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

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by Milliano

Chicago seems to have somehow survived the disaster of having no urban growth boundary (like Detroit) because of its economic strength. I doubt Daley had much to do with 'saving' Chicago - Chicago saves itself just by being the premiere international city of the Midwest. The only city that comes anywhere close to rivaling it is Toronto, and it's far away and isn't even in the USA. Some of its recent moves, like shipping off many recent public housing 'immigrants' to the suburbs, is brilliant. Why should the suburbs be allowed to leech off of the city, and get a free ride while not having to pay for services like a police force? The reasons those suburbs were nice in the first place are things like systematic discrimination and an inept/nonexistant metro wide urban planning policy.

But I see some points made here... the middle class doesn't seem to exist in large quantities here. If the American middle class wasn't so hung up on having a huge house for their 1.5 kids and "great schools" (myth), maybe their families would settle in Chicago in larger numbers, and the city would be in a lot better shape. Still by comparison to most US cities, Chicago is really grand.

And with regards to "mean" - BTW the original post was hilarious. But on my visits to Chicago, even in the 'roughest' neighborhoods, there were people who treated me very kindly. For instance I'm a young white male, and was treated nice and friendly by multiple people in west Garfield Park.

I live in a suburban area with displaced sec.8'ers from the city, and its not brilliant, by any means. It's the same as dumping sludge and waste the next state over. What they basically did is begin by dumping them on the south side neighborhoods by concentrating the wall of projects there in the first place. The Stateway gardens and Robert Taylor homes could have been built on the north side, but was needed as a buffer on the other side of the ryan for Daley's planning commission, to keep the ethnic white groups happy west of the ryan, and the black vote concentrated in the hands of a handful of black aldermen as well. This kept the machine running. Truth be told, Richard J. Daley would have lost to Benjamin Adamowski in his first election if it wan't for the black machine vote that just put him over the top.
The city kept pushing the whole ghetto complex south, pushing out the middle-class blacks and whites ahead of it. it continues in the south suburbs to this day. My local high school was relatively integrated when I went there 20 years ago. Now, the suburban high school is 93% black. This means that we are as segregated as we were before "Brown vs. Board", and all due to machine politics that are of the highest racist taint. In sum, again, "dumping" insolvency on the suburbs is neither practical or right, and will have a negative effect on the whole after all is said and done.........

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by southwest1230

The truth is that you will be much more acquainted with that gritty part of the city soon, as the CTA routes enmasse are cut in two weeks due to citywide insolvency. The city frankly is acting as if it were two cities, and has been for a good long time....

It's not a matter of not being familiar with the "gritty" parts of the city... I'm very familiar with the entire city, as much as that is possible. It's that it's easy to exist in Chicago without feeling affected by what happens in the ghettos. Is this a good thing? No, I don't believe so. I'm just arguing that it's not a uniquely Chicago thing.

[southwest1230]

One last thing..how do you think the greater north side would react if there was an rush of sec. 8 voucher seekers with vouchers to get into Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and environs? I would imagine, seeing the reaction of just one isolated rape/battery case in the news, that they would not take kindly to it. I would imagine many folks would move out. There indeed is no general plan for the metro per sec.8'ers besides the plan created by the CHA, with the help of the federal HUD agencies. You are right that a greater share of folks should bear the burdens financially, and that would include spreading social ills fairly across the region. We need scattered site gov't housing in the NW suburbs, Southwest burbs, north shore burbs, and the entire north side as well, along with liberal voucher redemption. Sweeping the sec.8'ers under the rug in the south suburbs and manginal city neighborhoods does no one any good, and just plain isn't fair to the good working folks of ALL persuations who pay the ultimate penalty of having to deal with the situation more than anyone. Thats truly the saddest part of all....I live this and see this everyday...

[guinnessjim]

Originally Posted by southwest1230

Not bitter, just truthful. Sometimes the truth, stripped of pretensions, is not a pretty thing to gaze at. Yes, the truth is that Chicago has a huge ghetto remaining, and very much resembles Detroit in some westside areas. To bulldoze and dismantle the projects and slums, and entice white childless couples to roost pre-children, forthwith moving back to burbs again, does not a city make. Now simple services like CTA routes and services are being cut. The city fooled itself. The only time Chicago was solvent was when the majority was solid working class up to the early 70's. Since then, a slow slide into insolvency, with an eroding of the tax base. All the factory jobs are leaving, and so are many with money. Forget the Olympic bid. Let's just try
to survive as a city first.

wow...good to see this idiot gets around.

he/she has recently started throwing crap on vegas. at least there was no racist crap from sw2130 in this post...

