the "chicago decline" syndrome (Washington, Harvard: city hall, crime, universities)

[ERS-One]

Thie OP of this thread is a perfect example of a Chicago or any <insert city here> inferiority complex. Chicagoans who are secure in what their city is would not feel the need to talk about its "iconic status" and always try to defend it at every turn.

I'm a homer, and I love it here. I know what makes it great and an important place, but to always talk about it and try to prove it gives me douche-chills.

I also understand why people don't like it at all and have negative views on it, and that's fine and often deserved. Apart from sometimes clearing up factually inaccurate information (and even then I think to myself "Why am I even bothering to engage in this?"), I couldn't give a rat's arse what other people think.

I say screw the Alpha ++--, Global Leader, World Class, Most Powerful ranking talk. The information is out there - good and bad. Let other people read it, or visit, and figure it out for themselves.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by edsg25

the obama thing is there and part of a bigger picture, i think. it is so tied in with the notion of "chicago politics". that mix out there has made chicago a negative code word among right wing americans.

i would contend that two cities standout far among the rest in their ability to draw animosity from the right:

Chicago and San Francisco.

Apart from being where Obama is from, no I don't think Chicago draws much animosity from the right.

I still think the coastal cities draw more animosity. DC of course because thats where the feds are, Boston because of the liberal academic association, NY for obvious reasons, SF for obvious reasons, possible even PNW for similar reasons as SF, LA because of the entertainment industry.

I don't think Chicago, apart from being associated with Obama, really has an association with being ultraliberal at all.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

Chicago has done a great job bringing the violent crime rate down. The number of murders through the early 90's were very disturbing.

I think the reason that many are talking about it right now is because of the current murder rate in 2012. Chicago is up 33% over last year and didn't see the total number of murders as of today until late July last year. That's bad.

I agree it's not a good trend, but I don't think it suddenly makes us a "violent city" compared to other U.S cities. I was just trying to provide a larger context for perspective.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by ERS-One

I know what makes it great and an important place, but to always talk about it and try to prove it gives me douche-chills.

I know what you mean. One thing I've noticed is that people here often refer to Chicago as a "world class city." You don't hear people in Paris, London, Tokyo, or New York refer to their cities as "world class," because it's understood.

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Apart from being where Obama is from, no I don't think Chicago draws much animosity from the right.

I still think the coastal cities draw more animosity. DC of course because thats where the feds are, Boston because of the liberal academic association, NY for obvious reasons, SF for obvious reasons, possible even PNW for similar reasons as SF, LA because of the entertainment industry.

I don't think Chicago, apart from being associated with Obama, really has an association with being ultraliberal at all.

you couldn't be more wrong, it's non-stop go read the comments section over at the blaze or fox to see just how wrong you are...the chicago machine is a top target.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Aleking

you couldn't be more wrong, it's non-stop go read the comments section over at the blaze or fox to see just how wrong you are...the chicago machine is a top target.

It is a top target, but primarily because it is where Obama is from. Pre-Obama the big targets were SF, New England, New York, and DC. Chicago isn't a very liberal place compared to the major coastal cities, and DC will always be a target for the anti-federal-government crowd.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

It is a top target, but primarily because it is where Obama is from. Pre-Obama the big targets were SF, New England, New York, and DC. Chicago isn't a very liberal place compared to the major coastal cities, and DC will always be a target for the anti-federal-government crowd.

Just a few years ago when Kerry was the Democratic nominee, the right was trashing Boston and Massachusetts non-stop. Of course, now the Republican nominee considers Boston one of his hometowns, the right is strangely silent about the liberal elites from Boston.

[ERS-One]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

I know what you mean. One thing I've noticed is that people here often refer to Chicago as a "world class city." You don't hear people in Paris, London, Tokyo, or New York refer to their cities as "world class," because it's understood.

Right. "World class" talk is for tourism bureaus. Having to defend the town as elite this-or-that comes off as insecure IMO.

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

It is a top target, but primarily because it is where Obama is from. Pre-Obama the big targets were SF, New England, New York, and DC. Chicago isn't a very liberal place compared to the major coastal cities, and DC will always be a target for the anti-federal-government crowd.

