Chicago= New Detroit?

[thefallensrvnge]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

However, I will say that Chicago seems to be one of the few cities, that some people can love so much, they can't see how someone else might see it as a fun, great city, but not necessarily the center of the universe.

True! Hence the origins of the nickname the Windy [Mouth] City, the city's long history of boosterism. But how else were they going to get settlers to buy swampland at a premium lol? Still, I have to say I sometimes kind of like the Chicago ego. I've loved every Midwestern city I lived in, but they've always been so self-deprecating. I like that Chicago has got some moxie. Someone needs to occasionally tell New York to [color="Red"][Mod cut.].

[2nd trick op]

Some of the driving factors in the fate of the two cities originally cited can be linked to the slow-but-comprehensive upheaval in one of our most basic economic sectors -- transportation.

Detroit boomed and fell because of a number of factors; a domination by one industry, a working population with little incentive to identify with its employers and a limited understanding of economics in general and, likely most harmful of all, a culture based upon short-sight. The auto industry is not so much a case of "manufacture from scratch" as it is one of the consolidation and assembly of hundreds of component parts. The terms "logistics" and "supply chain" caught on first in the automotive business, but they have been adopted by many other industries.

One thought that has occurred to me is that the heavy-handed influence common to Chicago politics seems to be a turn-off to many emerging growth industries. One doesn't think of Chicago's entrepreneurial climate as anything similar to that of Puget Sound or Silicon Valley. I'm not aware of too many "big box" distribution centers near Chicago, but can attest to the point that Amazon.com, which is known to have a strong resentment of local political hacks -- has recently settled with, and built facilities in California, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey, but shows no sign of any interest in Illinois.

Still, the city's strategic location likely gives it an infrastructural advantage -- the Daley machine has worked very hard, in conjunction with both regional commuter agencies and the freight railroads, at streamlining a notorious bottleneck for an industry which has regained some market share after man years of decline, and doing so via the public sector, since the private carriers wont shell out huge sums for physical plant which can be de facto nationalized at any point via re-regulation.

The indisputable fact is that, at present, what some people view as "public/private partnership" and others see as "crony capitalism" as emerged as the dominant trend in the emerging economy. It seems likely that "a lot of water will have to go over the dam" before the full effects become apparent.

[Standard111]

Originally Posted by nearnorth

Have you been to Pittsburgh lately? It's doing VERY well compared to 2-3 decades ago. (I was quite surprised. I had the same image of that city that you appear to have until I actually went there.) After Toronto and Chicago, I'd say it's the only other city that is really thriving in the post-industrial Rust Belt.

Manhattan's population is much smaller than it used to be, too-- would you say it's not doing well? Same with Paris. Mumbai's population is really booming, on the other hand.

I think this is all pretty silly.

Pittsburgh has been declining non stop for 50 years now.

Manhattan, and NYC, have been growing non stop for nearly 40 years now.

Mumbai is not relevant at all, to a conversation of two U.S. cities.

[thunderstruck666]

Until the city, county and state stabilize their finances a company like Amazon would be crazy to locate here. We'd be a great place for a distribution center, but the financial uncertainty isn't going to lure anyone here. The city needs to quit spending money we don't have, but I have yet to see anyone capable of doing that. Cut salaries, not services. We really don't need Water Department truck drivers, who do nothing more than chauffeur people around, making over 70K per year. It would be cheaper to take a cab.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Some of the driving factors in the fate of the two cities originally cited can be linked to the slow-but-comprehensive upheaval in one of our most basic economic sectors -- transportation.

Detroit boomed and fell because of a number of factors; a domination by one industry, a working population with little incentive to identify with its employers and a limited understanding of economics in general and, likely most harmful of all, a culture based upon short-sight. The auto industry is not so much a case of "manufacture from scratch" as it is one of the consolidation and assembly of hundreds of component parts. The terms "logistics" and "supply chain" caught on first in the automotive business, but they have been adopted by many other industries.

One thought that has occurred to me is that the heavy-handed influence common to Chicago politics seems to be a turn-off to many emerging growth industries. One doesn't think of Chicago's entrepreneurial climate as anything similar to that of Puget Sound or Silicon Valley. I'm not aware of too many "big box" distribution centers near Chicago, but can attest to the point that Amazon.com, which is known to have a strong resentment of local political hacks -- has recently settled with, and built facilities in California, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey, but shows no sign of any interest in Illinois.

Still, the city's strategic location likely gives it an infrastructural advantage -- the Daley machine has worked very hard, in conjunction with both regional commuter agencies and the freight railroads, at streamlining a notorious bottleneck for an industry which has regained some market share after man years of decline, and doing so via the public sector, since the private carriers wont shell out huge sums for physical plant which can be de facto nationalized at any point via re-regulation.

