The Decline of Chicago: The City that Doesn't Work (Metropolis: how much, cost)

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by ImaloneJill

Actually, some of the worst Interstate driving has to be on I-90 in Minnesota to Mt. Rushmore. It only starts to pick up in the Badlands.

But yes, Illinois is bad because it is as flat as a pancake down I57and 55 for hours.

Try driving I-70 across Kansas. Ten hours of nothingness, and not even anything good on the radio.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by andrew61

Try driving I-70 across Kansas. Ten hours of nothingness, and not even anything good on the radio.

I drove out to Fort Riley a few years ago. Once you get west of Des Moines it's a special kind of nothin' out there. I damn near ran myself out of gas because it didn't occur to me I needed to plan that far ahead. It gave me a new appreciation for how easy it is to find gas stations in Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin/Michigan/Minnesota, even in the rural areas.

After doing that drive, no one will ever be able to convince me we're running out of landfill space.

[Alicia Bradley]

Originally Posted by edsg25

There's an irony here. Let's imagine you look at US cities that are directly on open water or virtually on it, perhaps slightly blocked by parts of their own metropolitan areas:

the Gulf Coast doesn't really have any unless you label Tampa a major city. Neither New Orleans or Houston, including the main parts of their metro area are on the gulf.

The Atlantic, among major cities, only offers us Boston, New York, Miami; Philadelphia and Baltimore have ocean access, but are inland

The Pacific is pretty much limited to Calif's big three: SD, LA, SF; Seattle and Portland are like Philly and Baltimore.

And the Great Lakes offer up Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Buffalo with Detroit offering metropolitan access

Of all those cities, it is the Great Lakes group that offers the best connection to open waters, hands down, from an urban perspective. Why? Cities need buffering from the sheer power of oceans. Oceans may be a desirable location for expensive housing, but oceanfronts make lousy locations for city centers, downtowns, and the true urban cores.

Manhattan works on rivers; it wouldn't on the ocean. And Boston itself is sheltered from the open Atlantic by bay and islands. Miami's downtown exists comfortably on Biscanyne Bay; sink Miami Beach and downtown Miami would be a disaster.

LA's core is well inland from Santa Monica and the Pacific; it is bone dry short of the trickle of water running through concrete that is jokingly referred to as the Los Angeles River. Nobody would build a major core along SF's rather uninviting Pacific shore, downtown happily cross town facing the sheltered waters of the bay. And San Diego uses Coronado like Miami uses Miami Beach.

And then there is Chicago, the most embracing city, by far, to open water in America and arguably in the world. Lake Michigan is an inland sea for all intents and purposes, mercifully short of the sheer forces of the oceans. The result? the smooth transitions of zones: the blue of lake, the gold of beach, the green of park, and the steel of soaring skyline, all living and functioning in sync.

Chicago's lakefront neighbors from downtown going straight north almost to Evanston and increasingly on the south side, too, form a bond with open water that would be impossible in Manhattan.

Chicago's foresight gave it an advantage over other cities in preserving its waterfront, but other midwestern cities have done their part, too. Notably Milwaukee, arguably one of America's most underrated cities. How many US cities, even those on oceans, would kill for Milwaukee's open waters of Lake Michigan with the skyline standing on bluffs above with park and beach along with the water below.

We are all trapped by paradigms. One of those seems to tag Chicago as being "non coastal" when, in fact, the Great Lakes are not lakes in the true sense and only the fresh water eliminates the designation of "sea".

And this viewpoint goes past our metro areas. How silly is it to think that New England is blessed with Cape Cod, North Carolina with the outer banks, California with Big Sur....

and not realize how lucky we are here in the heart of the continent with sea lovers dreams like Michigan's Harbor Country and Mackinac Island, and Wisconsin's Door County.

Fly over country, my arse.

Best. Post. Ever. (At least in the Chicago section.)

[Gentle Don]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

I like the city, I was just back visiting but I personally value a smaller city with most of the amenities and a lot less trafic and housing at 50% of the cost. Not a knock on Chicago, just personal preference.

For a city of its size, Chicago is a pretty good bargain.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

2) There really aren't elections in Chicago, it's one party rule with cronyism and corruption. Having several friends from China, it's ironic that Chicago operates pretty much like a city you'd find in China in terms of politics etc.

There aren't elections? Funny, very 4 years I go on work on campaigns, get signatures, etc.

A lot of Chicagoans are just bloody lazy. It's especially embarrassing given that for most people the polling place is a 10 minute walk away.

What I saw in 2007 in the 43rd (Lincoln Park) were tons of transplants who never bothered to register, didn't know there was even an election (), or weren't voting since they were going to be moving away soon.

Democracy requires participation. This isn't Florida or Ohio where Diebold machines didn't work, or people weren't able to vote for a variety of sketchy reasons - votes are counted.

I saw exactly one case of funny business in 07 in the 32nd ward, where Waguespack's volunteers were locked out of a polling place immediately at closing time while Matlak's remained in, but as it went to a run-off anyway they never bothered (as far as I know).

So this whole "we don't have democracy in Chicago" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What we don't have is an electorate that bothers to vote (this is a country-wide problem of course).

We also don't have anyone who seriously runs on the GOP ticket. The GOP could throw millions at someone just to crack the door open to more public scrutiny, but they choose not to - I'm sure this is a quid pro quo at some level.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

...What I saw in 2007 in the 43rd (Lincoln Park) were tons of transplants who never bothered to register, didn't know there was even an election (), or weren't voting since they were going to be moving away soon...

I have said this several times on here and I am glad someone actually confirmed it. And since it happens in several wards that have large populations that amounts to a possible election changer.

[Muppet123]

I hate to say that I'm part of the problem... but I'm not going to vote when the choice is for two people I pretty much have equal loathing for.

That being said... I haven't missed a vote since 2000 when I didn't care if Bush or Gore got to eff up the country for four years...

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Muppet123

I hate to say that I'm part of the problem... but I'm not going to vote when the choice is for two people I pretty much have equal loathing for...

You had no interest in the Cook County President race the last couple times?

[Muppet123]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

You had no interest in the Cook County President race the last couple times?

Well... that assumes that I don't mega loathe Stroger.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Muppet123

I hate to say that I'm part of the problem... but I'm not going to vote when the choice is for two people I pretty much have equal loathing for.

That being said... I haven't missed a vote since 2000 when I didn't care if Bush or Gore got to eff up the country for four years...

Vote 3rd party, then.