Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the laugh Tex, that's a real hoot. ! It ain't country if it isn't a SR or CR -- kinda like Dallas. If it ain't FTM it ain't country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
I do agree that Chicago does not embrace its "country" roots. If it did there would be a great nightlife district with great steakhouses and barbecue joints around the vicinity of 35th street just west of the Dan Ryan.
I don't really have any interest in Edsg's Chicago triumphalism, .
i'm not sure where the "triumphalism" came from. I don't think in any way that I suggested that Chicago is a "greater" city than New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles, among others. In fact, I don't think it is.
What I said is that Chicago tends to dominate its region unlike any other city. Does that take anything away from StL, Mlw, Det, M/SP, Cle, Cin, etc. No. Not at all. But none of those cities is of the size and scope of Chicago. None would be looked at as "the major city" in the Midcontinent.
In other parts of the nation, no city occupies that role. Perhaps it because there are far more "great cities" nearer the coast than the interior.
I mean, look, jdiddy, for all its greatness, NYC shares a region with cities the likes of Washington and Boston. Washington alone is a great power base. In that sense, isn't a New Yorker more fortunate than a Chicagoan because of proximity.
Same thing in California. Los Angeles and San Francisco vie as the major cities of that state and its region. If you could miraculously move Chicago west and place it midcoast, between the two, say in Big Sur, than California would have three, not two, major cities going head to head in dominating their region. Wouldn't I have to be a total idiot if I were to suggest that neither LA or SF measure up to Chicago?
If Chicago were in the South, it would be up against some pretty major power bases of their own in the form of Miami, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas.
Where on earth did you get the idea that this was Chicago "triumpalism" and if you disagree with what I said (which is your perogative), please tell me which city in the midwest did I miss out on being at the level of Chicago in the region? Which one could be discussed in terms of global cities like Chicago can be?
I love midwestern cities. I think they have so much to offer. Yet, to tell you the truth, I'd be hard pressed to put any of them in the category of New York, Boston, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
And I'd even have a hard time saying any of them would be in the class of Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, or Seattle, although if any of them could be, it would be Minneapolis/St. Paul.
But so what? Minneapolis has arguably the best quality of life of any major city in the nation (just like you could make a similiar argument in mid-sized cities about Madison which is arguably the highest quality of life of any city in the US). St. Louis drips with 18th century history and charm (history stuck there better than in Chicago, just like it did in Boston more so than New York) and its wonderful blend of north and south, east and west. The vistas and views from the hills of Cincinnati are unmatched by any midwestern city. And Cleveland has managed to keep the authenticity and the best parts of its "grittiness" like no other city, to its credit.
And how about our neighbors to the north, Milwaukee, lack Chicago's incredible diversity and offerings, but theirs is a saner, more manageable metropolitan area. What Milwaukee has to offer is very good and accessing it is a breeze compared to the nightmere of the same in Chicago (and, of course, New York).
Yes, I love Chicago. But I take exception about me being the "homer" you accuse me of.
This is just a casual observation. But it is prominent enough to topic. There seems to be an inordinate amount of berating by so many Chicagoans toward the states of Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, etc. The most oddball relationship is with Wisconsin. MOD EDItT Realize there are those thousands of people originally FROM Wisconsin or even still live there who help Chicago's or Illinois' struggling economy too, and often every single day, not just on weekends in summer!
This is true of many states and cities not just Chicago. Nyc does the same with Jersey,Boston and vice versa.
I do agree that Chicago does not embrace its "country" roots. If it did there would be a great nightlife district with great steakhouses and barbecue joints around the vicinity of 35th street just west of the Dan Ryan.
Hilarious and true. Chicago embracing it's "country roots", ridiculous. Not even gonna touch that one.
I don't really have any interest in Edsg's Chicago triumphalism, but Chicago is still a city with the Roman goddess of grain looking down upon its central business district. I'd say Chicago, due its history of meatpacking among the blue-collar set and agricultural commodity trading among the white-collar set relates/celebrates its rural neighbors about as much as one could expect for a city its size.
If it didn't embrace the 'country' roots, you wouldn't have half of University of Iowa's student population coming from Chicagoland.