The indisputable fact is that, at present, what some people view as "public/private partnership" and others see as "crony capitalism" as emerged as the dominant trend in the emerging economy. It seems likely that "a lot of water will have to go over the dam" before the full effects become apparent.

Although many people scoff at the thought of the kind of low skill jobs that go with a distribution center for Amazon there is often a fairly substantial investment of expensive automation equipment associated with these modern facilities as well as the infrastructure to serve the high volume of traffic these types of businesses generate during peak shopping periods.

It very likely is true that the "wheeler dealer" games that too many of Illinois politicians resort to when trying to attract business investment is COMPLETELY opposite the inclinations of many "new economy entrepreneurs" that fully understand the negative consequences of such short sighted incentives. For idiots looking only to pump-up a start-up until they can cash out, such front-loaded deals are part of the hype that they can use to "build buzz" but for firms with a longer horizon that fully understand that when the "initial tax breaks" expire and they're facing HUGE escalation in their cost structure or up-ending their carefully tuned logistics chain with a challenging relocation to an area with more enticements the smart move is to simply avoid playing that game at all...

Further evidence of the unhealthy "insider deals" nature of the "new" entrepreneurship in Chicago is the dominance of folks with "dynasty money" from their families unrelated business successes. This is NOT the kind of environment that breeds true start-up success but instead tries to leverage "connections to clout" which has a far poorer track record of success when compared to the kinds of innovation driven success that comes out of true Silicon Valley start-ups. Their no real mentorship of the kind that links the path of prior success at places like Atari or HP to place like Apple and the eco-system of firms that feed the ongoing dominance of similar design-oriented , software driven firms. The recent spectacular flame-out / abandonment of Google's once powerful Motorola cell phone business shows the abject failures of the region's role in what will remain a vital global business sadly now part of Chinese Lenovo...

It is telling that there are similar signs of other regional / global shifts with regard to Detroit's core industry. Many of the foreign automotive firms that have been successful in the US market have no presence in Detroit -- for many Asian firms they have offices in California, yet even the policies of California have caused firms like Toyota to relocate to more business friendly areas like Texas. Despite the success of Toyota's Prius the real profits of their business come from selling vehicles fueled by gasoline, a commodity that Texans love and too many Californians despise. There is little doubt that the executives at Toyota increasingly are thinking "long term" and it simply is not in their best interest to have their headquarters in a state so hostile to their core business...

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by reppin_the_847

As much as I love Chicago (and it is my birthplace and hometown really), this is quite true. Chicagoland natives tend to get incredibly defensive about the city in general.

While it is absolutely true that some people are just Chicago boosters, I think a lot of the pro Chicago posts come in direct response to some bat-5H!t crazy anti-Chicago posts. The whole "Chi-raq" thing is absolutely idiotic, and Chicagoans seem to have a perverse pride in the corruption in the city, but are completely ignorant of corruption in NJ, New Orleans, Providence, and loads of other cities that actually make Chicago corruption look like penny ante child's play.

While some people may be overly supportive of Chicago, there are far more people who post things like "Iraq is safer than Chicago" who have an IQ that is lower than what I flush down the toilet every morning. Posts that fight that sort of ignorance aren't defensive of Chicago, they're defensive of having a grasp on reality. Sadly there are far too many crazy posts that need to be responded to

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by Standard111

I think this is all pretty silly.

You've got that right. I wish you had acknowledged it before posting the silliness.

Originally Posted by Standard111

Pittsburgh has been declining non stop for 50 years now.

Only if you define "declining" strictly by population, which as several people have pointed out to you is utterly ridiculous. The population has declined because the masses of blue collar jobs have left, being replaced by tech jobs and a diversifying economy that has caused economic growth. You'd know this if you had been there lately. (I notice you conveniently dodged that question. It's okay, I know the answer.)

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/72...w-home-houston

If you meet ex-Pittsburghers, odds are they left home between 1980 and 1985. That's when the manufacturing industry cratered. In those first desperate years, tens of thousands of people moved out annually. It was a diaspora. Allegheny County emptied, its population eventually shrinking by more than 200,000; since 1990, its population has been the second-oldest among large counties in America. A lost generation, some call it. People saw their parents struggle to find work, and they knew there was little future in Pittsburgh. So they left.

The actual Pittsburgh transformed itself into a white-collar city. The seven-county metro area added people last year. The workforce is getting younger and smarter. It is in the top five in 25-to-34-year-old workers with a college degree. It's No. 1 for workers that age who hold graduate degrees.
The city has one of the best real estate markets in the country. Young residents laugh at the Pittsburgh shown on NFL broadcasts, with the footage of molten iron. That's the past. One college-age fan invented a football drinking game: Take a gulp every time the announcers say "blue collar."

