Chicago - "Meanest city in the US"? (Cicero: real estate, gated)

[Tex?Il?]

I do of understand what southwest1230 is trying to say.

A while ago, I started a thread asking peoples input as to whether or not,

despite the difference between the business and political leadership that made Chicago a great city, do you feel that beyond that, does Chicago/Chicagoland,NE IL have quite a lot in common with Detroit/metro Detroit/SE MI.

Most posts I received pretty much said "That's rediculous! Of course not. Chicago is a world class city, and Detroit is a dump, etc." But I think southwest is onto something here, (I don't totally agree with it." People coming really never see the other side of the city. I like Chicago, but I dumbfounded sometimes how people don't see the other side.

I made the comparisons because Detroit (and places outside of it) has a lot of old cultural attractions: museums theatres, etc. founded in the old days before it went downhill. And now there are things like the Riverwalk, renovations of old buildings, sports stadiums, etc. Ann Arbor and Windsor nearby too.

So I came to the conclusion looking at their history, that "well that sums it up, apart from a few crucial turn of events in history, that made the two cities go in totally different directions from the 60s through now, they really aren't that different.

As the Southwest mentioned in the Opening "Chicago is a tought nut to crack" that I wholeheartedly agree with. It is perhaps the most contradictory city out there. And one you can live in one side, and totally not experience the other.

I also think that Chicago seems like it has more than other cities such as Houston, because Chicagos attractions are all very close to each other, whereas in other cities, they are more spread out, ie. the museums may be 5-10 miles down the expressway from the central business district, and the shopping 5-10 miles down another way.

There DOES seem something very illusional about the glitz Southwest was talking about.

Just some thoughts.

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by viento78

Daley is very much like his dad. Only a bit more descrete.

Hey, I'm just finishing this book called American Pharaoh, about old man Daley from 55' - '74, great read, and mind-blowing. Its actually considered one of the best bios in the last 10 years. You can't put it down. That being said, of course young daley is no saint. Wouldn't you at least expect some words of wisdom passed down to the younger? "M" saw the old man all his childhood years, and saw how he ran things/got things done. You can even see him yelling at Dan Rather with the old man in clips of the insane '68 democratic convention(remember Daleys' shoot to kill command to the Chicago police?). They are two peas from the same pod. They will cut you loose when they don't need you. They never take blame for anything, and always have fall guys to sacrifice in that case. They both created huge political machines full of chits and favors, that pours the campaign coffers liberally with dollars. The differences? Daley is polar opposite health conscious, biking all over, but just to be expected as a baby boomer of the times.....he speaks slightly better, but still mashes his syntax occasionally.This is actually a fine art to avoid issues in press conferences. The all time classic evasion tactic is to confuse under the guise of being a regular guy speaker that mangles syntax and grammer, knowing full well what he's saying. Daley also is a little more aware of world events, and how chicago fits in the global economy. Other than that, its the old man all over again! hey, its in the genes!

[Lookout Kid]

There IS a new Chicago, just like there's a new Boston, a new San Francisco, a new New York, etc... You can be nostalgic for what once existed here, but those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back in our lifetime. I was recently looking at some census data for the city of Chicago, and was shocked to see that the percentage of jobs in manufacturing in the city were lower than the percentage of jobs in manufacturing for the country as a whole. That's right, Chicago is not really a manufacturing town anymore! And thankfully our economy was diverse enough to avoid the fate of Detroit, where the loss of manufacturing jobs has caused an wholesale economic collapse. People used to think Seattle was a sleepy logging town, but it has been remade. Boston is remade as technology center. Chicago must also embrace a new identity if it is to survive into the coming century.

No, we can't write off an entire section of the city. But America is increasingly a country of haves and have-nots, and in most urban areas they are segregated financially between the city and suburbs. Chicago nearly died in the years after World War II when all of the people with money (i.e. tax base) left the city in an unprecedented rapid fashion. Things are now beginning to even out again as the city becomes more popular with the middle class again, but the residential segregation by income continues as some urban neighborhoods become suburban in character... Is this all bad? Not necessarily. For every neighborhood that is 75% in poverty it's good to have something balance that out where there is 75% prosperity. But it would be better to avoid ghetto-ization altogether and create mixed-income neighborhoods. They do exist in Chicago, but they are rarely harmonious places (I live in Uptown, so I know first-hand). Concentrated poverty is a real problem, and it is deeply entrenched.

