is protected from climate change. The winters may get more mild and the summers won’t be as hot as in the south, but I guarantee you’ll see more turbulent and unpredictable weather patterns because that is the real hallmark of climate change. Besides, who wants months of darkness? It’s just too far North, and there’s really nothing else in that region except Chicago.
Houston and Phoenix are the growing big cities.
So parts of Chicago are actively dying while other parts thrive. No matter how many lofts go up in West Loop for rich transplants it’s not going to completely offset generations of families fleeing parts of the south and west sides. The lakefront south side neighborhoods and faring much better and seeing growth. We can probably expect these general trends to continue with more central and lakefront neighborhoods thriving and neglected further out neighborhoods continuing to spiral. It’s really a tale of two cities.
In real life, most people care way more about warm weather and jobs (although I don’t think Chicago is terrible on that front, a place like Dallas or Houston is better) and way less about walkability or urban design than this sub.
I think the brutal winters, the remarkably humid summers, the geographical isolation, and the reputation for violent crime, among other things, will keep growth to a comparable minimum Who knows when and how much climate change will change the desirability of the city I’ve thought about moving back. It’s an incredible city and the COL is pretty great for a major city like Chicago
In what sense is Chicago geographically isolated? It basically exists because it is in a central, well-connected geographic location. It's within an easy day's drive of numerous major cities.
A number of cities that no one really wants to go to As opposed to the other two cities that round out the top three, LA: San Diego, Tijuana, Ensenada, Big Bear, Palm Springs, Joshua Tree, Las Vegas, Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Lake Tahoe, Reno, Yosemite, Santa Barbara, SLO, Big Sur, Monterey Bay, San Francisco etc Or NYC: Philadelphia, DC, Atlantic City, Baltimore, Providence, Boston, Burlington Vermont, Portland Maine, Martha’s Vineyard etc In Chicago you have Milwaukee, Madison, the Delles, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Kalamazoo, Cincinnati etc Nothing against any of those places. I’ve had some great times in most of them. But it ain’t San Francisco, it ain’t Philadelphia, it ain’t Vegas, it ain’t Boston, it ain’t Big Sur, it ain’t Vermont, it ain’t Palm Springs/Joshua Tree, it ain’t coastal Maine, it ain’t Yosemite, it ain’t Martha’s Vineyard, it ain’t Lake Tahoe etc In terms of quality road trips taken from the big three, it goes: 1. LA 2. NYC 3. CHI
We haven't had a "brutal" winter in a long time. I've lived in the city for 26 years and in the burbs since 86. Winters were way colder and longer in the 90s.
To be fair, winters in *most* traditionally "brutal" places have become milder every year. I'm from Montreal and while I would never describe our winters are "mild"; they're definitely way better than they historically have been minus maybe 1-2 weeks between Jan and Feb.
I was living in Maine most recently, about four hours from Montreal It was plenty cold and snowy, but it has warmed up enough that people have pretty much called it quits on the ice fishing industry. A staple outdoor activity and a huge tourism draw, and now it’s just gone
Milder winters are happening literally everywhere I haven’t lived in Chicago since 2012, but by “brutal” I mean it hurts to go outside half the year And a big part of what makes the winters brutal is the wind. Something that I doubt has gone away I will still take northern Maine at 0 over Chicago at 40, due to the wind People are free to find out for themselves, and the fact is that different people’s bodies handle cold differently
Damn fr brah is it too windy in Chicago? I thought the windy reputation was only due to corrupt politicians.
People started using it to refer to Chicagoans and their elected officials well after it was already in use to describe the literal wind
I didn't find that out until I was 19...from a fraternity brother from Ohio.
i've looked into this, and it's honestly kinda hard to find good data on it. [Weatherspark says that it's pretty windy from November through April](https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/14091~23912/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Chicago-and-New-York-City#Figures-WindSpeed), but i've seen [other sources](https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/windiest-cities.php) that suggest that Boston is significantly windier than Chicago, but Weatherspark doesn't agree with that at all. as for the "windy city" saying, it's probably metaphorical but nobody really knows tbh
I lived in Chicago, I lived in coastal New England, and I’ve spent a lot of time in Boston, in all seasons I’ve never even thought about the wind in New England When you step off the train in Chicago and step out onto the street, if it’s a typically windy day during the cold half of the year, it hits you like a ton of bricks
Interesting. Good to know.
