Chicago (Lincoln, Phoenix, Dix: vacation home, theatre, drivers license)

[ajolotl]

Originally Posted by Vertdemer

It's a point of view, not a monologue.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

I don't see a lot of "finesse" in the Blue Line stations out by O'Hare. They look like utilitarian stations to me. Maybe a little more flair was given to the Rosemont station but it's also a transit hub. There's also the fact that the stations west of California are about 80 years newer than those east.

The Brown Line stations are the shiniest because it was the most recently rebuilt line. Before that the Pink Line was the shiniest because it was the most recently rebuilt. Before that the Green Line was the shiniest because it was the most recently rebuilt. Before that the Orange Line was the shiniest because it was the most recently built. None are in Yuppieville. The Yuppieville stations along the Red and Blue lines are among the nastiest in the city.

Buskers aren't paid to play in the Red Line subway. They play in the subways (both of them) because that's where there's the most foot traffic.

Your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Bingo on all the above.

Funny how people will make judgments based on the most outlandish theories without every considering the old maxim that the most obvious explanation is usually the correct one.

[paytonc]

A rebuttal to two common conceits about NYC vs. Chicago:

1. "Chicago is more segregated than New York."

From CensusScope analysis of 2000 Census data, this is false. The usual measure of segregation is called the dissimilarity index; an index of 100 implies total segregation between two groups. The New York PMSA in 2000 had a black-white dissimilarity index of 84.3 and a Latino-white dissimilarity index of 69.3. Chicago's comparable indices are 83.6 for black-white and 64.8 for Latino-white.

2. "You only find Midwesterners in Chicago. New York is way more cosmopolitan."

An admittedly dated (from 1999, using 1990 Census data) analysis by USC professor Dowell Myers [PDF, pp. 934] found that a similar proportion of New York and Chicago region residents* were born within their respective tri-state areas. 57.6% of New Yorkers were born in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut; 60.5% of Chicagoans were born in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin. For all its claims to be a national draw, only 18% of New Yorkers moved from other states/territories, while 24.8% of Chicagoans moved from outside its region (but within the country). By comparison, in the Washington, D.C. region, "long believed to be a region of transient residents who came to town for short tours as students, military officers or federal workers" (as the WaPo wrote in 1991), only 34.5% of residents were born within D.C., Maryland, or Virginia.

This particular complaint is often levied against the Lincoln Park area, with its "Big 10 frat party" feel. Yet the New York region's white population is even more provincial than the Chicago region's: fully 73.4% of New York's white residents were born within the tri-state area, vs. 71% of the Chicago region's.

Far more of New York's population was born abroad (24.5% vs. 14.7%), although Los Angeles easily beats both with 30.1% of its residents being foreign-born.

* Over 25.

[rickmahorn]

Originally Posted by paytonc

A rebuttal to two common conceits about NYC vs. Chicago:

1. "Chicago is more segregated than New York."

From CensusScope analysis of 2000 Census data, this is false. The usual measure of segregation is called the dissimilarity index; an index of 100 implies total segregation between two groups. The New York PMSA in 2000 had a black-white dissimilarity index of 84.3 and a Latino-white dissimilarity index of 69.3. Chicago's comparable indices are 83.6 for black-white and 64.8 for Latino-white.

2. "You only find Midwesterners in Chicago. New York is way more cosmopolitan."

An admittedly dated (from 1999, using 1990 Census data) analysis by USC professor Dowell Myers [PDF, pp. 934] found that a similar proportion of New York and Chicago region residents* were born within their respective tri-state areas. 57.6% of New Yorkers were born in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut; 60.5% of Chicagoans were born in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin. For all its claims to be a national draw, only 18% of New Yorkers moved from other states/territories, while 24.8% of Chicagoans moved from outside its region (but within the country). By comparison, in the Washington, D.C. region, "long believed to be a region of transient residents who came to town for short tours as students, military officers or federal workers" (as the WaPo wrote in 1991), only 34.5% of residents were born within D.C., Maryland, or Virginia.

This particular complaint is often levied against the Lincoln Park area, with its "Big 10 frat party" feel. Yet the New York region's white population is even more provincial than the Chicago region's: fully 73.4% of New York's white residents were born within the tri-state area, vs. 71% of the Chicago region's.

Far more of New York's population was born abroad (24.5% vs. 14.7%), although Los Angeles easily beats both with 30.1% of its residents being foreign-born.

* Over 25.

Those are some interesting stats. It does seem like a lot of people unfairly compare Chicago to New York every time the discussion of Chicago comes up. Chicago is not New York. New York is not Chicago. Quite frankly, there isn't really any city in the world that can match New York City in terms of Western Urban living, and at that magnitude.

I think people pit Chicago against NYC because it is the next closest thing in America in terms of a large city with skyscrapers, public transportation, fast-paced lifestyle, etc. But to do so is to completely ignore what makes Chicago great. And it is unfair to Chicago to expect it to have everything that NYC has with a 1/3 of the people. Some of the arguments are so binary. "Oh, NYC has more culture and people are more cosmopolitan, so that means Chicago has NO culture and the people are NOT cosmopolitan at all." Sometimes people forget relativity.

From my perspective, Chicago and NYC are the only two cities in the USA that I could live in. They are BOTH great cities for their own reasons.

