Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, they are different. Most who live in Gold Coast work in the loop. Everyone knows that. It's not like they are far away.
I think I would know considering I live in the Gold Coast and have for a handful of years. This is only partially true and beyond the point. The point is about what is representative of the city, and it's not about where people work. A city is more than just where some people work (also I have many friends who live here who do NOT work in the Loop - some do and some don't). Stop throwing out figures with no proof.
Quote:
You are trying to play up the less-known neighborhoods (standard fare on City-Data), and anyone who isn't familiar with them, knows nothing about the city.
Actually yes, you are correct. You see, 100% of the City of Chicago is broken down into 77 unique community areas (which are like large neighborhoods) not one or two. If you only know about the Loop (and maybe the Near North Side), you really only know about 1.3 - 2.6% of the entire neighborhood makeup of the city. Together, the populations of both Loop and Near North Side only account for 4.07% of the entire city's population.
So yes, by definition (and also logic), if you only know a few neighborhoods, you know next to nothing about the city considering 95.93% of the city's population lives outside of these two neighborhoods and there is business all over. This would be like claiming Midtown Manhattan is indicative of NYC and then claiming that you know about all of New York City because you think you know about Midtown without acknowledging other areas of Manhattan let alone other burroughs.
And, I highly doubt you've personally lived in all 77 neighborhoods yourself. I've seen quite a bit of the city and it didn't interest me. Those neighborhoods you delight in knowing look like any older part of Cleveland, St Louis, Milwaukee.
Back to topic, even the most high-end neighborhoods in Chicago still feel very provincial for being such a large city.
And, I highly doubt you've personally lived in all 77 neighborhoods yourself. I've seen quite a bit of the city and it didn't interest me. Those neighborhoods you delight in knowing look like any older part of Cleveland, St Louis, Milwaukee.
No, I haven't LIVED in them, but I have been to probably around 75% of them at this point so I know a little bit about many of them, not to mention the amount of research and reading I do for each sometimes. It has nothing to do with what interests you. It has to do with logic. Your statements show you know next to nothing about this city minus a few small areas, mainly downtown, and then you think you actually know them.
And what does architecture have to do with anything? Of course they're going to *look* like them. They're in the same overall geography and architectural styles spread early on throughout the regions, not to mention various styles only do well in certain climates (i.e. stucco in SoCal). There's a few reasons why you don't see many Mediterranean or Spanish architectural styles in Chicago and none of it has to do with "Well screw _____, we do our own thing!" The architectural styles came from the immigrants who settled here and what they knew from their homelands also. It's the same reason why everything in Southern California has the same architecture and is similar to that of Arizona. You aren't going to all of a sudden start seeing a bunch of stucco housing in NYC because New Yorkers decided they would like to align with the beliefs of Californians. It's separate and a completely moot point other than where the early and influential immigrants of a city came from.
Quote:
Back to topic, even the most high-end neighborhoods in Chicago still feel very provincial for being such a large city.
I partially agree, but it depends on where you go within the neighborhoods. Some areas can be provincial and many are not and I really don't think this is much different than most any other US city (save one or two). It's old news, but again - you are judging the city by its "upscale neighborhoods." Not by the other areas of town which goes back to the original point. Being non provincial has absolutely nothing to do with how upscale you are. You don't need to make $100,000/year or more and have expensive clothing to be an open minded person.
Last edited by marothisu; 07-16-2013 at 01:22 PM..
Once you seen one, you've basically seen them all. That's the point.
I think what I'm getting at, there isn't much celebrity culture in Chicago besides professional sports, and the people seem more conformist than what you might find in parts of NY & LA. For being so big, Chicago doesn't really have a provocative edge the way some other cities do (the much smaller Miami & Las Vegas for example).
Miami & Vegas seem to attract a more international visiting crowd, compared to what you find in Chicago. Sometimes it just feels too ho-hum midwestern. Not different from Iowa at all besides having a lot more business and professional sports. Sorry.
And, I highly doubt you've personally lived in all 77 neighborhoods yourself. I've seen quite a bit of the city and it didn't interest me. Those neighborhoods you delight in knowing look like any older part of Cleveland, St Louis, Milwaukee.
Back to topic, even the most high-end neighborhoods in Chicago still feel very provincial for being such a large city.
There are a lot more than 77 neighborhoods, those are 77 community areas, a big distinction.
And really, I haven't been to Cleveland, but if you think Chicago resembles Milwaukee or St. Louis then you're just being silly.
Either the North or South Side of Chicago has more people than both of them put together.
St. Louis has character, but it feels largely deserted & has been dying a slow death since travel by steamboat stopped being fashionable. When the best restaurant near Busch Stadium is Hooters (or was when I visited last about 5 years ago), I rest my case.
And I like Milwaukee a lot, but again, just nothing even remotely close to Chicago in terms of cultural richness.
Once you seen one, you've basically seen them all. That's the point.
I think what I'm getting at, there isn't much celebrity culture in Chicago besides professional sports, and the people seem more conformist than what you might find in parts of NY & LA. For being so big, Chicago doesn't really have a provocative edge the way some other cities do (the much smaller Miami & Las Vegas for example).
Miami & Vegas seem to attract a more international visiting crowd, compared to what you find in Chicago. Sometimes it just feels too ho-hum midwestern. Not different from Iowa at all besides having a lot more business and professional sports. Sorry.