I also pointed out how even the "nice cities" like San Francisco have yang to their ying. There are very few regions in the United States that exist in complete isolation from poverty and crime. Crime does spill over, and the social ills created in ghettos will poison us all. However, it's also naive to suggest that you can't protect yourself from crime to a large extent by isolating yourself from ghettos geographically. I'm not arguing that this is a good thing, but it really is the truth. But yes, the problems of the lower and working classes will drag us all down in the end if they are ignored and left to fester.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

CBC, do you think the number is lower or higher? I'm only making an estimation here, and I stand by it. Most of the city by land area is still pretty gritty and nasty. But I'm saying that the nice parts of Chicago are plentiful enough to provide a great lifestyle, and that taken together make up a larger area than most other cities.

This is true. Everything around and west of the Medical district all the way to the edge of Oak Park.

Everything on the other side of the Dan Ryan and everything south of where the Sox play all the way to the Calumet Harbor which is a big urban prairie which contains wetlands never filled in.

There are great areas on the southside, but most of it is like your typical midwestern rustbelt city.

On the S. side Hyde park, Mt. Greenwood, Beverly, Garfield Ridge, Bridgeport, Chatham, are all great areas.

On the west: Pilsen and areas around UIC are good, thats it.

On the north: East Rogers Park is not good. Uptown and Edgewater, dense, yet cheap, have something to do with that sketchyness.

I would agree with Lookout Kids conclusions.

Everyone in the Chicago area, should "Boss" my Mike Royko. Its a little dated, but a good read, and a good way to remember Chicagos roots.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by southwest1230

Hey, I'm just finishing this book called American Pharaoh, about old man Daley from 55' - '74, great read, and mind-blowing. Its actually considered one of the best bios in the last 10 years. You can't put it down. That being said, of course young daley is no saint. Wouldn't you at least expect some words of wisdom passed down to the younger? "M" saw the old man all his childhood years, and saw how he ran things/got things done. You can even see him yelling at Dan Rather with the old man in clips of the insane '68 democratic convention(remember Daleys' shoot to kill command to the Chicago police?). They are two peas from the same pod. They will cut you loose when they don't need you. They never take blame for anything, and always have fall guys to sacrifice in that case. They both created huge political machines full of chits and favors, that pours the campaign coffers liberally with dollars. The differences? Daley is polar opposite health conscious, biking all over, but just to be expected as a baby boomer of the times.....he speaks slightly better, but still mashes his syntax occasionally.This is actually a fine art to avoid issues in press conferences. The all time classic evasion tactic is to confuse under the guise of being a regular guy speaker that mangles syntax and grammer, knowing full well what he's saying. Daley also is a little more aware of world events, and how chicago fits in the global economy. Other than that, its the old man all over again! hey, its in the genes!

I haven't read the whole thing, but you were thinking the same thing as me.

And the authors specifically said that: "Daley kept Chicago from becoming like Detroit." That's partially why I make the comparison. Chicago has good planning and things right many times, but they were lucky to have the leadership.

[Lookout Kid]

I wouldn't say it's just a rust belt thing. Most Sun Belt cities have the same problems with ghettos and crime, and I would say that Chicago is probably more suited to survive these problems in the long run due to the urban lifestyle that is available to people with money here. If you're middle class living in Atlanta or Houston, the only real benefit to living in the city is a shorter commute, and that's only assuming your job is downtown.

[Tex?Il?]

[quote=Lookout Kid;1832426] I was recently looking at some census data for the city of Chicago, and was shocked to see that the percentage of jobs in manufacturing in the city were lower than the percentage of jobs in manufacturing for the country as a whole. That's right, Chicago is not really a manufacturing town anymore! QUOTE]

I wonder what it would be for the whole metropolitan area. I wonder how the south suburbs and the near west suburbs would affect that.

