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.
Steeps, nobody ever said that Cleveland doesn't associate with the Midwest. It's just that we have more in common with Minneapolis and Omaha in our values than with Chicago, and we have strong New England roots, just as Minnesota has strong Scandinavian roots.
Chicago remains the capital of the Midwest, and it's a great place to visit and one of the nation's great cultural centers, on a level one notch above Cleveland.
However, Chicago is a fiscal disaster, as is Illinois, and the quality of everyday life especially relative to its much higher cost of living, would appall most Greater Clevelanders. Choices matter, and the choices made by Cleveland's city leaders over the past century, especially regarding out magnificent Metroparks, were better IMO than the choices made by Chicago's leaders, who still celebrate the triumphs of a corrupt political machine (something that Cleveland has flirted with, but recently put somewhat to rest, thanks to the Feds).
Certainly Cleveland and Chicago share some common cultural heritage, such as Poland and Dyngus Day, and St. Pat's Day!
Chicago is much larger than Cleveland. It certainly is a bigger tourist destination. But it certainly is not Cleveland, and IMO, it's not a place that we should use as a role model, except regarding its magnificent use of its lakefront. Cleveland's medical mart did use Chicago's furniture mart as a model.
Great points WRnative.
Yeah, when this subject comes up folks seem to break into 2 camps: 1. Clevelanders who get insulted that, somehow, this comparison belittles Cleveland as some kind of little brother, or inferior Chicago, and 2. Chicago boosters who laugh and think Cleveland people are saying Cleveland is exactly like Chicago, or that it has exactly everything that Chicago has... it doesn't.
The subject keeps coming up because, to new unbiased Cleveland visitors' (like the Urbanista's) naked eye, Cleveland offers many of the cultural, entertainment, transit and natural assets that Chicago has, but in a smaller, less expensive, more accessible and more laid back/down-to-earth setting. And yes they also, in part, share the same Midwestern heritage as you note (less pretentious, ethnically diverse, sports crazy -- both Chicago and Cleveland are huge in sports bars and micro-breweries).
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
No offense but... You or I can try to smooth over comments. Especially from that other thread. But there nor here. I NEVER DISSED CLEVELAND. I only posted one bit negative sight I randomly found then. That in the heated discussion, I did post the sight on.. Cleveland sad state of its beaches. You quickly claimed it was previous and addressed.
But the Chicago negativity kept coming. Just for me saying I could see CLEVELANDS LAKEFRONT having Parks and Harbors and beaches in its Downtown core. Was UNACCEPTABLE FOR YOU. That lead to the response #103.
It was great to note Cleveland Natural forest Parks. BUT WHY DISS me preferring to Cleveland having Parks as Chicago's Downtown? I never referenced other areas and kinds of parks. But they surely are assets in Cleveland side.
My picture of downtown Cleveland and Chicago's lakefront meant DOWNTOWN. Chicago did do in part.... its downtown investments in Millennium Park, Navy Pier(already undergoing a renovation to keep it fresh and new for return visits) and now even its Riverwalk extension of Cafe's and a continuous walk length of the river. FOR ITS AGENDA OF TOURIST DOLLARS AND VISITS. It does not hide that fact ALL OR MOST IS GEARED TOWARD INCREASED TOURIST MILLIONS .
It did prove successes in increased tourist hitting 50 million last year with a I'm for 5 million a year more by 2020.
You did say what you thought of the term.... Cleveland a "mini- Chicago"... LOL. Not good. But not as a "New Chicago" here?
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
Since I missed adding to my post and correcting it.... just a couple lower quality pictures to compare downtown lakefront aspects. I have better. But these two get the stadiums and similar. Chicago's is just part of its skyline. Both have some Museums on the Lakefront. Chicago's Grant Park in view. Millennium Park is too distant. Harbors are but not beaches.
I have no doubt Cleveland will progress. Unless our economy or Dollar nosedived. But Chicago is far from going downhill.
The big Chicago negativity is its political corruption, especially well known and even laughed about among its natives.
Chicagoans will be laughing less every year as the accumulated fiscal bills no longer can be hid under the carpet..
Chicago has to deal not only with its unfunded pension liabilities, but with its share of Illinois unfunded liabilities.
As explained in the following article, Illinois (and perhaps Chicago) likely will face a public sector skill drain, especially among teachers, in coming decades, likely further negatively impacting the quality of life. The piper always is paid.
