The Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University recently published this overview of the “socioeconomic factors affecting demand for housing in Chicago.”

Here is the change in population in the City of Chicago from 1950 to 2016:

And here is a comparison between Chicago and the five biggest cities in the US. Note the “sun and sprawl” phenomenon. Also note that the list below is for city proper boundaries.

One particularly interesting set of stats is the decline of children (population under the age of 18) in the city:

Since 2010, the city has lost over 40,000 children and teenagers. 

But, if you break it down by neighborhood market type, it is the low-cost and moderate-cost neighborhoods that lost the population. The high-cost neighborhoods were up.

The study posits that the old trend of moving to the suburbs after you have kids may not be for everyone – provided, of course, that you have the means. And it goes beyond Chicago. DC is predicting a 25% increase in K-12 students within the District.

For the rest of the charts, click here.

Houston doesn’t often get a lot of love in urbanist circles.

Though since Ed Glaeser published Triumph of the City and declared Houston’s unfettered sprawl the secret sauce for housing affordability, it is now frequently held up as the shining example of why housing supply matters.

But this is a hotly debated topic. 

Ed Glaeser would argue that increased supply is the key to housing affordability. But Richard Florida would likely be quick to point out that Houston is also one of the most unequal and segregated cities in America. It is not the model we should be following.

But let’s be positive today on the blog.

At the bottom of this post is a great talk by Stephen Klineberg called: Houston, The Global City. Klineberg is a Professor of Sociology at Rice University and the founder of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research.

In this hour long talk, he outlines, among other things, the remarkable transformation of Houston from a one-industry town (oil) comprised predominantly of white people to a mixed economy where every major ethnicity is now a minority.

He also argues that Houston is at the forefront of the demographic shifts happening all across the country and that, without this inflow of immigrants over the past couple of decades, Houston today would probably look a lot like a decaying rustbelt city.

It’s a good watch.

If you can’t see the video below, click here.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJdWYXIr_qE?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

What’s happening in Houston right now is devastating. Ian Bogost of The Atlantic is calling the flood a “disaster of biblical proportions.” Harvey has unloaded 9 trillion gallons of water.

It is once again reminding us of the importance of resiliency when it comes to our cities.

One emerging argument is that this is an almost inevitable outcome for Houston, brought on by the multiplicative effects of climate change, unfettered urban sprawl, and poor design decisions.

The barriers to development are famously low in Houston, which allows the city to quickly add housing and people. There are many benefits to this. 

But it also means that there has been, among other things, a dramatic increase in the amount of impervious surface.

This matters because impervious surface creates runoff.

According to The Texas Tribune, impervious surface in Harris County (third most populous county in the U.S.) increased by 25% between 1996 and 2011. 

And it replaced things like the below prairie grass (switchgrass), which are highly absorbent as a result of their deep root system. 

But much like climate change, not everyone believes this is to be blamed. 

For more on this, check out The Texas Tribune’s full interactive piece. It’s called “Boomtown, Flood Town” and it’s worth a read.

Image from The Texas Tribune