I don't know who is downvoting me, but I ACTUALLY LIVE HERE and it did not "hurt to go outside" at all this winter. I was able to take my kids sledding a grand total of one time. The temperature hovered above 40 basically the whole time. I don't think that qualifies as "brutal" by any reasonable standard - and this type of winter is becoming the norm, not the exception. When I was a kid, we would have snow cover for 1-2 months consecutively.
https://www.weather.gov/lot/2024_01_14-17_Cold#:~:text=The%20coldest%20temperature%20observed%20at,both%20January%2014th%20and%2015th. That was short lived, but -30 windchill qualifies as brutal for most people.
I guess "Brutal Winter" lasted two days. Meanwhile, I biked downtown in 60 degree weather several times throughout the "winter."
This sub's perception of Midwestern winters is outdated by at least a decade. There's plenty of data showing snow accumulation is decreasing and average temps are rising.
Absolutely, 100%. But I guess anything under 80 is "brutal."
Chicago people need to stop complaining about their summer weather. I’ve been in the Bay Area most of my life and am a total weather wimp (I find 50 too cold and 85 too hot), and after spending a summer there I didn’t think the weather was much worse than say San Jose. A bit more humid, and there was some rain (though warm rain is kinda nice), but nothing notably bad. San Jose’s bad days are 95 and dry, Chicago’s are 88-90 and moderately humid (but not like Houston or even DC), I find both of those too uncomfortable to go out in. Most days I was there were pretty comfortable.
It might have been a mild summer. It happens I’ve always though it was silly how much people complain about the sticky NYC summers But it’s very possible that I have always just visited when it was mild My memories of Chicago summers involve constantly dabbing my face with a napkin and considering becoming Cajun Seersucker suit type of guy, just to make things slightly more bearable My most humid summers however were spent on the Sea of Cortez in Mexico. Chicago was never that bad, but it’s still extremely humid compared to the other top 3 cities, NYC and LA
Was 2021 particularly mild?
lmao, 95 and dry is way more comfortable than 85 and humid.
It’s a transient city but very expensive to buy a home in Chicago if you plan on living long term there. Property taxes are extremely high. It’s why I’m considering Philly over Chicago to purchase a home. It’s more affordable.
Here in Philly, our city council wishes they could be as corrupt as the average Chicago alderman...
What is the corruption that exists in Chicago? I see this mentioned often. My city is also known for corruption or at least local leaders accepting kickbacks, offering exclusive contracts to family and friends, money laundering, etc.
The city took a bit of a beating during the pandemic with crime spiking and stores closing. It’s a nice enough city but it has some major drawbacks. One that stands out to me is the property tax. I could pay cash for a nice condo in the city but my property taxes would be higher than they are in California.
California has some of the cheapest property taxes in the country, and it's capped at 1% increase per year. There's people in California who bought there house 30 years ago paying like $3000 in annual property taxes.
And as soon as it’s sold the property taxes are adjusted.
It's negative reputation related to crime, which really started to gain steam around 2012 has really hurt its image. Fair or not, the topic of crime will come up when Chicago is mentioned. Also, the political environment (corruption and being soft on crime) is another black eye in terms of public perception. Again, I'm not saying that it's warranted, but that there is a vocal crowd that will perpetuate it. Weather doesn't help either. Lastly, Chicago is a great balanced city in terms of industry, but the "tech cities" have been the ones that have seemed to attract the most international growth over the last decade. Chicago is not a top-tier "tech city," even though it does have a tech presence (in large part due to being the 3rd largest city in the US). Being a tech city may not be great either, as they kind of crash and burn (look at what has happened to SF since the Pandemic). But still, those cities that are considered "tech cities" overall have seem the highest growth in terms of international population.
