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.
• Marshall Field’s was Marshall Field’s and not Macy’s and it and Carson Pirie Scott were locally owned and both graced State Street (where they lavished money on their stores and had a strong relationship with the city and might both still be in operation today if they had stayed themselves)?
• When First National Bank of Chicago and Continental Illinois anchored the financial district and were atune to the city’s and the region’s needs?
• When local journalism was strong and Chicago had 4 or more local newspapers, not competing with the likes of USA Today? When journalism was journalism and newspapers told what had to be told in detail, not in cyber bits?
• When local restaurants like Henrici’s, Algauers, Fritzels, the Pump Room (non-LEYE version), etc., ruled the dining scene,not national chains, identical in every city?
• When quirky, personality filled Riverview stood, not some generic Great America?
• When hotels like the Drake and Palmer House were real Chicago institutions, locally owned, not some Hilton?
• When Wrigley Field was the model for other ballparks around the nation with its own individual personality and designed for the fan and not for high rollers in the luxury suites, a time when Chicago had a similiar ballpark, Comiskey Park, on the South Side?
• When grand movie palaces like the Chicago, the State Lake, the Granada, the Uptown, etc., stood and awed their customers....and people dressed up to go to the Chicago, the State Lake, and other downtown movie palaces?
• When what made Chicago tick was far more local than national and certainly international and Chicago, like other great cities, were more about being themselves than in sharing endless and monotinous, and crassy multinational and corporate?
Most readers here probably weren't alive when the things you describe or ask about were in existence or they weren't in Chicago to experience them. Rather than live in the past I prefer to do so in the present, and look forward to the future. Chicago is what it is. Today.
• Marshall Field’s was Marshall Field’s and not Macy’s and it and Carson Pirie Scott were locally owned and both graced State Street (where they lavished money on their stores and had a strong relationship with the city and might both still be in operation today if they had stayed themselves)?
• When First National Bank of Chicago and Continental Illinois anchored the financial district and were atune to the city’s and the region’s needs?
• When local journalism was strong and Chicago had 4 or more local newspapers, not competing with the likes of USA Today? When journalism was journalism and newspapers told what had to be told in detail, not in cyber bits?
• When local restaurants like Henrici’s, Algauers, Fritzels, the Pump Room (non-LEYE version), etc., ruled the dining scene,not national chains, identical in every city?
• When quirky, personality filled Riverview stood, not some generic Great America?
• When hotels like the Drake and Palmer House were real Chicago institutions, locally owned, not some Hilton?
• When Wrigley Field was the model for other ballparks around the nation with its own individual personality and designed for the fan and not for high rollers in the luxury suites, a time when Chicago had a similiar ballpark, Comiskey Park, on the South Side?
• When grand movie palaces like the Chicago, the State Lake, the Granada, the Uptown, etc., stood and awed their customers....and people dressed up to go to the Chicago, the State Lake, and other downtown movie palaces?
• When what made Chicago tick was far more local than national and certainly international and Chicago, like other great cities, were more about being themselves than in sharing endless and monotinous, and crassy multinational and corporate?
I certainly sympathize with much of what you said even though I wasn't alive when some of those things were around. That being said this is a phenomenon well beyond Chicago, American life nearly everywhere is just much more homogeneous than in the past. The good news is though that as homogeneous Chicago is today compared to the past it and other large urban cities still have much more of a sense of unique identity than most of America. I think it is mass suburbanization that has homogenized American both rural and urban life and the fact that most major metropolitan areas are suburban majorities now that also has a homogenizing effect on the city as well. The best anyone can do is just keep promoting and individualistic lifestyle that I think is easier to practice in the city and try to teach newcomers to Chicago the virtues of it and how it is superior to the homogenized lifestyles many came from and are used to.
• Marshall Field’s was Marshall Field’s and not Macy’s and it and Carson Pirie Scott were locally owned and both graced State Street (where they lavished money on their stores and had a strong relationship with the city and might both still be in operation today if they had stayed themselves)?
Yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When First National Bank of Chicago and Continental Illinois anchored the financial district and were atune to the city’s and the region’s needs?
Not sure it made that much difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When local journalism was strong and Chicago had 4 or more local newspapers, not competing with the likes of USA Today? When journalism was journalism and newspapers told what had to be told in detail, not in cyber bits?
Chicago still has more than 4 local news sources, some of which still do hard-hitting reporting (and, to be fair, "back in the day," news was just as much about selling papers as it is now, so it wasn't quite as golden as some would have us believe).
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When local restaurants like Henrici’s, Algauers, Fritzels, the Pump Room (non-LEYE version), etc., ruled the dining scene,not national chains, identical in every city?
National chains don't "rule the city" now. I think this is actually Chicago's Golden Age when it comes to dining out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When quirky, personality filled Riverview stood, not some generic Great America?
