Chicago - "Meanest city in the US"? (Cicero: environment, relocate)

[Lookout Kid]

Actually, a lot of the working class had kids who went to college and got jobs in advertising, engineering, law, etc. Two generations ago there wasn't a single college graduate in my family, and my grandparents worked factory, mechanic, and railroad jobs in places like Gary, Hammond, Joliet, and Cal City. Now the whole family is professionals, with only a few exceptions. Not everyone was just swept under the rug... Just the most vulnerable... Or the most persecuted, in the case of some minority groups who were denied opportunities.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Drover

3) By the way, there aren't many places in this city that are 5 miles from some ghetto or another. Most of the nice parts of the city are a lot closer to the 'hood than that, and most of us who live in the city have made peace with the fact that there are some rather not-nice places close by.

Well, there's ghetto and then there's capital "G" Ghetto. For instance, I live in the southern part of Uptown known as Buena Park. While I'm just a couple of blocks north of Lakeview, things get a bit hairy north of Montrose for a few blocks. However, this is really just a small pocket of trouble. The same holds true for Edgewater and Rogers Park, where there are some small pockets of poverty and crime. But to get to the real capital "G" ghetto, you'd have to get way down into the south side or pretty far west from the Loop. I feel somewhat isolated from what goes on there, even though I know it does have an effect on me. Every now and then some gang skirmish will ignite in Uptown for a brief time, but it's not enough to make me want to move. I guess Cabrini Green is also within five miles of my house, but that is really quite a bit less threatening than it used to be! The Yuppies in Lincoln Park shop at the Dominick's directly across the street at all times of day, and no one even thinks twice about it anymore. What was once the most notorious ghetto in Chicago is now a small pocket of trouble (and getting smaller).

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by southwest1230

Adrill, the main concern is what these cities do with their displaced workers.

Displaced??? The city didn't do this. There was a decline in manufacturing that started in the 60's combined with white flight in the 70's due in part to integration that led to "displaced workers". Changes in the economy, changes in industries, and people's individual choices led to these changes. Not any policies set by the city. And I agree with Lookout Kid's argument 100%. Both my parents were the first generation in their families to go to college, they stayed where they (and I) grew up in Boston - and while you can say the neighborhood gentrified, a lot of the people they grew up with just stayed put and built on the successes of their immigrant parents. That anchor was part of why their neighborhoods became gentrified. I've seen the same thing in every neighborhood I've lived in in Chicago.

Originally Posted by southwest1230

BTW, Chicago is losing its olympic bid for the very reasons I just mentioned. The city has fooled itself, and has chased the industrial tax base out of the city. Now it can't float the CTA, and the word is they have essentially lost the bid because of it.......see, all things come round again to bite one in the *ss!

Do some research on how the CTA is funded. It is funded through the RTA retail tax and fares - not by the city, and certainly not by industry in any way shape or form. People always talk about the City of Chicago funding the CTA when the city has NO responsibility for funding it (what do Evanston, Oak Park, Cicero, Berwyn, or any of the other 40 communities served by CTA service contribute to it?). Any purchase made in the City of Chicago has a 1% tax that goes straight to the RTA to pay for transit - that is how transit is funded. Look into the RTA and how this all works.

Anyways. The CTA funding situation is a mess - but it means squat to the IOC. How low would the CTA have to fall to reach the level of public transit in Atlanta in '96, Sydney in 2000, Turin in 2006, hell - SALT LAKE CITY! Transit for the Olympics can be handled by shuttle bus service that runs for a few weeks. What the IOC is looking for is a profitable Olympics that are run by a national Olympic Commitee that has it's act together and a city that can get the job done. LA, Sydney, and Barcelona are the examples they always hold up - what sort of public transit did those cities have when they held the Olympics? Nothing compared to even a crippled CTA.

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Displaced??? The city didn't do this. There was a decline in manufacturing that started in the 60's combined with white flight in the 70's due in part to integration that led to "displaced workers". Changes in the economy, changes in industries, and people's individual choices led to these changes. Not any policies set by the city. And I agree with Lookout Kid's argument 100%. Both my parents were the first generation in their families to go to college, they stayed where they (and I) grew up in Boston - and while you can say the neighborhood gentrified, a lot of the people they grew up with just stayed put and built on the successes of their immigrant parents. That anchor was part of why their neighborhoods became gentrified. I've seen the same thing in every neighborhood I've lived in in Chicago.



Do some research on how the CTA is funded. It is funded through the RTA retail tax and fares - not by the city, and certainly not by industry in any way shape or form. People always talk about the City of Chicago funding the CTA when the city has NO responsibility for funding it (what do Evanston, Oak Park, Cicero, Berwyn, or any of the other 40 communities served by CTA service contribute to it?). Any purchase made in the City of Chicago has a 1% tax that goes straight to the RTA to pay for transit - that is how transit is funded. Look into the RTA and how this all works.

Anyways. The CTA funding situation is a mess - but it means squat to the IOC. How low would the CTA have to fall to reach the level of public transit in Atlanta in '96, Sydney in 2000, Turin in 2006, hell - SALT LAKE CITY! Transit for the Olympics can be handled by shuttle bus service that runs for a few weeks. What the IOC is looking for is a profitable Olympics that are run by a national Olympic Commitee that has it's act together and a city that can get the job done. LA, Sydney, and Barcelona are the examples they always hold up - what sort of public transit did those cities have when they held the Olympics? Nothing compared to even a crippled CTA.

