the "chicago decline" syndrome (Time: live, legal, shop)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
thank you for telling me everything i already know..
If you "already know" this, why are you contradicting it with inaccurate statements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleking
Englewood et al are a disaster and getting worse...they are violent ghettos with few peers.
Please define "et al". Englewood is literally the one community area out of 77 where violent crime has risen significantly in recent years. This is not the same thing as "large swaths of the south/west sides are in full on free fall into lawless warzones." That statement was a pretty clear indicator that you did not "already know."
Sure, its incomplete. Sure its not quite apples to oranges. You can talk for hours about why its not a fair comparison. I understand all that.
Still, when people advertise Chicago a "world class city" and (especially on this website) try to convince people to relocate here, that's the competition they need to keep in mind.
I actually think Chicago is/will do just fine continuing to attract people from around the greater Midwest, if folks from the coasts want to relocate here that's cool, but I am not one of those people with a second city inferiority complex.
I actually think Chicago is/will do just fine continuing to attract people from around the greater Midwest, if folks from the coasts want to relocate here that's cool, but I am not one of those people with a second city inferiority complex.
Agreed. I actually don't think Chicago is a "world class city". You can tell it's not, because the cities that actually are never refer to themselves as such. I'm totally okay with that, though. I like Chicago for what it is. I don't need it to be Paris.
I actually think Chicago is/will do just fine continuing to attract people from around the greater Midwest, if folks from the coasts want to relocate here that's cool, but I am not one of those people with a second city inferiority complex.
While I agree that Chicago will do fine with immigrants from the Midwest, I'd prefer if was attractive to people from all over the country/world. We've got a lot of empty space in this city to fill up. A couple extra hundred thousand residents would go a long way towards fixing budget problems.
those narrow minds were the hallmark of both suburbs a half century back. but today? Evanston is the most liberal suburb of Chicago and Oak Park are right up there with it. Both are more "in the suburbs" than they are suburban. Let's face it: we define "suburban" as being outside the city limits, surrounding the city which really encompasses vastly different territory, some like Evanston and Oak Park as urban in nature.
Evanston is far more urban than parts of Chicago like Sauganash or Beverly. If you were to wipe away the political map and remove all municipalities, the area that is now Evanston would come across much more urban than the area that today is Sauganash.
Not only that, but Evanston and Oak Park IMHO are more socially liberal and progressive than many areas within the Chicago city limits.
Agreed. I actually don't think Chicago is a "world class city". You can tell it's not, because the cities that actually are never refer to themselves as such. I'm totally okay with that, though. I like Chicago for what it is. I don't need it to be Paris.
I totally disagree. L.A. does question its world class status, and so does other great cities in this country. The only exception is NYC. L.A. is constantly comparing itself to NYC. I happen to think its stupid but, it is simply human nature to compare.
I believe Chicago leaders should focus on building a city that residents truly love and don't want to leave (physically and socially). I know that sounds dumb but, in my experience those who really love this city the most either grew up in communities that are rich in amenities and, is architecturally rich. There is certainly a since of pride here but, I meet tons of natives who can't wait to move away, especially African Americans and working class whites. I do understand that if an individual is not doing as well economically, their attitudes towards a place can be negative.
There are examples of places that really have a magical hold on a larger percentage of its residents, rich or poor. At least in my personal experience. A larger percentage of residents in New Orleans and San Francisco seem to be very happy living in their cities. New Orleans has some of the worst social ills of any city in the U.S. but, many working class and poorer residents have a hard time leaving. They just seem to be very attached to the place. I know many Chicagoans that feel that way about this city but in New Orleans it was much more pronounced.
It's hard to compare cities in the US, especially east coast (and chicago) vs west coast cities.
All you have to do is follow a calendar to see. The one metric is pre-automobile, and post automobile. Yes, LA has more population, but it also has much more land. Where in LA can you walk to three bars, a grocery store and two liquor stores within a five-minute walk radius? How many of these can you count in Chicago?
We'll never be as big as New York either. It grew so large because in its time it was the only game in town that could offer munipal services. Chicago a little less, cities out west, far less dependent.
The western part of the country was built around the expressways, while in chicago they had to knock down houses and carve a space out.
I totally disagree. L.A. does question its world class status, and so does other great cities in this country. The only exception is NYC. L.A. is constantly comparing itself to NYC. I happen to think its stupid but, it is simply human nature to compare.
that lack of questioning is itself a problem; NYC suffers from incredible hubris. That not caring is best scene by that famed New Yorker mag cover with towering Manhattan and virtually nothing beyond it from the Hudson to the Pacific.
New York can be an incredibly provincial place. And New York has a mantle I would think would be a chain around any city's ankle:
the self-acclaimed "The Greatest City In The World."
urban illustrates that despite their size, both New Orleans and, to a much greater degree I think, San Francisco are comfortable in their own skin and with who they are. New York's greatest depends far too much with its perceived status as A #1, king of the hill, top of the heap. If those attributes are threatened or lost, New York would have a tough time being New York.
It's hard to compare cities in the US, especially east coast (and chicago) vs west coast cities.
All you have to do is follow a calendar to see. The one metric is pre-automobile, and post automobile. Yes, LA has more population, but it also has much more land. Where in LA can you walk to three bars, a grocery store and two liquor stores within a five-minute walk radius? How many of these can you count in Chicago?
We'll never be as big as New York either. It grew so large because in its time it was the only game in town that could offer munipal services. Chicago a little less, cities out west, far less dependent.
The western part of the country was built around the expressways, while in chicago they had to knock down houses and carve a space out.
rparz, i agree with your points here, including your observations about LA. But there is an irony to LA that a lot of people miss. LA was the poster child for the spread out, car culture that erupted after WWII. LA dug up its red line trolleys that blanketed its region and replaced them with the famed freeway system. LA was the model of a new type of city, sprawling, auto centric, not walkable. And the LA model became the model of the southwest in places like Phoenix or Vegas or others.
but if you were to look at things the way they really are today, you'd see that LA vision far less in Los Angeles than you would in that very Phoenix or Vegas.
What's changed? LA has urbanized. Rather nicely. LA, like Chicago, reinvents itself; it's part of its DNA. And the new LA is far more concentrated in its core areas (the Basin....downtown and westward on the Wilshire Corridor) than before. Rapid transit is here and admirable, particularly the heavy duty Red Line which is basically similar to BART. Today's LA is far more urban than the past and than the image we have of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
I'm totally okay with that, though. I like Chicago for what it is. I don't need it to be Paris.