[AQUEMINI331]

After reading all 9 pages of this thread, let me just say this -



Some of what southwest1230 has been saying is true. For the most part, his history is correct. What I really don't agree with is his pessimistic outlook on the city of Chicago. As others have pointed out here, Chicago is by no means a dying city. You want to see something that resembles a dying city, go to Detroit or Cleveland. But even those cities are revitalizing their downtowns and building new stadiums, revamping their waterfronts, and attracting new residents in the form of newly arrived immigrants, mainly from Latin America and the Middle East.


People say Chicago is making a comeback.....................I think the real question is did it ever fall. People say that Mayor Daley "saved" the city. I disagree. I think Chicago, like New York (a city that fared much worse than Chicago ever did), is simply too big and too important to fade into irrelevancy and nothingness anytime in the foreseeable future. We keep talking about Chicago as a manufacturing center and as a haven for working class people looking for decent jobs with decent pay (at least that's what Chicago historically has been), but the truth of the matter is the city has always been a huge financial center as well. It trails only New York in the U.S. in terms of importance in the financial industry (stock markets, etc). The University of Chicago is by and large considered to be the absolute best school on Earth to study economics, and there's even such a thing as the "Chicago School" in the field of economics. Chicago is a money-making and money-managing town, and has been just as long as there have been slaugtherhouses here. And I think that's what Chicago is really capitalizing on now, while focusing less on its working class and industrial background. The city is focusing on its business side, and the fact that historically people have came here and made their fortunes. Hell, we have two of the world's wealthiest (or at least America's wealthiest) people who live right here in Chicago and made their millions right here in Chicago - Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan. Those are just two people that everyone knows about, I'm sure there are CEOs and such in the business world, among others, who also possess great wealth and call Chicago home.


All I'm saying is, don't forget Chicago's importance as a financial capital. It's just as much a part of the city's history as meat packing and the Mob (which was actually started here, NOT in New Jersey or New York).



_

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

This is a good discussion. Although I don't fully 100% agree with Southwest, I nevertheless have thought about these things.

For me personally, I don't think in some much a literal sense as Chicago being mean or friendly. I would say Chicago is in a state of transition, that can make it seem contradictory or confusing sometimes. I would say there are many people that display characteristics of both.

Perfect example: I have a friend who's all about "Oh, isn't it great that we are lucky enough to live in a place thats a meeting place among so many different cultures, unlike some podunk town, etc." Will go to ethnic restaurants, eat soul food, etc. But then will go on a rant/lecture about "how white people are screwed over in getting jobs, scholarships for college, and black people get a free ride or a job with less qualifications. Or will talk about how if "we don't make english the official language our country will go downhill, and hispanics have to spot expecting us to know Spanish."

Other people around here will emphasize the crucial importance of education, and how one needs a college education to succeed, but then will never miss an opportunity to make fun of someone, calling them a "professional student" going back and getting there masters in anything but an MBA.

Now, I know these things arent mutually exclusive. Others will look at what I wrote and say yeah, so what thats common sense or whatever.

But nonetheless, I can see how Chicago and its natives are confusing. AND I KNOW this is not limited to Chicago. But its when start thinking that Chicagoans are any more progressive, smarter, more cultured than other midwesterners, even other urban midwesterners I have to disagree.

Also: Other than being cheaper than California or the East Coast, and having more "culture and urban vibe" than other midwest or southern cities. A great economy, and a lot of safe, clean neighborhoods, what does it really have that other cities don't? It doesn't have East coast history (its nature, hills, aren't bad either) or West Coast nature, it just seems to be almost like a makeshift New York.

One of the major Real Estate draw in Chicago is a ball park. Again, thats fine. Maybe I'm just not into baseball. I've been to Cubs games several times, but come'on do you think theres really any difference between Busch Stadium or Comerica Park, other than a bars nearby where you can get safely drunk at? with the El to take you home to safety afterwards so you're not driving drunk?

I don't know, I guess I just don't get it. I live here, I guess thats why I don't feel the same fascination.

Thanks, Tex....actually we kind of morphed this subject, as that sometimes is wont to do......It really is about the city powers paying the price for ignoring the greater area of Chicago that is insolvent, particularly the mid-far south and west sides......When industry got sucked out, the yuppies eventually seeped in and converted SOME loft spaces and such, but they certainly aren't going to gentrify the whole city. That's the part that is costing us as a whole now, and the part that is causing the state to allow the unprecedented 11% sales tax in chicago. This is actually very simple stuff. When industry closes, either the neighborhood gentrifies, another viable use is found, or the neighborhood falls prey to the weak and exploited poor. That is the case in the majority of Chicago. All the projects are down now, at least most.....that initial push that released land for gentrification is gone now. Now the city has 1.5 million poor and disadvantaged folks, numerically more than Detroit, bringing it down like a collective millstone. The CTA is just the first indication of this. Get ready for another battle per the 11% sales tax....let the games begin! And I'm not referring to the Olympic bid either!