Originally Posted by Standard111

Manhattan, and NYC, have been growing non stop for nearly 40 years now.

Nope. Manhattan's population has grown slightly over the past 30 years. Before that it was shrinking pretty significantly over most of the prior century. 2.3 million people in 1910. 1.4 million in 1980. 1.6 million in 2010.

My point is that places can grow economically while losing population. You see the same thing happening in parts of Chicago, by the way. Logan Square and Pilsen, for example, have lost population while gentrifying. That's what happens when housing units that once contained blue collar families of five or six now contain white collar singles or couples.

Originally Posted by Standard111

Mumbai is not relevant at all, to a conversation of two U.S. cities.

Oh right, I forgot that the world ends at the U.S. border.

Dude. Travel. Please. Or at least read a book or two.

[Standard111]

Originally Posted by nearnorth

Only if you define "declining" strictly by population, which as several people have pointed out to you is utterly ridiculous.

All wrong.

I never said that Pittsburgh was declining only because of population (the economy has declined too) but it's absolutely insane to say that an area with 50 years of nonstop population decline, is not an area generally in relative decline.

Hell, even Metro Detroit has more population and jobs than decades ago compared to Pittsburgh. Anyone want to argue that Metro Detroit is booming?

Originally Posted by nearnorth

The population has declined because the masses of blue collar jobs have left, being replaced by tech jobs and a diversifying economy that has caused economic growth. You'd know this if you had been there lately. (I notice you conveniently dodged that question. It's okay, I know the answer.)

Again, not true. Pittsburgh has fewer jobs than decades ago. If the economy were good, the population wouldn't be declining. Yes, I have been there, and no, my travel habits have no relevance to actual population and jobs data.

Can you please name one place on earth with non-stop population decline and a strong economy?

Originally Posted by nearnorth

Nope. Manhattan's population has grown slightly over the past 30 years.

Nope. Again all wrong. Manhattan's population has grown by more than 20%, and has had non-stop population growth for 40 years. Pittsburgh has had non-stop population decline for 50 years.

Originally Posted by nearnorth

Before that it was shrinking pretty significantly over most of the prior century.

Wrong again. Manhattan grew during most of the 20th century.

And when Manhattan was shrinking in population it was also declining, which is exactly my point. Pittsburgh is in relative decline, in part, because it has non-stop population decline, just as Manhattan was in decline 50 years ago when its population was shrinking.

Originally Posted by nearnorth

My point is that places can grow economically while losing population. You see the same thing happening in parts of Chicago, by the way.

Nope. Chicago area has been growing non-stop for 50 years. Pittsburgh area has been declining non-stop for 50 years. Seems like Chicago is a pretty poor example for your claim.

And almost all parts of Chicago that have shown long-term population decline have also shown long-term economic decline, same as Pittsburgh. What Chicago neighborhood has massive population loss and no economic loss?

Originally Posted by nearnorth

Logan Square and Pilsen, for example, have lost population while gentrifying. That's what happens when housing units that once contained blue collar families of five or six now contain white collar singles or couples.

So you're claiming that the entire metro Pittsburgh area has non-stop population decline solely because of metropolitan-wide gentrification? LOL. Even NYC and London don't have a population of that size living in gentrified zones of white collar professionals replacing blue collars.

Pittsburgh has more childless investment bankers than NYC or London, even in the exurban hillbilly towns? More global billionaires are living in the coal country valleys, which accounts for the population decline? LOL

And how does that explain that Pittsburgh's economy has also declined? Wouldn't all those white collars replacing blue collars lead to more growth? Pittsburgh should be one of the richest places on earth if it really had total metropolitan gentrification.

[efrenb5]

This is an interesting topic. Too bad its title was a little misleading and has gone off topic with city vs city information.

Anyway, what I like about the topic is the discussion about where Chicago finances are going. After some research, I've identified that Chicago is my best bet for relocation from Puerto Rico.

However, Chicago finances are worrying. How do you think it will be in 5 or so years? Do you think politicians will make it work?

I understand that bringing down Chicago may need more time and possibly more bad decisions, but still, how likely is the worst case scenario? Do you think Chicago is down a hill with nobody in sight to stop it?

[PJSaturn]

This thread is closed. It went off topic nearly from the start. I've been cleaning it up, deleting off-topic posts, but I could be here all night doing that.

People, before you post on a thread, please read the entire opening post and stay on topic when you reply. And when you start a new thread, be sure that the title is specific to the topic presented.

.