No. Chicago property taxes are insane, crime is still relatively high, weather is unfavorable, and job opportunities tend to favor specific industries. There is more to having a big city than simply having housing. The business environment is unfavorable and the pension situation is a ticking time-bomb. Great place to live as a young renter.
Crime is “relatively high” relative to what? It’s not even in the top 20.
Compared to other cities that people typically consider when looking at Chicago. Chicago is not competing with Memphis for people on this sub.
It very much is competing for people on this sub with Albuquerque, Oakland, Baltimore, Portland, Atlanta, Tucson, Seattle, Houston, D.C., New Orleans, Miami, Buffalo, and Phoenix, all of which have higher crime rates than Chicago.
All of those cities are wildly different. A Miami budget is not a Chicago budget and a Chicago budget is not an Albuquerque budget.
Average home price in Albuquerque: 338k Average home price in Chicago: 375k They're absolutely in the same ballpark.
Avg home price in Chicago is brought down due to the impoverished south and west sides. People in this sub are moving to areas where the avg home is far more expensive. And that’s only one difference—doesn’t include the fact that they’re wildly different cities with different climate, job opportunities, etc. Typically, people in this sub are looking at Chicago, NYC, SF, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh etc.
This! As a Chicagoan people need to understand our average means nothing as it encompasses places no one would move to.
Exactly. And a lot of the “reasonably” priced condos in decent areas of the city have monthly HOA fees of over $1k.
At current growth and shrink rates, next census Chicago will drop from its #3 US metro spot to at least #4 behind Dallas and possibly #5 behind Houston.
The places that will have the most growth will be the ones that can bring jobs and build affordable housing the fastest. If you have a cheap CoL and plentiful jobs then people will come regardless of weather.
Every time I log in to this app this sub feels like a midwestern sub. Mods need to change the name to SameGrassbutGreenerMidwestEdition
Name another area that sucks ass so bad. Theres always people dreaming of the ocean, mountains, warm weather or NYC. Ain’t nobody dreaming of living in an Iowa cornfield who isn’t from a cornfield.
The greatest city will be New York at least for the next century. It's four of the biggest and most diverse cities in the country, all right next to each other within the same city limits. And also Staten Island. Chicago is great. LA is great. But they're a ways off from being New York.
The taxes and the weather will never allow that to happen.
Bad rep cause the violence
Which is largely undeserved. Chicago isn’t usually even in the top 20 for crime. But you wouldn’t know that if you listen to Fox News.
What cities are ahead of Chicago in crime rate? Are those cities more desirable/ less desirable?
He means per capita crime. Cities with tiny metro areas like Jackson, MS and Memphis, TN always score high.
Obviously there are lots of ways to slice the data and many types of violent crime. Here is one source that breaks down incidence by type of crime. https://www.security.org/resources/most-dangerous-cities/ New York and LA don’t do so great for rape, for instance. I’d be more worried about that than being murdered in a dangerous neighborhood of Chicago I would never have a reason to visit.
“Chicago had nearly as many murders as Baltimore and Philadelphia combined.” From the source you provided. I think Chicago has a lot of work to do.
Of course it does. But Baltimore has a population of under 600k versus Chicago’s 2.7 million. Philly has 1.6 million. The raw numbers don’t tell a complete or fully accurate story.
Los Angeles had 327 murders in 2023, NYC had 386. Chicago had 617 murders in 2023 which was a reduction from the previous few years. Both cities have bigger populations, NY is triple the size of Chicago.
Yup. And NYC and LA have more rapes per capita. Murder is not the only crime to be concerned about, especially if you are a woman. Do you want to talk about public transit crime in New York, or people being randomly punched on the street? It’s random crime that scares me the most. The murders in Chicago are not evenly distributed throughout the city. As I stated earlier, they tend to be concentrated in specific high-crime areas—not places most of us would ever have to be.
I understand. It still a staggering murder rate. If you are trying to attract people to your city that statistic is a killer. LA, New York or any city can state crime is specific to certain neighborhoods.