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

This is a good discussion. Although I don't fully 100% agree with Southwest, I nevertheless have thought about these things.

For me personally, I don't think in some much a literal sense as Chicago being mean or friendly. I would say Chicago is in a state of transition, that can make it seem contradictory or confusing sometimes. I would say there are many people that display characteristics of both.

Perfect example: I have a friend who's all about "Oh, isn't it great that we are lucky enough to live in a place thats a meeting place among so many different cultures, unlike some podunk town, etc." Will go to ethnic restaurants, eat soul food, etc. But then will go on a rant/lecture about "how white people are screwed over in getting jobs, scholarships for college, and black people get a free ride or a job with less qualifications. Or will talk about how if "we don't make english the official language our country will go downhill, and hispanics have to spot expecting us to know Spanish."

Other people around here will emphasize the crucial importance of education, and how one needs a college education to succeed, but then will never miss an opportunity to make fun of someone, calling them a "professional student" going back and getting there masters in anything but an MBA.

Now, I know these things arent mutually exclusive. Others will look at what I wrote and say yeah, so what thats common sense or whatever.

But nonetheless, I can see how Chicago and its natives are confusing. AND I KNOW this is not limited to Chicago. But its when start thinking that Chicagoans are any more progressive, smarter, more cultured than other midwesterners, even other urban midwesterners I have to disagree.

Also: Other than being cheaper than California or the East Coast, and having more "culture and urban vibe" than other midwest or southern cities. A great economy, and a lot of safe, clean neighborhoods, what does it really have that other cities don't? It doesn't have East coast history (its nature, hills, aren't bad either) or West Coast nature, it just seems to be almost like a makeshift New York.

One of the major Real Estate draw in Chicago is a ball park. Again, thats fine. Maybe I'm just not into baseball. I've been to Cubs games several times, but come'on do you think theres really any difference between Busch Stadium or Comerica Park, other than a bars nearby where you can get safely drunk at? with the El to take you home to safety afterwards so you're not driving drunk?

I don't know, I guess I just don't get it. I live here, I guess thats why I don't feel the same fascination.

Yes, they do indeed oversell Wrigley, I would say at the expense of what is truly the best ballpark in Chicago, Comiskey.....Besides the world champion status in '05(and congrats BoSox), they made Comisk. a great family park, more so than Wrigley, which is essentially a giant singles bar, without the bar. Unfortunately, tourists think it cute to get the CUB hats, so what can you do?

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by AQUEMINI331

After reading all 9 pages of this thread, let me just say this -



Some of what southwest1230 has been saying is true. For the most part, his history is correct. What I really don't agree with is his pessimistic outlook on the city of Chicago. As others have pointed out here, Chicago is by no means a dying city. You want to see something that resembles a dying city, go to Detroit or Cleveland. But even those cities are revitalizing their downtowns and building new stadiums, revamping their waterfronts, and attracting new residents in the form of newly arrived immigrants, mainly from Latin America and the Middle East.


People say Chicago is making a comeback.....................I think the real question is did it ever fall. People say that Mayor Daley "saved" the city. I disagree. I think Chicago, like New York (a city that fared much worse than Chicago ever did), is simply too big and too important to fade into irrelevancy and nothingness anytime in the foreseeable future. We keep talking about Chicago as a manufacturing center and as a haven for working class people looking for decent jobs with decent pay (at least that's what Chicago historically has been), but the truth of the matter is the city has always been a huge financial center as well. It trails only New York in the U.S. in terms of importance in the financial industry (stock markets, etc). The University of Chicago is by and large considered to be the absolute best school on Earth to study economics, and there's even such a thing as the "Chicago School" in the field of economics. Chicago is a money-making and money-managing town, and has been just as long as there have been slaugtherhouses here. And I think that's what Chicago is really capitalizing on now, while focusing less on its working class and industrial background. The city is focusing on its business side, and the fact that historically people have came here and made their fortunes. Hell, we have two of the world's wealthiest (or at least America's wealthiest) people who live right here in Chicago and made their millions right here in Chicago - Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan. Those are just two people that everyone knows about, I'm sure there are CEOs and such in the business world, among others, who also possess great wealth and call Chicago home.


All I'm saying is, don't forget Chicago's importance as a financial capital. It's just as much a part of the city's history as meat packing and the Mob (which was actually started here, NOT in New Jersey or New York).