I was born and raised in Iowa City and went to school there. Iowa City is the most un-country and anti-country thing in Iowa. There's a reason everyone in Iowa says "There's Iowa, and then there's Iowa City". I'm not saying it isn't Midwest or middle America, but it sure's hell isn't somewhere you're going to go to get in touch with your country roots. One reason for that is because such a large part of the city is students from Chicago. Chicagoland students go there because: 1) it's close enough you can get back within 3 hours, but still far enough away that you're not tethered to home 2) it's a party school with a good rep 3) it's still quite cheap even for out of state tuition 4) it has fairly decent law, medical and business schools. Three areas that are strong points of the Chicago metro within its region.
After living in Iowa for 22 years and then moving to Chicago, there is nothing "country" about Chicago or its suburbs compared to the rest of the Midwest.
I'm not saying that trying to distance myself from country at all or thinking its bad. I grew up surrounded by it and it has a ton of good qualities and is a very positive environment to be raised - but Chicago is certainly not "country". Many times I wish it had some of those qualities.
Last edited by Chicago60614; 11-12-2011 at 02:05 AM..
I was born and raised in Iowa City and went to school there. Iowa City is the most un-country and anti-country thing in Iowa. There's a reason everyone in Iowa says "There's Iowa, and then there's Iowa City". I'm not saying it isn't Midwest or middle America, but it sure's hell isn't somewhere you're going to go to get in touch with your country roots. One reason for that is because such a large part of the city is students from Chicago. Chicagoland students go there because: 1) it's close enough you can get back within 3 hours, but still far enough away that you're not tethered to home 2) it's a party school with a good rep 3) it's still quite cheap even for out of state tuition 4) it has fairly decent law, medical and business schools. Three areas that are strong points of the Chicago metro within its region.
After living in Iowa for 22 years and then moving to Chicago, there is nothing "country" about Chicago or its suburbs compared to the rest of the Midwest.
I'm not saying that trying to distance myself from country at all or thinking its bad. I grew up surrounded by it and it has a ton of good qualities and is a very positive environment to be raised - but Chicago is certainly not "country". Many times I wish it had some of those qualities.
Iowa City being the very kind of place that proves Chicago area folks relate very well to our surrounding states. Thousands and thousands of Chicago area Hawkeye alums will gladly sing the praises of Iowa City, a place with an incredibly close relationship with Chicago. Your description of IC is spot on.
Quote:
I grew up surrounded by it and it has a ton of good qualities and is a very positive environment to be raised - but Chicago is certainly not "country". Many times I wish it had some of those qualities
You find a way of moving the Amanas next to Woodfield or putting the Coralville Dam on the North Shore, I'm all with you.
Haha, there is nothing country about chicago at all.. so funny. Look, other major cities do the same thing. It isn't a Chicago thing, it's a major global city thing. Chicago is the only one in the midwest, it's 2-3x larger than the next city within 800 miles or something. Personally as somebody NOT from the midwest, I wouldn't move to the other cities of the midwest. I wouldn't move to Cleveland or Omaha, just like I wouldn't move to Baltimore or Syracuse. I'd move to NYC on the east coast.
It just goes with the territory. And honestly the other cities in the midwest do not offer the city life I was looking for. I am somebody who moved to Chicago FOR Chicago, not for a job. I had better job offers elsewhere actually when I graduated. There are many other people who do the same thing.
Haha, there is nothing country about chicago at all.. so funny. Look, other major cities do the same thing. It isn't a Chicago thing, it's a major global city thing. Chicago is the only one in the midwest, it's 2-3x larger than the next city within 800 miles or something. Personally as somebody NOT from the midwest, I wouldn't move to the other cities of the midwest. I wouldn't move to Cleveland or Omaha, just like I wouldn't move to Baltimore or Syracuse. I'd move to NYC on the east coast.
It just goes with the territory. And honestly the other cities in the midwest do not offer the city life I was looking for. I am somebody who moved to Chicago FOR Chicago, not for a job. I had better job offers elsewhere actually when I graduated. There are many other people who do the same thing.
conceptually things have changed a lot. there was a time (pre-1950) when we tended to look at our US cities in terms of New York being the greatest by far and the others sort of sharing the same urban backgrounds.
