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.
I would NOT want to squeeze more people into chicago just to be able to say we have so many people. or whatever reason. If you ever walk against the rush hour mob of people rushing to catch the Metra, this is what it could be like on a larger scale. no thanks.
And to live in Manhattan, people choose to live in tiny apartments that are often more expensive than our downtown rents cost. but then again, i think they do this because there are many restaurants and stores, and I think they go out more rather than stay home. Is that right? ((i believe I heard this on a few episodes of House Hunters on HGTV and Selling New York tv show).
I have read that some census tracts in ELV rival Bombay for density due to the high rises.
Broadway is what I think of when I think of high density & grit, try the streets between Diversey and Addison. After Broadway ends going south similar rowhouses/greystones are on the streets just east/west of Clark Street, from Diversey to North.
Broadway-Clark between Diversey and Addison is gritty? You mean by Intelligentsia or Wrigleyville? Wouldn't use adjective grit up there; freak-show north of Belmont? yes. Busy at times, yes; bustle, no, which is odd considering it is pretty densely populated. Perhaps it's because most of the larger high-rises are along Sheridan/LSD.
I would NOT want to squeeze more people into chicago just to be able to say we have so many people. or whatever reason. If you ever walk against the rush hour mob of people rushing to catch the Metra, this is what it could be like on a larger scale. no thanks.
And to live in Manhattan, people choose to live in tiny apartments that are often more expensive than our downtown rents cost. but then again, i think they do this because there are many restaurants and stores, and I think they go out more rather than stay home. Is that right? ((i believe I heard this on a few episodes of House Hunters on HGTV and Selling New York tv show).
People want to live in Manhattan because it's one of, if not thee most, exciting cities in the world. So people will pay to live in a shoe-box and yes, the streets are packed because people want to get of their apartments and go out; which is a good thing. Why stay in a small apartment all the time when the world is outside your front door? New York is not for everyone so live and let live but lots of people want to go there from across the U.S. and the world.
Unfortunately, Chicago needs more people within its boundaries to help it get out of its black-hole deep debt.
People want to live in Manhattan because it's one of, if not thee most, exciting cities in the world. So people will pay to live in a shoe-box and yes, the streets are packed because people want to get of their apartments and go out; which is a good thing. Why stay in a small apartment all the time when the world is outside your front door? New York is not for everyone so live and let live but lots of people want to go there from across the U.S. and the world.
Unfortunately, Chicago needs more people within its boundaries to help it get out of its black-hole deep debt.
Agreed. Tokyo does it by design because they value being in public more and around people. I don't agree with living in a shoebox, but I would love to see more people in Chicago (even though there's a good number already). Not only for the economic reasons, but also to make it even more vibrant. People who also think Chicago is crowded have obviously not traveled much of anywhere. I've been to crowded cities in the world and Chicago even at its densest still comes nowhere close.
You said it, and I agree - I live in a city for a point. If I really didn't care about being around all this stuff, I'd just pay less and live in the burbs and use the Metra everyday instead.
there are two americas out there. for a huge, huge portion of our nation's population, this hardly applies. the walton family owns the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the US population. Frighteningly, that is the very type of income inequality that can lead to revolution. Larry, think what you want; this will crash and burn. and soon enough. it is a tragedy, but one that will be hard to escape. You may want to check out Thom Hartmann's incredible book, The Crash of 2016. A remarkable piece of work, totally well documented.
for the record, Larry, I fully agree with you that the economy is working extraordinary well for the top 10% of income earners. Hey, take a city your mentioned, San Francisco: once a great cross section of life styles and tolerance and progressive politics, today it is virtually taken over by extreme wealth, in recent years ramped up to an incredible degree by Silicon Valley wealth and those making their living there are pouring back into the a newly and strangely homogenized San Francisco.
Today, SF and NY (Manhattan) remain extremely dysfunctional places, cities where poor and working class people are virtually eliminated. And look at NY's economy, so heavily based on finance which produces virtually nothing but has turned Wall Street into a casino. the percentage of finance related jobs in Manhattan has skyrocketed and produces virtually nothing. I don't see how a nation that no longer has a democracy and is now controlled lock, stock, and barrel by international corporations with no loyalty to it has a bright future. Where are the jobs going to come from as most of the good paying ones have been exported overseas. And we spend virtually nothing on infrastructure, using our taxes to invest in your future as our schools and our streets, roads, and bridges go to pot. I won't even mention how we have totally ignored climate change, our heads buried in the sand.
I love my country. And, Larry, I know you won't agree (and that's fine), I weep for what has happened to it and what is coming up.
