U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2010, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,437,513 times
Reputation: 1440

Advertisements

Image removed by Moderator - please do not use copyrighted images - read the room sticky for guidelines.


A lot of my thinking on Chicago has been shaped by an overarching view of its performance. Believe it or not, I used to be a huge Chicago cheerleader. I don’t think there’s any doubt that during the 1990’s, Chicago rediscovered its mojo and was really tearing up the charts of performance for big cities. But something changed in the mid-2000’s. I date it to the opening of Millennium Park. Millennium Park was a huge home run for the city, and obviously a key positive part of Mayor Daley’s legacy, no matter what the cost over runs. It added hugely to reconnecting the Loop to the lakefront park system, created a huge tourist attraction, and probably more than any other single factor sparked a residential boom in the Loop itself.


Chicago

Last edited by atlantagreg30127; 10-18-2010 at 09:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2010, 05:49 AM
 
Location: Chicago
3,569 posts, read 6,021,271 times
Reputation: 2577
Ugh...
Your post doesn't even mention NYC
How is this a vs thread?

And geez. Another chicago vs nyc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,289,371 times
Reputation: 3827
Here's a better link.

The Urbanophile » Blog Archive » Chicago’s Eroding Competitive Performance (Chicago vs. New York)

The comments at the end are enlightening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,318,361 times
Reputation: 4270
Nothing in the post talks about "eroding", instead there's discussion about IMPROVEMENT. Also, this is an opinion more than a discussion base.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 08:51 AM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,378,103 times
Reputation: 10924
I guess I don't get the article. I agree that NYC is doing great things, and at the moment I would assume from what I've studied it's economy is doing better than Chicago. Chicago isn't really eroding, it's still doing much better than it was during the last half of the 20th century except for the late 1990's. Some of the things he listed were just completed 5 years ago. I would hardly call a judgement just because Chicago hasn't done crazy things the past 5 years. Although really they just got done reconstructing the Pink Line, the Brown Line, opened Block 37, expanded McCormick Place, reconstructed the Dan Ryan. The second half of Wacker Drive just started reconstruction along with areas of Congress Street. O'hare expansion is underway. Crime is down.

It's just that the economy has really sucked the past few years (as in most places). The city is having economic and budget issues now, but I guess I'm not seeing it as a huge red flag that the city is eroding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,318,361 times
Reputation: 4270
If anything I'd say Chicago is cementing its stronghold as the nation's #2 financial epicenter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 09:08 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,570,477 times
Reputation: 5662
I don't think it is eroding per se. But I do think it is going to get passed up economically by other areas of the country just like LA did. DC and Bay Area will both, if not DC already, inevitably pass it up in less than a decade. As well as a lot of competition from Houston/Dallas but I don't think either are going to pass it up by themselves economically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,437,513 times
Reputation: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
I don't think it is eroding per se. But I do think it is going to get passed up economically by other areas of the country just like LA did. DC and Bay Area will both, if not DC already, inevitably pass it up in less than a decade. As well as a lot of competition from Houston/Dallas but I don't think either are going to pass it up by themselves economically.
Apparently Houston's economy will overcome Chicago's before 2020.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 10:54 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
70 posts, read 65,327 times
Reputation: 57
These comparisons are silly.

The day Chicago was seen as a peer or New York City's competitor has long gone. As in decades ago.

Los Angeles seems like a better comparison when comparing the two economic wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,802,899 times
Reputation: 4047
Chicago isn't eroding away. It never was and its here to stay. But Chicago's problem is stagnation, which is what is hurting it.

I disagree with people who said the closer match against Chicago is Los Angeles, yes Los Angeles has a larger population and a larger GDP but its per capita income is still far lower than Chicago's, and its economy is in the tank where as Chicago's is stable and getting by. Chicagoland has a high GDP and per capita income which is what gives it an edge over Los Angeles (despite Los Angeles having a larger GDP). Chicago has the most diverse economy in the country, period, that doesn't mean its the most powerful or that its the greatest but economic diversity ensures that your Metro will survive at least. Economic diversity is an investment to your future, either you have it or not.

Los Angeles cannot say the same thing. Anyways the stronger competitors for Chicago are the Bay Area & Washington DC, in which case Washington DC (in terms of CSA) has already surpassed Chicagoland by GDP output & also per capita income. The Bay Area is poised to do the same by the end of the decade is Chicago doesn't turn its fortunes around NOW.

All in all Chicago yes has been stagnating but its still doing better than Los Angeles economically which has been seen periodic decline (albeit slow). And the main competitors for it right now are Bay Area & Washington DC, along with Houston & Dallas-Fort Worth that are really strong start ups right now.

Chicago's next political administration can either make it for them or break it. If Chicago wants to stay in elite city and a economically competitive city it needs to make itself more beautiful for businesses, it reigns a strong corporate power but its losing that edge and it needs to get it back.

Priding yourself as America's 2nd city wont help you stay America's 2nd city, Chicagoans have the mentality that when in Chicago nothing else matters (just like New Yorkers do for their city, Angelinos for their city, San Franciscans for their city, Washingtonians for their city) but right now Chicago needs to start worrying about itself first and foremost. I realize they've made strides in crime reduction, and more urban renewal but all that while great isn't enough to keep them afloat.

Maybe its the fortunes of our country that are saying Los Angeles & Chicago are out and Washington DC & Bay Area are in? I don't know exactly, but what I do know is that stagnating is better than declining but its not going to get you anywhere, and Chicago needs to stop fooling around with places half its size and get serious. Los Angeles, it needs to do that X 100 because its in far worse shape than Chicago.

I love Chicago and all and I still do view it as "America's 2nd city" but that doesn't say much anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top