But the post-1950 era saw the rise of the concept of "global cities". In that sense, cities like Chicago and LA (and arguably San Francisco, Washington, and Boston) joined New York in the sense that they differentiated themselves from other cities in the nation they once were more alike, but ones that were unable to reach that global status, often clinging to the remnants of their industrial past.
I'd say up to the mid-century, Chicago was unquestionably "The City" in the midwest, but did not distinguish itself from places like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis like it did in the last 50 or so years.
conceptually things have changed a lot. there was a time (pre-1950) when we tended to look at our US cities in terms of New York being the greatest by far and the others sort of sharing the same urban backgrounds.
But the post-1950 era saw the rise of the concept of "global cities". In that sense, cities like Chicago and LA (and arguably San Francisco, Washington, and Boston) joined New York in the sense that they differentiated themselves from other cities in the nation they once were more alike, but ones that were unable to reach that global status, often clinging to the remnants of their industrial past.
I'd say up to the mid-century, Chicago was unquestionably "The City" in the midwest, but did not distinguish itself from places like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis like it did in the last 50 or so years.
I'm not sure if it is Chicago setting itself apart so much, more so than the general decline esp in terms of the city itself of places like Detroit or Cleveland. For somebody looking for life in the city, Detroit is just not a desirable place, though I know the suburbs there are certainly good.
But I think Chicago has always been on that "world city" and huge immigrant hub ..good things happen there ever since the Columbian Exposition. Chicago was also the #2 city in size in the U.S. for about 100 year run. I think since the 80s Chicago has positioned itself as a global center though, and not as just a giant midwestern city.
There are amenities and opportunities that exist in Chicago that just don't exist in the other Midwestern locales. Now, there might be Chicagoland folks who don't care for this but, it doesn't mean people won't keep coming to Chicago instead of Cleveland for these things.
Chicago is going to offer amenities that you won't find in other Midwestern cities, it is the biggest Midwestern city after all. But there are also things in other Midwestern cities that Chicago doesn't come close to offering as well. Indeed, it wasn't so much that Chicago rose heads and tails above the others, I think mostly that other Midwestern cities declined more rapidly. Before the last 50 years, aside from size the overall urban difference between these cities was small. Cleveland was the only other Midwestern city with heavy rail, Euclid Avenue was equally wealthy and renowned as Michigan Avenue, the site of the Great Lakes exposition, even 50 years ago Cleveland's Terminal Tower stood taller than any building outside New York despite Chicago being the home of the skyscraper. Cleveland's arts and cultural institutions dominated along with Chicago. Back then Cleveland and Detroit were just as much world class cities as Chicago despite always being about 4x and 2x smaller in size. In terms of urbanity Chicago has not always been leaps and bounds ahead of the other Midwestern cities, they were all at one point not too much better than the other. Possibly it's how the Midwestern 'family ties to a local region' came into play. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, because were all equally great cities contending with each other, it's easy to see that what specifically kept people bound to these cities were the strong communities each city formed. It probably wasn't because 'one city had a rail system and a shopping district and a waterfront and the other ones didn't'.
I believe that Chicago's strength over the others has always been that it had a more diversified economy, so in that sense it was always probably more of a global city, not so much in terms of urbanity. When the other cities' one-industry economies collapsed and struggled to find footing again Chicago was still standing strong. It continued to build more skyscrapers, build on more tourism, have more revitalized neighborhoods. These things are only just now beginning to trend in the other Midwestern cities. I lived in Chicago for a little while, I did often witness Chicagoans berating other Midwestern states and cities and found it silly since they all rose from almost the same bones. My family is from Cleveland so it always came off condescending to me. Chicago faces the same roadblocks the other cities face (poverty, high crime, abysmal school systems), it was never immune from them. I've heard several Chicagoans criticize Detroit and Cleveland for their school graduation rates while glossing over Chicago schools' equally abysmal graduation rates. IMO the difference was Chicago was footed and built well enough to step over these blocks while cities like Detroit and Cleveland continued to trip over them. You know, 'city of big shoulders' and everything.
Last edited by RioDominicana; 11-12-2011 at 02:13 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
! It ain't country if it isn't a SR or CR -- kinda like Dallas. If it ain't FTM it ain't country. 