[ajolotl]

Originally Posted by Queen of Pwnage

yeah, cuz he would take the time to post like 4 paragraphs cuz HE"S NOT SINCERE.


you're an idiot.

Nice contribution to the thread. Who are you, the OP's dad?
Since you don't know jack about this site I'll educate you -- trolls come on here all the time and invent paragraphs of nonsense intended just to rile up Chicago supporters. You have to read with a skeptical eye.
Also, you usually don't come out of nowhere and call a regular poster an idiot unless you have an argument to back it up. You don't, so shut up.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by paytonc

2. "You only find Midwesterners in Chicago. New York is way more cosmopolitan."

An admittedly dated (from 1999, using 1990 Census data) analysis by USC professor Dowell Myers [PDF, pp. 934] found that a similar proportion of New York and Chicago region residents* were born within their respective tri-state areas. 57.6% of New Yorkers were born in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut; 60.5% of Chicagoans were born in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin. For all its claims to be a national draw, only 18% of New Yorkers moved from other states/territories, while 24.8% of Chicagoans moved from outside its region (but within the country). By comparison, in the Washington, D.C. region, "long believed to be a region of transient residents who came to town for short tours as students, military officers or federal workers" (as the WaPo wrote in 1991), only 34.5% of residents were born within D.C., Maryland, or Virginia.

In reference to comparing the 60.5% of Chicagoans were born in IL, IN, or WI compared to 24.8 of Chicagoans. I'm sure that 60.5% would jump up (and the other number) would jump down if you included Michigan. (and even Iowa, Ohio, and Minn.

Michigan supplies a huge number of young people. Unfortunately though, they tend to trash-talk their home state sometimes. Even though they're going through tough times, its amazing state. Just got back with 5 lbs of blueberries and a visit to the Henry Ford/Greenfield Village!

[jenniferashley99]

I guess I fall into the handsome, classic good looks category

Okay this is what I hate: guys who blow theirown horn. You seem to be an arrogrant kind of guy. I can tell by the way you write-a bore, wouldn't you say. You have to be the center of attention. Probably people cursed you out because of the jerk attitude you carry around. Who cares if YOU didn't like Chicago.
By the way-you bore-NY is known for their clubs and bars. People dying on the streets from taking too much drugs or talking to you..don't know what's worse.

[summer22]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

To be fair, NYrules lives in the south suburbs, and they are probably the most racist region of Chicago. The only overt racism I've ever heard in my many years here has been from south suburbanites, former south siders, and northwest siders. And they were either working class or just removed from the working class by one generation. It is not socially acceptable or normal to display racist behavior in MOST of Chicagoland. In fact, doing so would probably get you cast out from any social group--or might even get you in a physical altercation.

Pretty accurate observation I think.

There's hundreds or thousands of south, southwest, southeast side, and suburban kids though that never spend time in the "refined" parts of Chicago. Who's at fault for that, I don't know... parents? Schools?

Anyway, they never hear anything other than the racist rhetoric in their neighborhoods, and somehow that perspective gets entrenched for years afterward.

I have a friend who just moved out of the city in his mid-30s and he's completely surprised to find out that the black family across the street are his best neighbors on his new block. Before this, he was one of the people who spouted a lot of racist rhetoric. He's not a mean person, he was just raised to think that way. But now it seems like he's very confused after having this new experience.

[JoeyPants]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid
To be fair, NYrules lives in the south suburbs, and they are probably the most racist region of Chicago. The only overt racism I've ever heard in my many years here has been from south suburbanites, former south siders, and northwest siders. And they were either working class or just removed from the working class by one generation. It is not socially acceptable or normal to display racist behavior in MOST of Chicagoland. In fact, doing so would probably get you cast out from any social group--or might even get you in a physical altercation.

Originally Posted by summer22

Pretty accurate observation I think.

There's hundreds or thousands of south, southwest, southeast side, and suburban kids though that never spend time in the "refined" parts of Chicago. Who's at fault for that, I don't know... parents? Schools?

Anyway, they never hear anything other than the racist rhetoric in their neighborhoods, and somehow that perspective gets entrenched for years afterward.

I have a friend who just moved out of the city in his mid-30s and he's completely surprised to find out that the black family across the street are his best neighbors on his new block. Before this, he was one of the people who spouted a lot of racist rhetoric. He's not a mean person, he was just raised to think that way. But now it seems like he's very confused after having this new experience.

Southsiders and blue collar workers are ignorant backwards racists and northsiders are sophisticated enlightened diverse tolerant folks. Stereotype much?

What's odd is the blue collar southside neighborhoods/areas like Beverly, Hyde Park, Garfield Ridge, McKinley Park are more racially diverse then say Lakeview or Lincoln Park.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by JoeyPants

Southsiders and blue collar workers are ignorant backwards racists and northsiders are sophisticated enlightened diverse tolerant folks. Stereotype much?

What's odd is the blue collar southside neighborhoods/areas like Beverly, Hyde Park, Garfield Ridge, McKinley Park are more racially diverse then say Lakeview or Lincoln Park.

Beverly and Hyde Park are more white collar. And yes, from what I know both those neighborhoods do have a significant African American middle class.

Lakeview and Lincoln Park are rather lifestye homogenous. Where people who aren't post college graduates from big ten type schools might have a hard time fitting in.

However, I would agree that there are still many south suburbanites that are rather vocal about their feelings toward black people. Other areas, people maybe more in the closet about it.