_

Extremely well said and put.....greatly enjoyed the post....and, indeed, the Board of Trade was here from the time the first grain cargos were physically traded, though on a regional basis. There has always been a grand schism between the 1800's robber barons such as the fields, palmers, and armours, and the working stiffs that gave their working lives in their service. For the most part, until the unions became strong in the late 40's, it was a mutually antagonistic relationship, creating a national hotbed of unrest and anarchism in the 1890's, leading to the Haymarket Square riots and the pullman strikes, up to the Calumet Park Police riots per republic steel in the 30's.........now, the modern day robber barron sups his cappocino in Lincoln Park, feeling a profound sense of satisfaction, while the next poor neighborhood gets displaced/ replaced, and the cycle of the "two cities of Chicago" continues. That is what the city is dealing with right now. Simply put, a city of gentrified upscale neighborhoods can't support a city of 3 million people with basic city services anymore. Without industry and the working class, you have a load that is too much to carry. Lets hope things work themselves out, beginning with the huge CTA layoffs starting next week, and proceeding to the 15% beer surcharge tax under discussion,
and the 11% retail tax.

[PAKennedy]

Originally Posted by southwest1230

Simply put, a city of gentrified upscale neighborhoods can't support a city of 3 million people with basic city services anymore. Without industry and the working class, you have a load that is too much to carry.

I disagree, but only in terms of what are known as economically "inferior services" (which, sadly for us less-than-rich folks, includes the CTA). In a city run on the money of the wealthy, funding for services for the bourgeoisie class are difficult to allocate. You're right that it can't support a balance of classes, but this is all evidence that Chicago is facing a shift in the faces of its citizens. Sadly, it is one that, right now, looks like it will run the average people out of town, which is a shame. CTA will survive, but will only shake its financial troubles when it can market its services to a wealthier crowd. Safer, cleaner, brighter, more modernized L stops need to be a focus if they'd like the average income of the ridership to increase, but that will probably also make ticket prices increase, coming in a full circle to exclude the commoner.

Originally Posted by southwest1230

Lets hope things work themselves out, beginning with the huge CTA layoffs starting next week, and proceeding to the 15% beer surcharge tax under discussion,
and the 11% retail tax.

Lord help us, I hope they can pull it together. I need the CTA.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by AQUEMINI331

After reading all 9 pages of this thread, let me just say this -



Some of what southwest1230 has been saying is true. For the most part, his history is correct. What I really don't agree with is his pessimistic outlook on the city of Chicago. As others have pointed out here, Chicago is by no means a dying city. You want to see something that resembles a dying city, go to Detroit or Cleveland. But even those cities are revitalizing their downtowns and building new stadiums, revamping their waterfronts, and attracting new residents in the form of newly arrived immigrants, mainly from Latin America and the Middle East.


People say Chicago is making a comeback.....................I think the real question is did it ever fall. People say that Mayor Daley "saved" the city. I disagree. I think Chicago, like New York (a city that fared much worse than Chicago ever did), is simply too big and too important to fade into irrelevancy and nothingness anytime in the foreseeable future. We keep talking about Chicago as a manufacturing center and as a haven for working class people looking for decent jobs with decent pay (at least that's what Chicago historically has been), but the truth of the matter is the city has always been a huge financial center as well. It trails only New York in the U.S. in terms of importance in the financial industry (stock markets, etc). The University of Chicago is by and large considered to be the absolute best school on Earth to study economics, and there's even such a thing as the "Chicago School" in the field of economics. Chicago is a money-making and money-managing town, and has been just as long as there have been slaugtherhouses here. And I think that's what Chicago is really capitalizing on now, while focusing less on its working class and industrial background. The city is focusing on its business side, and the fact that historically people have came here and made their fortunes. Hell, we have two of the world's wealthiest (or at least America's wealthiest) people who live right here in Chicago and made their millions right here in Chicago - Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan. Those are just two people that everyone knows about, I'm sure there are CEOs and such in the business world, among others, who also possess great wealth and call Chicago home.


All I'm saying is, don't forget Chicago's importance as a financial capital. It's just as much a part of the city's history as meat packing and the Mob (which was actually started here, NOT in New Jersey or New York).



_

Not too deviate from the thread, but I would disagree about the Mob "starting" in Chicago. Maybe mob activities, possibly, because Chicago was a wide-open booming town during Al Capones days. But the fact remains Al Capone, Johnny Torrio, and the rest of those guys all grew up in Brooklyn/New York, NOT Chicago. Its pretty clear that people from there came to Chicago to cause trouble because of the lack of laws, (and close to Canada for bootlegging). In my mind the mob really "started" there.

I wouldn't say Daley senior is the only reason why Chicago is what it is today, but it certainly is a big reason. I would say in the early days Chicago was still competing with St. Louis until the begining of the 10th century for the trade and commerce of middle America. Detroit I think was growing faster than Chicago from about the 20-50s. Detroit even had a stock exchange until the 70s believe it or not. Chicago became what it is today, because of a few CRUCIAL events and historic points, right people in the right places at the right time. Not because of anything intrinsic.