Sounds like 1990 or so when everyone was spooked by ''Bankruptcy 1994''....there is always a cycle of these cataclysmic books. The only somewhat prescient book I recall was Jane Jacobs' 2003 ''The Coming Dark Age'' in which she discussed a looming housing crisis and its effects.
sorry. i'm not trying to fuel any fire. in fact, i don't even see a battle:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago: 3 great cities, their compositions very different
not more, not less, just different. You will never hear me state the absurd notion that Chicago is a greater city than either New York or Los Angeles.
And, yes, I do find Chicago more "holistic" for what it is worth. NYC and LA both grew far differently than Chicago. To start with, topography (in New York, it's water in the form of rivers and bay) and in LA hills and mountains, divide in way that does not happen in Chicago.
Yes, Chicago, like all cities grew and incorporated outlying areas. Largely piecemeal. NYC and LA grew in ways that other cities didn't. In NYC, it was a dramatic act of state legislature at the end of the 19th century that created "Greater New York", well over doubling the size of the NYC of that time which was confounded to the island of Manhattan and its northern extensions in the western part of the Bronx. LA drew in massive portions of the San Fernando Valley through its ability to extend water rights.
And, yes, I do see elements of Brooklyn that retain the large city of its own that it once was. And I never suggested, as some said I did, that Forest Hills lacked an urban quality. It does. But its in some ways its own place; people in Queens often refer to the neighborhoods by their former title, villages. But there are regions in the southern 2/3 of Staten Island and where Queens abuts Long Island that real suburbia does exist. and from many areas in the outer boroughs, going into Manhattan is spoken as "going into the city."
And where did I suggest that suburban Chicagoans don't know the city? I live in Buffalo Grove and don't consider myself unknowledgable about Chicago (admittedly I was born there and have lived closer to it, but so what). My experiences with other suburbanites is very much along the line that (1) they love the city and (2) tend to know it pretty well.
as I said, Chicago, to me, is the most holistic, the most united in sense of being part of that same grid, part of a flat landscape throughout, one that interconnects between the divisions and barriers I stated.
But how is this better? How does this knock down NY or LA. Strictly on opinion and nothing else (mere assessment on my part), I tend to see the United States having 6 truly great cities. To step on no toes of any on the list, I'll name them east to west: Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. So please note that NY and LA are every bit a part of my list as Chicago is.
and please tell me where I made any absorb claim that Chicago was the "biggest city". I didn't. again, those references were to the unified nature of Chicago, not its population. Indeed, to me, an urban population of 3,000,000 in a metro area of 10,000,000 would be ideal: not too big, not to small. A literal baby (Chicago) bear "just right". Indeed NYC itself should be overjoyed that that it is not even close to the size of largest cities on the planet….and the hell hole prospect that entails.
I never even suggested that suburbia (by municipal distinctions) can't be more dense than city. In fact, in Washington, where zoning laws keep the skyline low, you have the phenomenium of extremely dense commercial/residential complexes in both the MD and VA suburbs. High rise living in the DC area is more confined to VA and MD than DC. Yet I would still see Washington as the urban core and those states and the outlying portions of the metro area.
that said, I don't have a problem with you misreading or even disagreeing with my words. You got me wrong (as far as I was trying to express myself), but you didn't by any means rip into me. The thing that made this thread a place I didn't want to come back to is Chet's totally abusive commuting and name calling. What a horrible way to have a conversation.
The United States, as a number of posters have suggested, is a nation in serious, serious trouble. It's about time that great cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are not competing camps but are on the same team in the same boat. And it is sinking. Badly. This nation and its divide between rich and poor, power and powerless, will bring all three down, along with the rest. And there are many of us in America who think that is going to happen very, very soon.
Your last paragraph sounds like it's right out of 1932...the depths of the Great Depression when it was either sending food or troops to American cities. We need to remember that America has overcome so much worse than our current situation and, yet, continued to grow and prosper. Our current situation is the worst since the Great Depression; we're just in a plain old real estate induced Depression. That said, however, people can only tread water and hang on for so long.
No, we're not. Chicago is a prosperous city. The public pension funds may have been raided, but that doesn't affect most people.
New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle are booming. The Sunbelt is recovering from the housing crash. The old rust-belt cities and farm towns are doing less well, but there are bright spots there too (there's an energy boom going on).
The idea that America is going down the drain and that Detroit is a harbinger of our future is totally wrong. I admit that there's not much of a future for high school dropouts or for high school "grads" who can't read, write, or cipher, but skilled workers have a bright future. The companies I talk to (in my role as an investment manager) say that worker shortages are what is keeping them from growing.
How does the public pension raid not affect most people? Also, I've heard the line that companies can't grow because there are not enough skilled workers is a myth; I'm saying you are not hearing that, but that companies are just saying this. I've heard this line for more than a few years now and it keeps recurring. I mean, after some time unskilled people become skilled in these industries that need skilled workers. When will this tide turn? For example, Health Care is supposed to be a jobs growth industry and so people get skilled to work it in; what fields are starving for workers? So the people not finding work and get trained and find employment so we can get the economy really moving once and for all and dust off the effects of the economic Depression we're in.