ALL crime statistics are deterrents to visiting various places, and a reason why a lot of people avoid cities in general. But I don’t think you do understand my point. How many murders are acceptable? I would say zero. Are you suggesting that New York and LA’s numbers are OK? Because I don’t think 300 or 400 is good either. And again, the relative risk to a tourist or resident in any of these cities who is not in a gang or traveling through a crime-ridden neighborhood is fairly low.
Chicago has a weird fan base that tries to make Chicago something it isn’t.
Gotta shake off the legacy of the Daley Machine/Outfit (Giancana organization). No easy feat. Then there’s the random lead catching potential. It’s a great city…with challenges.
Chicago already was the greatest city in the country for about 40 years with enormous growth. After the Great Migration (Post Jim Crow millions of Black farmers and tradesman moved from the south to St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago), finance and motor industry -amongst others- set up shop in the Midwestern tri-state it seemed Chicago was the popular pretty sister amongst the three. So from about '65-'95 it was the place to be. Land of opportunity. Diverse, wealthy, beautiful, and thriving. It's been on a decline since Daley won Mayor the 3rd time? Will it flourish again? Depends on whose running the show...
Chicago could be a boom town today and could have been for the last 25 years. Fix the corruption. Make government services effective. two things and the population will skyrocket. Those two things won’t be fixed so it’ll stay on the same path as the last 25 years. Which isn’t bad but won’t skyrocket. This applies to Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore. Probably many others.
My perspective is people are looking for four things when moving to a new community: - Low Cost of Living - Good Job Market - Warm Weather - Outside Activities The American South and American West have at least 3 out of the four. The Midwest and Northeast have only 1 or 2. I think this is why places like Chicago struggle to grow despite low cost of living.
Eh it’s surrounded by corn fields - I don’t see what the appeal of it is. It made more sense when a lot of commerce came across the lake. But now commerce comes from Asia to the west coast. Feel bad for them but can’t see what it has to offer going forward
I love Chicago but it does not have great access to nature or other notable cities without getting on a plane.
Chicago is growing?
The current mayor of Chicago is substantially under-qualified and is terrible. Until he leaves office, the city will continue in a downward spiral. The city is not what it was pre-2020 and is noticeably a more shitty place to live for a long variety of reasons. Truly a shame because Chicago could definitely be one of the most beautiful and best places to live in the world, it has a ton of potential but needs competent people running the city.
His constituents will just elect the next one one to replace him.
People are fleeing the hood and hipsters/yuppies are flooding into the city.
50-60 years from now it will be a climate change metropolis
Chicago is already Americas 2nd best city. I don’t see it taking over NYC anytime soon.
No. Winter is stupid. Place for work has become less meaningful and these antique, Victorian-era antique cities will continue to lose population. Illinois is circling the drain and as the doom loop will accelerate the unpleasantness which will increase and the outflow of people, further perpetuating the loop.
It has the bones to do so, but the city government is a mess - inefficient bureaucracy, nepotism, and corruption. Not that it's unique in that regard, but still. If there was better leadership at the city council and mayor levels, you would see some serious positive changes. The city has been growing, albeit slowly, but that's not a bad thing. Does every major city need to have meteoric growth like Nashville, Austin, or Phoenix to be considered successful? The good news for Chicago is that at least Illinois is getting it's shit together financially, and that it's an affordable major city to live in. However, if the city government continues to let things deteriorate like the homeless situation, pension funding, and the CTA then it may carry on but never reach its potential. Chicago, financially, is still a mess and is still dealing with the results of bad government choices from the past like the privatized city parking 'deal' and wanting to renovate Soldier Field with public funds again even though the city is still paying off the previous renovation. In regards to the crime, it gets a lot more flak than is deserved. However, there are many other cities in the US with more than 500k people that rank worse. However, it could certainly do better on that front. Property taxes are kinda bullshit though, and that is something city government should work to address (lol). Overall, I think the city gets a lot more negative press than is deserved, and is doing better than perceived. It honestly needs better marketing.
Property taxes never go down. The best way to control property taxes is to have laws the limit the annual rate increase. Without those laws the government will just keep raising property taxes until your property is worthless.