Do you work for the finance committee in city hall or something.....even if you just discovered that by wikipidia-ing CTA, I stand corrected. However, the CTA is still fried. And, the sales tax is more regressive and heinous than a home or income tax, and hurts the poor most. I understand Daley is lobbying Springfield to increase the sales tax to 11%, highest in the nation. Like I said, they chase away business. Everyone will make their big ticket purchases in Indiana and Wisc. then. Daley is the main driver of that push, as Chicago needs the CTA far more than the car-loving suburbs, who have all the expressways they need, that they fund themselves per gas taxes. Corporate taxes chased industry out to the suburbs and out-of-state as well. This is what I mean by the city fooling themselves with the facade of money in 10% of the city areas. The other 90% is bringing the city down big time, and this time the north side and rich can't carry the weight per the decrease in home taxes receipts(of course they want to raise those again too, which will chase the remaining seniors out to the burbs). I don't think some of you are getting my point, which is you have to deal with the city as a whole. When the majority of it is insolvent and destitute, whether that be 51-70% or so, it brings down the entire city like a millstone around its neck. First they cut services in the ghetto, next its school funding, of which there was a march on the school board for ghetto overcrowding yesterday, due to the same burden of carrying that insolvent part of the city. It's like a body 30% healthy, carrying around a decaying
70%, that will bring the whole thing down like a cancer......I wont even GET into city infrastructure!

[supernerdgirl]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

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

so it's Uptown and Edgewater's fault that E. Rogers Park is sketchy? Never heard that one before.

[j33]

Daley isn't involved with the 11% sales tax, Stroger is, and it won't happen.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by supernerdgirl

so it's Uptown and Edgewater's fault that E. Rogers Park is sketchy? Never heard that one before.

I was just listing a couple areas on the north side that were sketchy. I wasn't making any connections between the three areas, sorry about the confusion.

[Tex?Il?]

OK, with all this discussion, I will make another comparison of another major midwestern to show what industrial heritage/grittiness the OP was talking about.

Theres one major midwestern urban area that has reinvented itself VERY well, modernized its economy and has an awesome quality life just like the good areas of Chicago.

Minneapolis-St. Paul. They have a large population of young people, great architecture, great job market, outstanding theatres, museums, etc. but they don't have the extensive gritty areas and gritty past Southwest was talking about.

I'm actually a tiny bit jealous of people who are from that area. As far as I can tell, Minneapolis-St. Paul have almost all of what Chicago offered with a lower cost of living. Yet, people from that area, probably don't get asked about the Mob, gangs, etc. People from Iowa and Wisconsin don't really seem to feel any animosity toward them.

If there winters weren't as severe, Chicago would be facing some serious competition with the attractions of Minneapolis-St. Paul. There doesn't seem to be the in-your-face "tough guy" persona that can be a turn off.

Toronto is an example of a city that is about comparable to Chicago in many ways, but has one tenth the crime rate.

I like Chicago, but it seems to always reinventing itself, (building parks shiny metal beans, building syscrapers shaped like drill bits, and ones that are built by Donald Trump) because maybe its ashamed of its gritty past.

Boston and San Francisco have very vibrant populations and modern, diverse economies, but partly because its historic charms are one of the major attractions.

Maybe someone sees where I'm going with this. There is that side to Chicago that makes seem less attractive than the aforementioned places.

[Lookout Kid]

I think you need to compare Chicago to New York or Los Angeles in this respect... I see your point about Minneapolis-St. Paul, but I've always sort of felt that that area was actually lacking a lot of what Chicago has to offer. The downtown is pretty barren most of the time, and the shopping options don't come close to what we have in Chicago. Also, the cultural institutions are awesome for a city of that size, but they don't compare to what we have in Chicago. The same goes for most other ammenities. Again, it's a much smaller city, so this is understandable. But my biggest gripe about the Twin Cities is that you really need a car to live there. They just don't have the density and public transportation infrastructure to support a truly urban lifestyle. Also, they don't have the same crime trouble and "grittiness" because it's always been a much smaller city. The Twin Cities and Chicago are apples and oranges in my book.

New York is probably a better comparison, though it's always risky to compare Chicago to New York... But New York has always had (until recently) a serious violent crime problem and a very gritty past. They have found a way to move on, even though a large portion of the city still lives in poverty.

[Tex?Il?]

yeah, I guess I'm just not a city person I guess.

But I think the suburbanites should all refrain from claiming they are "from Chicago" since the suburbs are a totally different world than the city.

Having lived in a suburb 30 miles away I personally identify more with downtowns of smaller cities than I do with Chicagos downtown. Its a different world to me.

Most of my family lives in the Chicago area, I'm in my mid-to-late 20s, and most of the good looking girls my age are all attracted to Lincoln Park, etc.

The intense passion and focus on sports still seems very midwestern to me. if people had more environmental awareness on the level on what you might find in say northern California, it would be awesome.

If I like Chicago, I personally want to distance myself from the whole celebrity aspect of L.A. and N.Y. Two other slightly smaller North American cities I wouldn't mind comparing Chicago to are maybe Toronto and maybe Houston.

I believe anyone in the Chicago area who doesn't like country music at least a little bit is a New Yorker wannabe!