<<For many of those teachers, pensions will never become real. It takes 10 years of service for Illinois teachers in Tier II to “vest” in their plan. In most states, vesting in a pension plan marks the point at which employees become eligible to collect employer contributions to their retirement. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality’s pension report, Illinois teachers are some of the only ones nationwide who must vest before they are even able to recover all of their own contributions. And most teachers don't even stay in the field that long. Money they never become eligible to collect simply stays with the system.>>
Some one would have to be a fool, ignorant, or desperate, to accept a position with these benefit conditions. It's interesting that the above article never considers that Illinois probably will lose the best teachers to other states, as if that is no concern.
Although Chicago teachers have a separate pension system from the rest of teachers in Illinois, similar "solutions" may be utilized in Chicago to the detriment of new teachers and other public employees.
If you read the above article carefully, you'll learn that much like Social Security, Illinois state teacher pension plan will become similar to Ponzi scheme-like Social Security. New employees largely will subsidize older retirees, seeing small if not negative real returns on their retirement contributions.
In Ohio, teachers can elect out of the state retirement system and invest in their own self-managed account. This usually in Ohio is a big mistake (Ohio's pension funds are well managed and relatively well funded), unless a teacher is an investment wizard. IF it's allowed in Illinois, it would be a no-brainer for new teachers. Even bond funds would yield more than the "reformed" pension plan, which apparently won't even compensate for inflation. IF opt-outs are allowed in Illinois, the pension plan deficits will become even more pronounced unless all new teachers are immensely financially illiterate.
It's unlikely that opt-outs are allowed in Illinois, as even employee contributions don't vest for 10 years (is this even legal???). Can you imagine taking a job where you don't get 10 percent of your salary, with little interest, until you've worked for 10 years???
Ohio also has cut pension benefits for new teachers, and even benefits for existing teachers. All Ohioans should be concerned about whether or not Ohio's teacher retirement system is competitive with those in other states. Even though it is better than the one in Illinois, we may still suffer a teacher brain drain to other states. E.g., how many good math and science teachers are graduated every year? Is there a shortage?
There recently was an article in the Plain Dealer about the mis-management of Cleveland's water system.
Each incident of public mis-management is a cut that wounds a community.
We all need to be vigilant and make certain that our government entities are efficient, well-managed and transparent. I would argue that neither Cleveland nor Ohio under the current Republican administration meets these standards, but our legacy situation is far superior to that in Chicago and Illinois.
In this regard, Illinois and Chicago are examples of what not to be, not an aspirational model.
Since I missed adding to my post and correcting it.... just a couple lower quality pictures to compare downtown lakefront aspects. I have better. But these two get the stadiums and similar. Chicago's is just part of its skyline. Both have some Museums on the Lakefront. Chicago's Grant Park in view. Millennium Park is too distant. Harbors are but not beaches.
I have no doubt Cleveland will progress. Unless our economy or Dollar nosedived. But Chicago is far from going downhill.
Steeps, you constantly miss my point.
Most Greater Clevelanders wouldn't trade Chicago's superior downtown, superior downtown parks, or even superior lakefront parks for our Metroparks. That's where we've put our money ($112 million annual Metroparks budget in a much smaller community).
You sound happy having your quality of life zapped to support a tourist mecca. Many of us don't aspire to that trade-off.
You are evidence a big difference in the Chicago mentality than the Cleveland mentality (although there are some boosters in this forum that likely aspire to the Chicago model).
My only reason to post negative aspects of life in Chicago is not to belittle Chicago. It's to reinforce my argument that we should not yearn to become Chicago. I'm sorry that this angers you so much.
I like Chicago as a place. But I think I prefer Cleveland, what with it being home and all. My main point is that it's a fiscal disaster and predictions of being the next Detroit are certainly not entirely unwarranted. Chicagoans should be more than a little concerned going forward.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
Steeps, you constantly miss my point.
Most Greater Clevelanders wouldn't trade Chicago's superior downtown, superior downtown parks, or even superior lakefront parks for our Metroparks. That's where we've put our money ($112 million annual Metroparks budget in a much smaller community). http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/U...015-Budget.pdf
You sound happy having your quality of life zapped to support a tourist mecca. Many of us don't aspire to that trade-off.
You are evidence a big difference in the Chicago mentality than the Cleveland mentality (although there are some boosters in this forum that likely aspire to the Chicago model).
My only reason to post negative aspects of life in Chicago is not to belittle Chicago. It's to reinforce my argument that we should not yearn to become Chicago. I'm sorry that this angers you so much.
No one EVER SAID TRADE METROPARKS FOR CHICAGO LAKEFRONT PARKS, HARBORS and BEACHES DOWNTOWN. You brought METROPARKS into the other thread AS A ASSET TO CLEVELAND AND I NEVER DISAGREED.