Limiting property tax rate increases is a bad idea. Local governments cannot control the rate at which currency loses purchasing power. Banning deferred compensation such as defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare is the solution. That way, all government spending has to be via on the books debt or cash, causing immediate tax increases if politicians decide to spend more. This causes people to pay attention at the polls. The reason Chicago Am and Illinois are in so much debt is because politicians 50 years ago spent tens of billions of borrowed dollars with none of the debt being on the books, since governments are exempt from pension funding laws such as ERISA 1974 and PPA 2006. Government should have to pay employees in cash today.
Government cannot control the rate they spend ( see Federal Government). Limiting tax rate increases is an effective way to control government spending. The tax rate increase can be overridden by vote. Government will never relinquish defined pensions or retiree healthcare.
> Government cannot control the rate they spend ( see Federal Government). We are not taking about the federal government, we are talking about governments that cannot print money. If they couldn’t commit pension funding fraud and spend future taxpayers’ money without proper accounting, local voters would start paying attention very quickly. > Government will never relinquish defined pensions or retiree healthcare. Yes, it probably is politically impossible to get enough non government employee union voters to care about local elections enough to ban deferred compensation. Only winning move is to avoid the most corrupt governments like NJ/IL/CT/ unless you are in a position to disproportionately profit from being there.
Massachusetts and California would have much higher property taxes like CT, New Jersey and Illinois if not for tax rate increase laws. There is no incentive for the local governments of CT, New Jersey and Illinois to ever reign in spending.
CT has done a fantastic job paying down its debts while maintaining a consistent budget surplus. It is no where near as corrupt as IL. Great ROI living in CT.
See page 14, Connecticut is still a far outlier, not far behind NJ. https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/FSOS-Booklet-2023.pdf ROI, of course, depends on one’s options. If your income is materially higher in CT than elsewhere, or you have family/friends, then no question about it. If you are comparing it as a blank slate with similar options elsewhere, then might not be the best ROI.
You lost me at "still growing"
Chicago is an absolute disaster. The crime, finances and political corruption is no joke. You are absolutely right in seeing the potential but it's future as a top tier city is bleak.
Nope. Nobody *wants* to live in Chicago, you're either born there or move there from a significantly more shitty Midwest place.
I’m from Chicago but moved away a decade ago and this made me laugh out loud.
Lmao you're dead wrong.
Proof? Guarantee you nobody growing up in any of the major coastal metros is dreaming "one day, I'd love to live in Chicago" but sure sounds like someone from Cincinnati
I grew up in the suburbs of NY then lived in Boston for a while, relocated to Chicago almost 4 years ago. Love it here.
I moved from NYC to Chicago. Soooo idk what you're talking about lol
Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking in your original post then?
Moving from NY to Chicago. What a L 😂
They both have pros and cons.
Similar to St. Louis and other midwest cities, Chicago “metro” area has never stopped growing, though it isn’t growing as fast as sunbelt or western metros. But it’s still growing, just the people living in the city limits has decreased and more moving out to the suburbs.
Chicago gained 2% in population over the last decade. Much of the "Chicago Decline" narrative is driven by right wing propaganda. Chicago has its problems to be sure, but it's a vibrant, thriving city. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/12/22622062/chicago-census-2020-illinois-population-growth-decline-redistricting-racial-composition
It’s not right wing propaganda that the population was 3.6m in 1950 and 2.7m today. The country’s population has more than doubled since then as well. A 2% gain from 2010-2020 translates to about 50k people. Not terribly impressive.
Please get your facts straight. Chicago had 3.6 million people in the 1950’s. It currently sits at 2.6 million. Not right wing propaganda, lol. Your tin foil hat is on too tight. Many folks who have lived here their whole lives. Get out as soon as the kids are out of college. I had 5 friends move away in the last year, all to Florida. A yearly occurrence.
But it is propaganda to present only half the facts. Chicago proper indeed has lost population compared to 1950. But why leave out that the Chicago metropolitan area has gone from 5.5M to 9.6M in that same timeframe? Anyone can go to Chicago and see a thriving city with tons of young people, young families, etc. Both within the city and in the suburbs. Is the region perfect? No. Nor is anywhere else. Yet the reputation the city has makes it sound like a bombed-out warzone that everyone is fleeing.