Oh, yeah, losing an amusement park with a game "affectionately" called "Dunk the Nig**r" and the site of racial fighting is a huge loss for Chicago ... /sarcasm
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When hotels like the Drake and Palmer House were real Chicago institutions, locally owned, not some Hilton?
Yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When Wrigley Field was the model for other ballparks around the nation with its own individual personality and designed for the fan and not for high rollers in the luxury suites, a time when Chicago had a similiar ballpark, Comiskey Park, on the South Side?
Wrigley is still a model for other parks, and still designed for the fan compared to a lot of other places. And while I never saw the original Comiskey, the new one is pretty decent after the renovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When grand movie palaces like the Chicago, the State Lake, the Granada, the Uptown, etc., stood and awed their customers....and people dressed up to go to the Chicago, the State Lake, and other downtown movie palaces?
The movie palaces declined because the movie industry expanded. I like having more movies, so personally, on the balance, I am glad there are more movies even if it was at the cost of losing (some of) the grand old palaces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
• When what made Chicago tick was far more local than national and certainly international and Chicago, like other great cities, were more about being themselves than in sharing endless and monotinous, and crassy multinational and corporate?
I'm not sure that era actually ever existed on a city-wide scale.
Most readers here probably weren't alive when the things you describe or ask about were in existence or they weren't in Chicago to experience them. Rather than live in the past I prefer to do so in the present, and look forward to the future. Chicago is what it is. Today.
go, i fully understand your post here. and, yes, i did write about things i remember. and, of course, i did state it seemingly nostalgic terms.
but i do believe in progress and things changing. that's how it should be. my intent, however, was not to necessarily glorify the things I mentioned, but to tie their existence into being local.
It's not the change I lament, but that so much of what we are comes from outside of us (whether we're talking about Chicago or any city) and we lose a lot when we lose the local.
so much of our city and frankly the vast, vast majority of our suburbs could be Anywhere's Ville, USA. That's the part I find disturbing.
Back when Field's and Carsons ruled State Street, they were tied to the fabric of Chicago and they were uniquely Chicago. If you look at Field's in particular, the remarkable Chicago institution it was, first it lost its independent status to a series of chains that ran it generically and then eventually a decision with little thought pulled the plug and turned it into Macy's.
That, to me, is the poster child of change-from-local-to-nation-or-international. We no longer control our own landscape. That's the part I lament. And I think we suffer from the loss of richness and difference in places that now are more and more homogenized.
I grew up with ALL of what you mentioned. So I'd give a resounding YES to all the above. Although I still come to visit the area from time to time, my mother is going on 92 so who knows. I won't have any reason to come back when she's gone. it "was" a great place to grow up. I grew up in a neighborhood that is to those who grew up there (The Manor) a virtual fantasy memory which was an example of the way life was back in the 50's and early 60's. Some would say the way things today are is better. I'd say nope they most certainly are NOT. Tons more crime, less community feel and participation, tons more gangs and illegal immigrants instead of those that came by way of the laws provision. Poorer food quality, more roads and congestion and higher population density diminishing the quality of life. So you won't get a thumbs up from me regarding the past vs. the current OR future. But then again that's why I moved out many years ago :-)
I grew up with ALL of what you mentioned. So I'd give a resounding YES to all the above. Although I still come to visit the area from time to time, my mother is going on 92 so who knows. I won't have any reason to come back when she's gone. it "was" a great place to grow up. I grew up in a neighborhood that is to those who grew up there (The Manor) a virtual fantasy memory which was an example of the way life was back in the 50's and early 60's. Some would say the way things today are is better. I'd say nope they most certainly are NOT. Tons more crime, less community feel and participation, tons more gangs and illegal immigrants instead of those that came by way of the laws provision. Poorer food quality, more roads and congestion and higher population density diminishing the quality of life. So you won't get a thumbs up from me regarding the past vs. the current OR future. But then again that's why I moved out many years ago :-)
Actually some of what you say might make some sense but others don't hold up. I don't know where exactly "the manor" is (Jeffrey Manor?, in which case yes it does still have problems or Ravenswood Manor? which actually is quite upscale today) but crime in Chicago in general has been falling for the past 20 years. Also I don't understand how population density diminishes the quality of life since the city of Chicago is actually less dense today than it was in the 1950's and early 1960's. The more roads and congestion thing is true but that is more the fault of suburbanization and more dependency on the automobile which didn't exist back then. Honestly thought almost all of America is homogenized and congested with suburban sprawl, if anything Chicago less so than most places. Honestly if anything I think the lack of population density in the cores of metropolitan areas is a problem in America, if Chicago returned to the higher density it had in 1950 you would see more of these aspects from the past return.
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.
