The Decline of Chicago: The City that Doesn't Work (Phoenix: transplants, public schools)

[linicx]

I think its a great idea. Lake Michigan can be ever bit as gnarly as the ocean in a storm. It is probably why Chicago built seawalls between the Outer Drive and the Lake. But it doesn't stop the perception that Chicago is in decline. It doesn't stop some media hound from calling the surrounding area 'fly over.' I'd be my last buck he never drove around Lake Michigan. It akes a lot longer than it does to drive the length of California or the width of Texas. It's a nice little drive through two countries and three states. And worth every minute.

Door County is a wonderful tourist town. The trouble with the midwest - expecially Illinois and Iowa is it primarily farms and ranches peppered with small towns and very few large cities. Illinois is divided more than most with its abundance of natural lakes, streams and rivers. It makes for boing interstate driving.

[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.

[linicx]

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.

You'll see the same thing on 80 through Iowa.

The good news is if you don't drive on 55 you won't be on a pancake for hours and you see nothing but cows and corn.

[Jwo85]

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.

I don't see why that is a negative. More as a positive due to saving on gas because your not using a lot. As too say if you where on hills and having to use more gas to get up them. People will never say "I want to spend more money to put gas in my car very frequently."

[Mathguy]

Having grown up in IL, lived in the city of Chicago as well as the burbs....it certainly has it's issues. Probably the big two are:

1) Sheer Size, extremely large cities are expensive and congested. (But they offer things even metro areas with 1-3 million can't so it depends what is important to you.)

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.

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.

[ImaloneJill]

Originally Posted by Jwo85

I don't see why that is a negative. More as a positive due to saving on gas because your not using a lot. As too say if you where on hills and having to use more gas to get up them. People will never say "I want to spend more money to put gas in my car very frequently."

Got your point. I just prefer some rolling hills, and a bit of diversity in the scenery, that's all.
When driving thru SD, you can go 50 miles without even seeing an advertisement to break up the monotony- except for Wall Drug, godblessem.

[SJaye]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I see your point. But I think there is more to it than that.

Trace back the history of the American city, that is in its true "city form" and I think you will notice something fairly unique in the history of nations.

The notion of really seeing our cities as cities came in the post-Civil War union as the North not only reached ascendency over the South, but through that very war fueled the real growth of American industry.

Things ran hand in hand: massive growth of industry in North, fueled by improvements in transporation, and fed by wave after wave of European immigration. I believe you would be hard pressed to find any nation whose real urban growth was so tied to industry, but throughout the world cities were rose long before what happened in the relatively new US.

That industrial model lasted pretty well from the late 19th century to past WWII in the 20th. Our cities were about industry. New York alone was global. Cities' success was based on the jobs they were able to generate with lifestyle not really a question. Most of our cities were quite bland.

But if New York was in a class by itself among US cities during that time. Others did have some special things going for them: a concentration of culture, entertainment, tourism, coventions, that made them stand out and ultimately be more successful than other big cities.

Look at that era in question when comparing Chicago and Detroit. In 1950, if you looked at either city, you might think in terms of industrial giant above all other qualities. Yet even then, Chicago had much Detroit did not: the white collar jobs, the contributions of its business community to high culture, the transportation infrastructure, etc.

Now those things did not stand out in 1950 the way they do today when a city has to sell itself every bit as much as it sells its economic opportunities. So ultimately Chicago was in position to reap the benefits of a new age in a way that Detroit could not have done so.

To me that's the crux of it: having your ducks lined up in a row when the new era began. Places like New York, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco had so many things in place that their successes were given a boost other cities didn't have (alhtough Boston notoriously struggled during the first half of the 20th century).

If you get my point here, lincix, I don't think that there was anything that Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc., could have done to elevate themselves because they just didn't have what Chicago did in place.

In the South, things were different; the region never really recovered after the Civil War and didn't go through the urbanization after it that the northeast and midwest did. Thus, Atlanta was able to push a new reality for itself in the post WWII years because there really wasn't any viable major business center in the south during those years.

I'm merely saying that much of Chicago's global success today came based on its importance as a major city dating well back into the 19th century.

I have to say I generally agree with this analysis. Detroit, Toledo, etc. were way more dependent on the declining manufacturing base than Chicago all along. Kind of makes me think about how Detroit can be in such horrible shape and not bring places like Royal Oak and Rochester Hills completely down with it. It puzzled me for a long time how a wealthy suburb can still be there when the city was becoming a partial ghost-town!

As far as Chicago being a city in decline, I disagree that it is, but I fear it may be dragged down by the general decline of the region around it- especially places like South Bend. Some people are attracted to living in a city based on what other exciting places they can visit. New Yorkers can go to Boston, Philly quite easily, and Los Angeles residents have Orange Co., Monterrey, San Diego. Some people don't want to feel like their city is the only one worth a damn in the area. Luckily we have Milwaukee.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by SJaye

As far as Chicago being a city in decline, I disagree that it is, but I fear it may be dragged down by the general decline of the region around it- especially places like South Bend. Some people are attracted to living in a city based on what other exciting places they can visit. New Yorkers can go to Boston, Philly quite easily, and Los Angeles residents have Orange Co., Monterrey, San Diego. Some people don't want to feel like their city is the only one worth a damn in the area. Luckily we have Milwaukee.

I actually think the decline of places like South Bend may (in the short term) benefit Chicago. Chicago has done very well by sucking up talent and jobs that in the past would have gone to smaller midwestern metros. In effect, if you want a vibrant big city experience, Chicago is really the only choice in the Midwest.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by SJaye

I have to say I generally agree with this analysis. Detroit, Toledo, etc. were way more dependent on the declining manufacturing base than Chicago all along. Kind of makes me think about how Detroit can be in such horrible shape and not bring places like Royal Oak and Rochester Hills completely down with it. It puzzled me for a long time how a wealthy suburb can still be there when the city was becoming a partial ghost-town!

As far as Chicago being a city in decline, I disagree that it is, but I fear it may be dragged down by the general decline of the region around it- especially places like South Bend. Some people are attracted to living in a city based on what other exciting places they can visit. New Yorkers can go to Boston, Philly quite easily, and Los Angeles residents have Orange Co., Monterrey, San Diego. Some people don't want to feel like their city is the only one worth a damn in the area. Luckily we have Milwaukee.

OK, SJaye, I'm going to ask you to look at your words above that I highlighted.

Then I'm going to ask you to think about one word:

WATER

* tons of it

* all fresh

* filling 5 huge, huge lakes

* which really aren't lakes at all, but more like inland seas

* at a time when the world seems to be running out of it, at least from the perspective of access and usability

* and a growing and growing national and global population are demanding more and more of it

* and consider its real value even against the likes of gold and oil

Pulled down by the region around it? Hardly. Just ask yourself given the global environmental and demographic issues today....

when it comes to being in the right location based on the most needed and necessary and essential of resources, which would you choose to be: Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston, Miami, Atlanta.......or Chicago.

I'll let you figure out my answer to that question.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

I actually think the decline of places like South Bend may (in the short term) benefit Chicago. Chicago has done very well by sucking up talent and jobs that in the past would have gone to smaller midwestern metros. In effect, if you want a vibrant big city experience, Chicago is really the only choice in the Midwest.

Realistically exactly how low can any mid-sized city go when it contains a major, influencial research university. OK, South Bend isn't Ann Arbor, Madison, or Evanston. Heck, it's not Iowa City or Bloomington either for that matter.

But then again, it's not Youngstown or Akron or Flint either. There's still enough going on in the academic, research, and athletic arenas to keep Irish and South Bend eyes smiling, even if they have to scrape off some rust to do so.