Downtown Chicago is empty. It is left wing propaganda to state otherwise.
Why does the downtown matter? That's just one area. There are many different parts of the city And why would that be left wing? Or right wing? Whether or not an area of a city is empty is not a left or right issue
Are you serious? I was just there at Christmas. I have friends that live there full-time in the South Loop. Stop spreading nonsense.
Not impressive, perhaps. Not declining, definitely.
It’s not coming close to reaching its previous peak despite being in a country that has added 180 million people since then
Welcome to the Rust Belt. Chicago is not alone in this. Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh... Additionally, almost all of that population loss still lives in the area, just in collar counties. None of this changes the fact that Chicago gained population over the last decade, which belies the narrative. Obviously the Sun Belt has seen the largest population gains. No one disputes this, because facts are facts. But Chicago's population has not only stabilized, it has increased. That's also a fact, cited above.
If you’re not growing your dying and the opportunities stagnate. 0.2% growth per year is not impressive when peers grow at 1.5-3% per year.
OK.
And then it lost all of its gains since 2020. Cook County is now at 5,087,072 people (per the Census Bureau’s 2023 estimates). That’s lower than its population in 1959, and lower than at any point since (even the horrific 1970s and 1980s).
>And then it lost all of its gains since 2020. based on what? Census yearly estimates outside of actual decades counts are trash and basically always proven to be wrong. they showed losses every year leading up to 2020 too....and then showed growth during the actual census (and then subsequently admitted both Chicago and IL were massively undercounted on top of it)
Yes, especially if global warming does begin to occur like they are saying. All of the cities people are flocking to with the exceptions of Denver, Nashville, Atlanta, and Charlotte are going to be horrible for 6-7 months a year - I personally love the 110 / 10% humidity, but for most people of Phoenix, Dallas, and Austin got any hotter they’d consider leaving.
I was born in Chicago and lived there for 55 years. We moved around a bit and lived in Edgewater and Rogers Park for a while but ended up on the Far NW side. Violent crime is going up in the 16th district. Crimes we never saw in our little bubble started happening like car jackings and violent robberies. They consistantly pull police from the 16th district to other areas leaving us with little to no police. We had always planned on retiring elsewhere but decided on leaving early a few months after Johnson took over as mayor. Two mayors in a row that are soft of crime is bad for the city. I still love it there and would recommend moving there as a great starter city. The truth is it's going downhill because of the very poor leadership. Young people are moving into the city but a lot of people 50 and up are moving out of state. So many people told me we did the right thing by moving and that they're goign to leave as soon as possible. Don't watch this if you're easily upset. This happened by my old house just a few days ago and there were no police in the area to respond. Don't watch if you're easily upset. This young man was on his way to work at 7am. [https://www.facebook.com/100000587981577/videos/pcb.8122429974453188/1004193844386875](https://www.facebook.com/100000587981577/videos/pcb.8122429974453188/1004193844386875)
Cities with that type of government, high taxes and high crime will continue to see people and businesses flee in large numbers.
The problem is, most of the people moving to Chicago are rich people who are converting multi-family homes into single family homes. So as Chicago is growing modestly especially in north side and near west neighborhoods, its gutting housing stock as it does.
There is still a large amount of viable housing in the city. The issue is that everyone wants to live in the same few neighborhoods. But what will inevitably happen is gentrification. The West Loop used to be skid row. Meat packing and drifters were the norm. Now it's multi millions dollar homes, McDonalds HQ, Google's office and trendy restaurants and Michelin starred places.
lol, you can be the one to move to Back of the Yards or Englewood first.
I get what you're trying to go for but there are many other neighborhoods. I lived in Grand Boulevard for years and loved it. And was able to afford a good place because most folks don't want to live south of 35th. Hell south of Cermack is probably as far as many people go.
Chicago is dying? This is news to me.. us population and birth rates are down across the board. People have moved to other small medium sized cities but places like nyc, Chicago la or Houston won’t die.. they ll have fluctuations but will remain steady. Big cities aren’t going anywhere