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.
For those of you familiar with the Chicago area, and can compare it to other metro areas:
Do you think the political/cultural difference between city and suburb in Chicagoland is perhaps the widest than in other metro areas, despite the perception that Chicagoland is seen as a tight area.
Heres my take:
The east and west coasts more than other regions, have a higher degree of liberalism in many coastal metro areas, including The San Francisco bay area, Seattle area, and Boston that extend well into the hinterlands. Tri-state New York area, LA area, and DC may have traditional republican strongholds such as Orange County, parts of northern Virginia, but because these areas, have attracted "the creative class" (Hollywood/media, hippies in the Bay area, ivy league schools on the east coast, Arlington/Alexandria, etc.) for so much longer, the fact that there are world class universties in the surrounding metro areas on the coasts, that liberalism extends in the hinterlands much more than in Chicagoland.
However, no where in between the coasts attracts a creative class that loves vibrant city neighborhoods for the simple fact that it doesn't exist to the same degree in other inland metro areas.
Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta for example have become very cosmopolitan over the past few decades certainly, but the attraction first and foremost is a healthy business friendly environment, low taxes, cheap real estates. And so even though there are some funky neighborhoods, etc. these places don't have quite what they are looking for.
Conversely, other metro areas in the midwest may have a few funky areas too(except Minneapolis which is the only midwest metro has a liberal, progressive creative class vibe more on par with Chicago) they are more struggling to keep their young people in town.
Chicagos attractions, are so more concentrated in the city, and their is relatively less in the hinterlands that really attract newcomers (although the suburbs have countless hidden gems!) that the suburbs are may simply attract those who are just looking for the suburban lifestyle. Other inland metro areas primarily only offer suburban lifestyles relatively speaking, whereas coastal metro areas, have a lot of "action" culture, etc. in the surrounding areas.
Now, yes the Chicago suburbs may not bible belt in any way, except for around Wheaton maybe) there is no arguguing that there is a HEAVY dose of "Reagan Democrats" (people with blue collared roots whose grandparents may have voted for and supported FDR/JFK but have gravitated toward the republicans because they don't like how they perceive democrats to waste money on people not working, etc.
Also, if city workers did not have to live in the city (many of whom have that very "Reagan democrat" views) would Chicago proper as a whole be even more liberal?
Well since you put it that way...
yes Chicago suburbs are a bit lacking in liberalness outside of Evanston/Oak Park/etc.. At least compared to Seattle Portland LA SF Boston NY. Madison / Minneapolis are pretty liberal cities though, Milwaukee isn't bad either... The center of the U.S. Socialist movement was in Milwaukee. Chicago lacks rural and small town quirky liberal areas like some of the other places. Esp compared to Bay Area and New England in my experience. I really don't bother with the burbs just for that reason. Where as in the Bay area (just as an example) I would be allover the place. The same way in New England.
Chicago's stuff is definitely more concentrated in the city compared to the places mentioned above, but that is part of what it gives it much more of a "big city life" vibe than the others too.
I think DC metro is pretty conservative though, not sure about Philly metro.
Atlanta/Dallas/Houston are behind.
I'm not sure about that. I would say that the Chicagoland/downstate Illinois divide is perhaps the greatest among any of the other states, but I think Chicagoland itself is more uniformly liberal. While it's true that the suburbs are more conservative, even DuPage County isn't quite rock-ribbed conservative. The suburbs are much more of a Mark Kirk, fiscally conservative-ish, socially moderate-to-liberal kind of Republican politics. And Chicago itself is just plain liberal.
I would say that the cities in which there has been a lot of new growth and development over the past couple of decades would probably have the greatest cultural and political divides. I'm thinking of Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Minneapolis, where the cities themselves are fairly liberal while the vast suburbs are extremely conservative. Cities like New York and Chicago (and Cleveland, St. Louis, etc.) have suburbs that are more conservative than the cities themselves, but the difference isn't as great. And many of the suburbs in Chicago are just as liberal as Chicago itself, so there really isn't a lot of balance in the area.
I'm not familiar with the area, but aren't the northern suburbs of Chicago notable for affluence, the presence of Northwestern, and nice lakefront properties?
For those of you familiar with the Chicago area, and can compare it to other metro areas:
Do you think the political/cultural difference between city and suburb in Chicagoland is perhaps the widest than in other metro areas, despite the perception that Chicagoland is seen as a tight area.
Heres my take:
The east and west coasts more than other regions, have a higher degree of liberalism in many coastal metro areas, including The San Francisco bay area, Seattle area, and Boston that extend well into the hinterlands. Tri-state New York area, LA area, and DC may have traditional republican strongholds such as Orange County, parts of northern Virginia, but because these areas, have attracted "the creative class" (Hollywood/media, hippies in the Bay area, ivy league schools on the east coast, Arlington/Alexandria, etc.) for so much longer, the fact that there are world class universties in the surrounding metro areas on the coasts, that liberalism extends in the hinterlands much more than in Chicagoland.
However, no where in between the coasts attracts a creative class that loves vibrant city neighborhoods for the simple fact that it doesn't exist to the same degree in other inland metro areas.
Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta for example have become very cosmopolitan over the past few decades certainly, but the attraction first and foremost is a healthy business friendly environment, low taxes, cheap real estates. And so even though there are some funky neighborhoods, etc. these places don't have quite what they are looking for.
Conversely, other metro areas in the midwest may have a few funky areas too(except Minneapolis which is the only midwest metro has a liberal, progressive creative class vibe more on par with Chicago) they are more struggling to keep their young people in town.
Chicagos attractions, are so more concentrated in the city, and their is relatively less in the hinterlands that really attract newcomers (although the suburbs have countless hidden gems!) that the suburbs are may simply attract those who are just looking for the suburban lifestyle. Other inland metro areas primarily only offer suburban lifestyles relatively speaking, whereas coastal metro areas, have a lot of "action" culture, etc. in the surrounding areas.
Now, yes the Chicago suburbs may not bible belt in any way, except for around Wheaton maybe) there is no arguguing that there is a HEAVY dose of "Reagan Democrats" (people with blue collared roots whose grandparents may have voted for and supported FDR/JFK but have gravitated toward the republicans because they don't like how they perceive democrats to waste money on people not working, etc.
Also, if city workers did not have to live in the city (many of whom have that very "Reagan democrat" views) would Chicago proper as a whole be even more liberal?
I agree with everything you've stated except the point about Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta not attracting more open-minded people. Statistics suggest otherwise and I'd say these cities have a much more noticeable cultural divide than Chicago.
Atlanta probably is the greatest considering it's Atlanta vs. the rest of Georgia. In Texas outside of Houston and Dallas; you have Austin and San Antonio.
Atlanta probably is the greatest considering it's Atlanta vs. the rest of Georgia. In Texas outside of Houston and Dallas; you have Austin and San Antonio.
Agree with that too. But OP said he didn't want to include Houston/Dallas/Atlanta, I thought it was for that reason.. The divide is even more so there.
Agree with that too. But OP said he didn't want to include Houston/Dallas/Atlanta, I thought it was for that reason.. The divide is even more so there.
Oh....missed that part.
If that's the case than that kind of defeats the purpose of this thread, lol
I am pretty sure bay area hinterlands like Gilroy, Livermore, Brentwood, and Vacaville are much more conservative than SF-Berkeley.
Heck go to LA, Manhattan beach and Venice Beach are two different worlds. Or compare West La to west Fontana.
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.
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.