You brought it in this thread . I DID NOT BRING CHICAGO PARKS IN THIS THREAD. YOU BROUGHT THAT THREAD TO THIS ONE. INCLUDING THE PASTE TO THAT THREAD. I merely posted back your #103 post you invited those here to read there.
You continue HERE AS IF IN THAT THREAD NOW? With a CHICAGO'S DEFICIT IN A FEW POST NOW. As if Chicago has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO OFFER IN WHAT THE CITY ACCOMPLISHED AS EXAMPLE?
You brought here with the same 112 million Metro Parks budget sight as there. I pasted back your comment last year. Sounds like the same sight and budget amount?
Chicago is surrounded by Forest preserves the city had set aside before it grew out to it. City parks are maintained in even High-Crime neighborhoods. You clearly noted.... the Metroparks as a asset. Inside the city limits or not. I am sure they are. I SOUND HAPPY THE QUALITY OF LIFE IS ZAPPED? WHAT THE HECK IS THAT
Zapped quality of life REALLY? CHICAGO Has plenty of vibrant neighborhoods . Its Bungalow belt stayed intact. That alone is 1/3 of the city built between 1910 and 1940. 80,000 HOMES. It has plenty of vibrant 50s early 60s neighborhoods too. Not to mention its Most sought after neighborhoods around downtown and especially North of it.
Another Good job done. The city WISELY removed the worst of the blight in those neighborhoods seen as Ghettos. Some once looked like bombed war zones. Streetview 360° alone show me blocks and part blocks returned to prairie. ALL the notorious failed housing projects that housed 10s of thousands ARE GONE.
Example; this neighborhood was full of blight in the past and removed.
Downtown CHICAGO added OVER 80,000 RESIDENTS up to 2012 and no doubt fast approaching 100,000 new residents Today Young Urban Professionals mostly. In the last 25-30 years.
Around Downtown Chicago are revived neighborhoods. Wicker Park was Chosen as #4 Best neighborhood for YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE NATION BY THIS SIGHT. Columbus Ohio has one mentioned.
Wicker Park is a Chicago neighborhood northwest of the Loop and a convenient place to live for downtown workers. Recently, crime has decreased and there’s been an influx of bars, restaurants, and stores to serve young professionals.
14% of its population is aged 25 to 34, and it has a median rent of $931. The average income is $30,061.
This sight talks about Chicago and Cleveland. From 2012. Despite the previous census said Chicago lost 200,000 people. The New census projects a small gain overall.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
But this sight from 2012 besides noting that big last census loss.... BUT SHOWS ITS DOWNTOWN BOOMING.
Chicago: The Champion? The Census Bureau press release highlights the fact that downtown Chicago experienced the largest gain in the nation. Downtown Chicago accounted for 13 percent of the metropolitan area's growth with an impressive 48,000 new residents last decade. However, while downtown Chicago was prospering, people were flocking away from the rest of the city. Within a five mile radius of the Loop, there was a net population loss of 12,000.
What it says of Cleveland;
Cleveland: Comeback City and Always Will Be? Inview of Cleveland’s demographic decline (down from 915,000 in 1950 to 397,000 in 2010), any progress in downtown Cleveland is welcome. But despite the frequently recurring reports , downtown Cleveland's population growth was barely 3,000. Despite this gain, the loss within a 6 mile radius was 70,000 and 125,000 within a 12 mile radius.
I THINK THAT SHOULD LAY TO REST CLEVELAND'S SO MUCH BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE OVER CHICAGO'S? IF IT LOST PLENTY OF PEOPLE AROUND ITS CORE. IT DOES NOT SHOW ANYTHING BETTER OVER CHICAGO.
When I compared Chicago's Taxes compared to Philly's. I was SURPRISED that their property taxes for average to high-end housing taxes were SIMILAR. YET PHILLY IS 65% ROW HOMES. DOCUMENTED AT 300,000 Row homes.
It reasons average property taxes MAY be lower in Cleveland? But it has FAR LESS AT THE HIGH END. Philly has had a GROWING High-End housing Core. Despite being Row homes.
Whether Cleveland is going to be the next Chicago or not, what does it matter? If a city turns into someplace that you don't like, move to a place you do like. This "my city is the best simply because I live here atm and haven't been anywhere else" makes for some good laughs! If you want to live in Chicago, go to Chicago. If Cleveland, then Cleveland.
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.
THE Chicago (and Illinois) problem