You're missing something, it isn't that the right sees Chicago as some enlightened progressive hippie commune like SF, it's the unions, the machine, big govt, the debt, reagan's (fictional) chicago welfare queen...etc. Obama is just the icing on the cake.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by edsg25

you've raised excellent points here. we tend to look at cities on how outsiders see them and rate them. but there is a corollary to this:

how does a city see itself?

and in that sense, Chicagoans tend to be very high up on love of city and sense of place and how much a part of the place they are.

Of course, I would agree with you about how we often compare ourselves to New York, always have and seemingly always will.

But in some ways we go beyond that. We tend to put ourselves more in that "center of the universe" category.

i've brought this up before. I know a number of people disagree, but this is strictly my spin:

Chicago may be unique in the dominating presence it has in its own region. No, we don't dominate the midwest; but we are the most dominant city by far within the region. Our hinterland seems to spread out so much because the city is such a force.

There is no comparable set up anywhere in the US. The northeast has both NYC and DC, two heavy weights, and one can't argue about the important role of a city like Boston as well. No city dominates the South. No one comes close to being at the head of the pack. Atlanta, Miami, Houston, and Dallas are in the same ballpark. New Orleans holds on with its history. And Charlotte challenges.

no dominance comes out in the mountain west either. denver, salt lake, phoenix, and vegas...none is going to emerge as the head of the pack.

on the west coast, the power of NY/DC gets duplicated in the power of LA/SF. And Seattle is out there, too.

Only Chicago dominates its region the way it does (again...my opinion...others can disagree). And that dominance translates into a very boastful character for our city.

For the record, I hardly think the urban midwest is any type of disaster area when you remove Chicago from the mix.

That would be absurd. Minneapolis is one of the most progressive, pristine, high quality of life and arts city in the nation. Our neighbor Milwaukee is another gem on Lake Michigan, a city that compliments our own in this fortunate region to have both of these cities in our expanded metro area on the lake's southwest shores.

Indy is a huckster city that sold itself up to the status it now has today, a product of the late 20th century in its rise. Columbus mimics this, too.

St. Louis has history and charm. Cleveland has a wonderful sense of grit from the industrial age (I say this is seriously, not sarcasm....there's a lot to love with grit and Cleveland's got it). Cincy, like StL has its charms. And for all its battering, under the muck lies a great city in Detroit.

But Chicago exceeds all in a way that isn't true in other regions. And that does affect our moxie about our home town.

You've mentioned this over and over again in your posts.

Frankly, I disagree. I think Chicagos dominance in the midwest that you describe is somewhat of a temporary one. Chicago is and always will be the largest city, and the center of the midwest.

Just like California is the powerhouse of the country west of the 100th meridian. And greater LA and the Bay area will always be the premier, cosmopolitan urban areas of the west. Yet, many Californians have been moving to smaller, cheaper urban other states in the PNW, intermountain west, like Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, Seattle, Portland. But apart from a lower cost of living, lower taxes, and ability for middle class people to own a nice home in a nice school district, those places really don't have a whole lot that SF and LA don't. Yet, those smaller western cities are recognized for what they do have to offer. And Californians move to them. Of course nature and outdoors are a big attraction in the west, but there is nothing, I repeat, nothing in other western states in terms of nature and outdoors that can not be found in California.

Just like Vegas is a fraction of the population of LA, a fraction of the industries of greater LA, (Vegas is a one industry town) most people would agree that Vegas has most definitely carved out a tourism niche for itself. Many actually prefer San Diego to LA, as its cleaner, etc. even though San Diego is less cosmopolitan, and virtually a one industry town (military).

Seattle is less than half the size of SF, and more geographically isolated, but holds its own. Portland seems to be all the rave.

Point is, with all this, is that even if Chicago remains dominant, and it will, just as California is dominant in the west, the era of "why would anyone consider visiting or moving to STL, Cincy, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland is a temporary situation?? If the civic governments really get their act together, STL, and Cincy will capitalize on their historic, east coast-ish charm, something that Chicago has lost somewhat because of "progress". Or Detroit with its three casinos (four if you include Windsor), still one of the nations largest theater districts, with lots of concert venues, can rebrand itself as the Vegas of the midwest. And just like Angelenos drive or fly to Vegas, despite that Vegas is tiny compared to LA, they still go.

I think you get my point.