The Urbanophile's "State of Chicago" Series (schools, living)

[Chi-town Native]

I think I may have posted one of his articles, but I actually think the entire State of Chicago Series is worth a conversation, as love him or hate him, this guy has become the de facto "urban planning expert" on Chicago.

Here's his latest, ties in somewhat to the Maggie Daley park discussion:

The Urbanophile » Blog Archive » Chicago As a Global City

I believe the takeway for Chicago is clear: it cannot continue to focus on simply the elite greater Loop economy as the growth platform for future prosperity. It must diversify beyond that. The road to doing so is difficult, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be taken and that there aren’t things that clearly are within the city’s power it can do.

[Aleking]

He's spot on of course

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Aleking

He's spot on of course

Of course

[chet everett]

More bicycle builders are the only answer...

[ChiNaan]

I wouldn't have ever heard of this "expert" if not for seeing him mentioned on this forum. I believe somebody in another thread mentioned that the guy had personal bad luck living/working in Chicago, which would explain the general butthurt tone of all of his Chicago articles.

Some of his facts are certainly correct, but for me they're totally overshadowed by his clear anti-Chicago bias. Then he leaves out obvious important things (whether intentionally or not, I'm unsure) such as the reason Chicago lost population in the 2000s, instead choosing to portray it as a "decline". Other than the literal decline in population, I just haven't seen any sort of decline in Chicago in the 2000s, unless you count the decline that hit most of the nation and world in 2008.

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I believe the takeway for Chicago is clear: it cannot continue to focus on simply the elite greater Loop economy

Isn't that sort of like saying New York can't continue to focus on Wall Street? The Loop is the business center of the city. By definition, that's the economic focus of a city.

[Chi-town Native]

I think he is a very smart guy, but, he clearly never took the time to actually get to know the larger Chicago outside of his urban-planning-pipe-dream-bubble.

He makes a lot of assumptions which have grains of truth but are far from universal ones. This for example:

I believe the takeway for Chicago is clear: it cannot continue to focus on simply the elite greater Loop economy as the growth platform for future prosperity. It must diversify beyond that.

Is comical. He confuses the Loop TIF and Daley rolling with the times and trading an old school patronage army for the "pinstripe patronage army" you need today due to Shakman.

But just because Daley (rightfully) realized downtown needed a shot in the arm doesn't mean he ignored the rest of the City or put all of his eggs in that basket. Daley was a busy guy - he took over the schools, masterminded the O'Hare expansion, etc.

Chicago is changing, but it doesn't do so nearly as fast as a guy like the Urbanophile imagines is should/could.

[emathias]

If only he were capable of making a cohesive argument.

I cannot take him seriously. Sometimes he makes a valid point, but rarely is it a valid point that hasn't been made elsewhere. And often he uses extremely poorly-researched or poorly-considered logic to support his thesis.

I mean, half of that article is spent explaining to the reader that, hey, New York is bigger than Chicago and that, hey, if you compare the core of a bigger city with the entirety of a smaller city plus a big chunk of its suburbs, the averages are lower for the smaller city. Wow, such illumination, I'm practically getting a sunburn ...

The sooner people ignore the Urbanophile, the sooner logic will re-enter the conversation.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

He makes a lot of assumptions which have grains of truth but are far from universal ones.

Originally Posted by emathias

Sometimes he makes a valid point, but rarely is it a valid point that hasn't been made elsewhere. And often he uses extremely poorly-researched or poorly-considered logic to support his thesis.

Agree 100%. These are both much better ways of saying what I was trying to say.

I do think his personal bad experience in Chicago explains why he does this, though. He's starting out with a pre-determined viewpoint and then cherry-picking facts to support his bias, rather than looking at all of the facts and drawing a conclusion from them. Of course, it's human nature do this to some extent, but it's pretty blatant with him; more than enough to keep me from taking him seriously as an "expert". He's the Fox News or Michael Moore of urbanism.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Agree 100%. These are both much better ways of saying what I was trying to say.

I do think his personal bad experience in Chicago explains why he does this, though. He's starting out with a pre-determined viewpoint and then cherry-picking facts to support his bias, rather than looking at all of the facts and drawing a conclusion from them. Of course, it's human nature do this to some extent, but it's pretty blatant with him; more than enough to keep me from taking him seriously as an "expert". He's the Fox News or Michael Moore of urbanism.

I'd say he's the Michael Moore. I'm no fan, but I do think his heart is in the right place, he just fails to separate his emotional experience from the facts and logic that should inform a public discussion.

I also meant to point out that he calls being, at worst, 38th a "mediocre" placing. I think Chicago is better than that, but being even "just" 38th 20 years in the future, a future that very well could be dominated by cities in China, India and South America would hardly be "mediocre".

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by emathias

I also meant to point out that he calls being, at worst, 38th a "mediocre" placing. I think Chicago is better than that, but being even "just" 38th 20 years in the future, a future that very well could be dominated by cities in China, India and South America would hardly be "mediocre".

38th in "future dynamism," no less. I have no idea what that even means, let alone how it was measured/predicted, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's not terribly scientific.