Your last paragraph sounds like it's right out of 1932...the depths of the Great Depression when it was either sending food or troops to American cities. We need to remember that America has overcome so much worse than our current situation and, yet, continued to grow and prosper. Our current situation is the worst since the Great Depression; we're just in a plain old real estate induced Depression. That said, however, people can only tread water and hang on for so long.
Kamms, I can't imagine anything worse than our current situation. The depletion of the planet and the climate had not accelerated to anywhere near what the current levels are today. And look at the levels of global population today and the number of nations that are straining the resources. In truth, we have lost control of the scenario.
If you flash back to the Great Depression, you can see a nation that put itself back in gear and addressed its problems. The New Deal had more than its share of problems, but we were doing what we could to get this country back to work and to right was was wrong. Today, we do little and have even less control over our government which due to the power of money is no longer responsive to our people.
I try my best to be neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but as realistic as I can be. I have no doubt in this regard that late stage, canabalistic capitalism which seeks endless supplies for endless demands is destroying a very finite world. Much of our successes from the virtual start of the 20th century were built on the ability to extract and refine crude oil, a product now in shorter and shorter supply and one when reaching what is left of the supply (through fracking and deep ocean drilling) is proving fatal to life on earth (well, human life, at least). That this monster we have created has sparked the growth of other economies once week (BRIC being the best example) only highlights how insane our assault on the planet is. And let's not forget our military, the largest in the world, larger than all others combined (which virtually didn't exist in the 1930's during the Depression) is the very thing that destroys empires (it did it in Rome). A nation with less than 5% of the world's population uses about 20% plus of its energy resources.
I would love if the future proves me wrong, but I don't see it happening.
How does the public pension raid not affect most people? Also, I've heard the line that companies can't grow because there are not enough skilled workers is a myth; I'm saying you are not hearing that, but that companies are just saying this. I've heard this line for more than a few years now and it keeps recurring. I mean, after some time unskilled people become skilled in these industries that need skilled workers. When will this tide turn? For example, Health Care is supposed to be a jobs growth industry and so people get skilled to work it in; what fields are starving for workers? So the people not finding work and get trained and find employment so we can get the economy really moving once and for all and dust off the effects of the economic Depression we're in.
Kamms, you bring up excellent points here. Certainly Illinois government has been a sewer for ages; no one doubts that. And pensions have not been well guarded. But let's not forget that the problems we face are the same as those that virtually all cities and states face: there is little federal money coming down to state and local levels which is squeezing all systems. We no longer have a federal tax system that works as legislation and loopholes keep the wealthy and the corporations from paying their fair share, defense becomes the bloated part of our federal budget and austerity becomes the rule as we choose not to raise taxes to workable levels. No nation ever worked its economic health back through austerity which only makes the problem worse (as you note, 'So the people not finding work and get trained and find employment so we can get the economy really moving once and for all and dust off the effects of the economic Depression we're in.").
We are no longer citizens, but consumers now, and we have reached the point where there is less and less to consume.
"Chicago is a prosperous city." and
"New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle are booming."
perhaps. and certainly for the wealthiest among us that would be true.
but then what do you say about all those others out there like Newark, Camden, East St. Louis, St. Louis, Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, Flint, Baltimore, Youngstown, and endless others?
doesn't much of New York's wealth come from the selling of companies whose assets are sacked and their jobs sent overseas? It is built on bundling and selling tarnished assets. It is built on finance becoming a huge and debilitating part of its economy. How much of DC's wealth comes from the military industrial complex that has made metro DC the wealthiest of our urban communities, a place where in VA, endless McMansions in gated communities are built on defense contracts.
Yes, the US is an incredibly wealthy country. But how that wealth is distributed shows the huge percent of us that are far removed from that wealth and are suffering because of it; once the poster child of prosperity with its incredibly large, healthy and mobile middle class, we are now stratified to a degree where the only real growth is on top, the rest stagnant and a degree of social immobility that if you are stuck in poverty, you will likely stay there. Once the envy of the world for our educational system, our schools rot and those who can afford it, put their children in private ones. Two Americas. Two nations. separate and unequal. And for the one on top, little awareness of what the other is experiencing. And oblivious of what the true state of the nation is going to do to all of us.
the most frustrating thing to me is how we manage to ignore what is happening, look the other way, pretend, make absurd statements on "american exceptionalism" and choose not to face our problems. I'm not even talking solution here: I'm talking understanding and comprehension and mindset for without those, no action can take place.
The monster we have created is unsustainable, is being pushed back by the increasingly unhealthy planet itself, and will soon be gone with the wind as there will nothing to prop it up.
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.