You are being just as provincial here as you claim everyone else is in Chicago by showing your close mindedness.
Listen, I went to college in Iowa, but my family is 100% from NYC and LA (yes, including my parents), and I live in Chicago now. I know a little something about all three areas of the country. There are certainly a few areas that can be akin to Iowa here and there, but overall it's not that much like it. Your statement of "Once you've seen one, you've seen it all" shows your lack of understanding and knowledge of the city. Albany Park, for example, is not very similar to Lincoln Park.
When you actually get outside of Sports Bars in River North, Streeterville, Lincoln Park, and Lakeview and the yuppiness of Wicker Park and Bucktown, you actually realize there's a lot more out there than just that. You are committing a common thing I've seen 100 times on these forums before. People sample a few neighborhoods and assume it's like that throughout the entire city because afterall, it's where the party is at. You are being nothing but a cognitive miser in this case and very close minded. Just because you've seen Lakeview doesn't mean you have any room to speak about an area like Humboldt Park, or Hermosa, or Hyde Park.
Celebrity culture has nothing to do with enlightenment and actually in this day and age I'd argue that it has little effect on the open mindedness of a people surrounding it. I'll agree with you that people are more conformist here than NYC, LA is a little more non conformist but not by much.
I honestly think you're judging by the wrong reasons. I have an acquaintance who I'd say is fairly conformist. However, she is a very open minded person (outside of what foods she eats) and I'd never lump her into someone who is extremely provincial outside of her pickiness with food (which is pretty universal).
While Chicago is behind some other cities in international tourism (it still gets over 1 million foreign visitors per year), it's a city that suffers from bad PR. I remember earlier this year when I visited my now ex girlfriend's parents in Malaysia. We were talking and they thought all of Chicago is a crime filled place. THAT is why the international tourists don't come as much as a few other cities. Most of them don't give two ****s about what's going on in the US on a daily basis - they just want to be where they see on TV which is NYC and LA. The news they see is the bad stuff, just like how the stuff we see in foreign cities is the bad stuff too. Still, Chicago gets a decent amount of international tourism even if it should be higher than it is, not to mention a big international population which is yes, mainly outside of the downtown areas. It's a lot more complicated than you think.
Outside the loop, or "downtown" - whatever your definition is. It looks the same as any other rust belt city. Very little difference, maybe a different prevailing ethnicity or sports team that is supported.
You're arguing that by someone not caring to visit Humboldt Park (and the like) to see "real" Chicago, they are somehow provincial and close-minded, for not embracing close-mindedness itself (which those neighborhoods are). There's still lots of gang activity there, even if it's slightly gentrified.
If it makes you feel better, I once got lost in Hegewisch.
Outside the loop, or "downtown" - whatever your definition is. It looks the same as any other rust belt city. Very little difference.
Again, look has almost nothing to do with it. Comparing two cities with the same architectural styles means nothing. Istanbul and Ankara look similar in many areas, but they are nothing alike on average. This is as frivolous as comparing two guitars that appear to look about the same and then claiming that they're basically the same quality in play.
Quote:
You're arguing that by someone not caring to visit Humboldt Park to see "real" Chicago, they are somehow provincial and close-minded, for not embracing close-mindedness itself.
If it makes you feel better, I once got lost in Hegewisch.
The very definition of being open minded is being receptive to new ideas or opinions. If someone has only been to a small handful of areas in a city and then will not look at other areas of the city because they think "once you've seen one, you've seem em all," then that is the very definition of being not only close minded, but also of being a cognitive miser.
For the record, Hegewisch is the very furthest Southeast community area of Chicago and almost next to Indiana. Only 0.3% (That is 3/10 of 1%) of the city's population lives there. Hardly indicative of anything. It sounds like you were going on a road trip from Iowa, got off the interstate to get something to eat and then got lost. It's akin to getting lost in Staten Island near Perth Amboy in Jersey.
the loop is probably one of the most visited parts of the city. It's Chicago's Manhattan. A less impressive neighborhood might be more applicable, since it would be reflective of more of the city.
You have managed to show a complete ignorance of both NYC and Chicago with that comparison. The Loop is a neighborhood (or community area). Manhattan is a borough that encompasses many neighborhoods. The fact that you lump together areas like Midtown, Greenwich Village, SoHo, The Financial District, The Upper East Side...etc. shows you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Some of that ho-hum Midwestern vibe you describe disappears as you spend more time in River North, Gold Coast, Bucktown & Wicker Park. Then you got edgier hoods like Logan Square & Pilsen which I'd struggle to describe as typically Midwestern. Lincoln Park & Lakeview only feel Midwestern because of the massive Big 10 grad population in the area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieJonez
Once you seen one, you've basically seen them all. That's the point.
I think what I'm getting at, there isn't much celebrity culture in Chicago besides professional sports, and the people seem more conformist than what you might find in parts of NY & LA. For being so big, Chicago doesn't really have a provocative edge the way some other cities do (the much smaller Miami & Las Vegas for example).
Miami & Vegas seem to attract a more international visiting crowd, compared to what you find in Chicago. Sometimes it just feels too ho-hum midwestern. Not different from Iowa at all besides having a lot more business and professional sports. Sorry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