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I do of understand what southwest1230 is trying to say.

A while ago, I started a thread asking peoples input as to whether or not,

despite the difference between the business and political leadership that made Chicago a great city, do you feel that beyond that, does Chicago/Chicagoland,NE IL have quite a lot in common with Detroit/metro Detroit/SE MI.

Most posts I received pretty much said "That's rediculous! Of course not. Chicago is a world class city, and Detroit is a dump, etc." But I think southwest is onto something here, (I don't totally agree with it." People coming really never see the other side of the city. I like Chicago, but I dumbfounded sometimes how people don't see the other side.

I made the comparisons because Detroit (and places outside of it) has a lot of old cultural attractions: museums theatres, etc. founded in the old days before it went downhill. And now there are things like the Riverwalk, renovations of old buildings, sports stadiums, etc. Ann Arbor and Windsor nearby too.

So I came to the conclusion looking at their history, that "well that sums it up, apart from a few crucial turn of events in history, that made the two cities go in totally different directions from the 60s through now, they really aren't that different.

As the Southwest mentioned in the Opening "Chicago is a tought nut to crack" that I wholeheartedly agree with. It is perhaps the most contradictory city out there. And one you can live in one side, and totally not experience the other.

I also think that Chicago seems like it has more than other cities such as Houston, because Chicagos attractions are all very close to each other, whereas in other cities, they are more spread out, ie. the museums may be 5-10 miles down the expressway from the central business district, and the shopping 5-10 miles down another way.

There DOES seem something very illusional about the glitz Southwest was talking about.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks, tex.......I think you yourself have something with the comment about how everything is located in one area in the loop. Actually, the loop is only 1.5 miles by 1 mile sq. Add that to the fact that all that stuff is just on a thin lakefront strip of perhaps 2 miles, and you have a 1.5 by 1 mile grid, bordered by a narrow 2 mile lakefront strip that has all that stuff. Not ALL, god knows. We know there is a pilsen, river north, west loop, wicker park, blah blah blah, but the big ticket stuff is all in that circumscribed area(grid next to strip). Art Inst., planetarium, shed, grant park, navy pier, field mus., randolph theaters, millenium park, all the events, inc. taste, the harbor and boats, all the flashy stuff the tourists want to see, are all in that grid and strip area. That area is approximately 1/90th the land area of the city. It probably absorbs the majority of improvement funds. That's the classic disconnect I speak of. I'm not even that old, and I remember when Chicago was way more truer to its roots, and REAL. Now Daley the younger has created a disneyworld of sorts on the lakefront, a classic illusion to rank with Houdini and Copperfield(yes, I know the guy is in deep Sh*t right now with some scandal, but he's a hell of a magician!). Mayor Daley, for your information, this is not DisneyMidwest, this is ChiCaaawwwgahhhh! How about a new slogan, and thanks to Reagan for the inspiration....Tear down that facade.....tear down that facade!

Description of the fancy lakefront covering up the true grit of the 70% of the city........"Like a lump of fresh hot dung wrapped in a gift box from Macys"

[Lookout Kid]

There are definitely a LOT of industrial jobs in Northwest Indiana...

Along with "white flight", there has been an outward migration of jobs from the city as well. A study done by Joseph Persky and Wim Wiewel, a couple of Urban Planning professors at UIC, called "When Corporations Leave Town: The Costs and Benefits of Metropolitan Job Sprawl" really gets into this subject at depth. When I was a grad student, I tried to replicate this study for the Milwaukee region and the results were fascinating. But now the net loss of manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico are probably a bigge problem than the loss of these jobs to the suburbs...

[Lookout Kid]

Well, if Chicago's Loop is some sort of Disneyland Shangri-La illusion, then so are EVERY SUBURB IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. I mean, come on! Americans all have their heads in the sand when it comes to the social ills in our society. This is certainly not a uniquely Chicago problem.

You should be thankful that our downtown has attractions that people actually want to visit. Most downtowns in the United States don't.