the "chicago decline" syndrome (Washington: credit, home, school)

[edsg25]

i've got a question here. it deals with perceptions. i'm not sure if mine are on base or off target.

here's my perception: there is a group, relatively small, of US cities that reached an iconic status based, of course, on their incredible urban offerings and urban fabric, their draw as magnets for visitors, their economic muscle.

my list isn't inclusive and it differs from others but the status I describe I would probably assign only to the following, from east -to-west: Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco.


I think all of them are open to put downs because of the power and image that they have generated; they tend to be the big boys on the block.

but it seems to me that Chicago, for some reason, becomes the poster boy for the city to try to kick in the butt, the city some are seem to try so hard to "write off", almost hoping and wishing it would come true. Yet Chicago has always been the energizer bunny, always reinventing, never figuratively or literally "out of the loop."

are my perceptions wrong? do i think this is so because I'm a chicagoan and read more about my home town than I do about the others?

don't get me wrong: I think people tend to have a highly favorable view of Chicago in general. It comes across to them as "that's a really great city", but that element of Chicago bashing seems, to me, a bit stronger than what I see for other great cities.

I'm not trying to start any form of s**t fest with this thread. I'm just trying to see if my perceptions are shared with many others or is it just me?

[uffthefluff]

It doesn't help that one of the most prolific/well-known urbanists around lived here, then decided to move to NYC and devote all or most of his writing to putting down Chicago. I also think there is a lot of additional animosity towards the city due to its association with Obama.

It's also possible that NYC and, to a lesser extent LA, seem unassailable leaving very few large cities left to critique if that is one's intention.

Who knows.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by uffthefluff

It doesn't help that one of the most prolific/well-known urbanists around lived here, then decided to move to NYC and devote all or most of his writing to putting down Chicago. I also think there is a lot of additional animosity towards the city due to its association with Obama.

It's also possible that NYC and, to a lesser extent LA, seem unassailable leaving very few large cities left to critique if that is one's intention.

Who knows.

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.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by uffthefluff

It doesn't help that one of the most prolific/well-known urbanists around lived here, then decided to move to NYC and devote all or most of his writing to putting down Chicago.

If you're referring to Aaron Renn, I think you're giving him too much credit.

Originally Posted by uffthefluff

I also think there is a lot of additional animosity towards the city due to its association with Obama.

It's also possible that NYC and, to a lesser extent LA, seem unassailable leaving very few large cities left to critique if that is one's intention.

Who knows.

Obama certainly helps make Chicago a target for the right wing. However it was a target for the right wing for a long time before Obama. Factions in Chicago have also really pissed of some on the liberal side of things, too, for example the impact of the "Chicago School" of economics tends to really **** off the Left, as did some of the elder Daley's actions.

Chicago is a big, complicated place - it's gonna just **** off a certain number of people. And I think it's always had sort of a scrappy reputation. A lot of people like and respect scrappy people. But scrappy people also tend to be looked down on a little compared to people who set the rules.

Just one example: Wall Street is filled with highly-educated, highly-networked people who are often, even if not always, members of the upper class before they even head to college. Until recently, I think many Chicago traders didn't even have an undergrad degree, let alone an MBA or Masters of Finance. That's changing these days, but the CME group still has a market capitalization of three times that of the NYSE/Euronext group. That means very little, really, but the New York trading establishment does, from time to time, take very real swipes at Chicago's trading establishment and I imagine they look down on Chicago more than a little for its more egalitarian orthodoxy.

[FAReastcoast]

As a relatively new transplant, here is my two cents:

Chicagoans tend to be very proud of their city (which they absolutely should be), but I get the sense many non-Chicagoans tend to roll their eyes at all of the "wind" spewed by people who live here. From my experience Chicago tends to see New York City as it's closest peer, where many other cities might take offense to that (SF, Bos, Was, LA, etc...). So to me it seems like people in the other top cities not named New York (at least on C-D) tend to knock Chicago down to put it in line with the other cities and not on New York's level.

In my year in Chicago I have definitely noticed a little bit of an inferiority complex with New York, and I am frequently reminded how Chicago can match New York at a third of the cost and so on....

Just my perspective, but I do think that it is part of the reason for the put downs on chicago.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by emathias

Just one example: Wall Street is filled with highly-educated, highly-networked people who are often, even if not always, members of the upper class before they even head to college. Until recently, I think many Chicago traders didn't even have an undergrad degree, let alone an MBA or Masters of Finance. That's changing these days, but the CME group still has a market capitalization of three times that of the NYSE/Euronext group. That means very little, really, but the New York trading establishment does, from time to time, take very real swipes at Chicago's trading establishment and I imagine they look down on Chicago more than a little for its more egalitarian orthodoxy.

As a former Wall Street worker, this is spot on.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by emathias

If you're referring to Aaron Renn, I think you're giving him too much credit.

I agree. I'm an "urbanist" (I guess, though I don't use that term) who lives in Chicago and has close family in NYC, and I had never heard of the guy until seeing the link here where he claims the city is on a downslide. Perhaps he is well-known in certain circles who read his blog, but he's hardly a household name.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by edsg25

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

Chicago and San Francisco.

I would argue that NYC and DC are also right up there, and probably even above Chicago in that category. Of course being educated, not xenophobic, and using critical thinking skills are also surefire ways to draw animosity from the right these days, so I view this as a good indicator for a city.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by edsg25

i've got a question here. it deals with perceptions. i'm not sure if mine are on base or off target.

here's my perception: there is a group, relatively small, of US cities that reached an iconic status based, of course, on their incredible urban offerings and urban fabric, their draw as magnets for visitors, their economic muscle.

my list isn't inclusive and it differs from others but the status I describe I would probably assign only to the following, from east -to-west: Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco.


I think all of them are open to put downs because of the power and image that they have generated; they tend to be the big boys on the block.

but it seems to me that Chicago, for some reason, becomes the poster boy for the city to try to kick in the butt, the city some are seem to try so hard to "write off", almost hoping and wishing it would come true. Yet Chicago has always been the energizer bunny, always reinventing, never figuratively or literally "out of the loop."

are my perceptions wrong?

Not necessarily, but I think Philadelphia fits your idea better than any other city, and the fact that you left it off your list proves my point.

[ToriaT]

I never heard of him either. I agree that Chicago is the target as is SF of the right. You hear about "chicago style politics" in a negative vein. Other than that I do not think Chicago is a target all that much. I think people that live here are more aware of this feeling because who knows what others are saying of other cities. When all the roving mobs were happening and people thought it was a Chicago thing, it was happening in other cities too like Philly and DC. I have been to DC alot and that is a dangerous city too. I do think all the shootings and robbings here have tarnished our reputation. What I am hearing now is Chicago is a beautiful but violent city. That seems to be a message that is going out there.