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.
just thought I'd start this thread just to see what others think. It may be kind of one the (duh!!) but then again may not be.
Aside from the economic struggles that Detroit has experienced and continue to and the fact that Detroit never had the strong, ambitious, (and brazen and audacious!) mayor/local government that Chicago had (both Richard Daleys) that transitioned Chicago into a post-industrial world.
Aside from those two big issues (and they are obviously big!!) would you say Chicago has more in common with Detroit more so than other American city in lifestyles/attitudes of the people, history, architecture, culture, general layout of the city and metro area. I seem to think so. I'm just curious to see what others think.
Chicago Is Superior To Detroit In Nearly Every Sense
Chicago and Detroit are similar in that they are both large cities in the upper Midwest that grew and prospered in large part due to an influx of immigrant populations and transplanted Southern Blacks were moved to those cities seeking better lives than where they came from. They are both what would be regarded as "working-class" or "blue collar" cities. Both cities are known for having rabid sports fans. Both cities are recognized as having very harsh, snow-bound winter months. Both cities, in some respect, are known and stereotyped as having high crime rates and other public safety issues in certain parts of the city (Chicago - mainly the South Side, Detroit -- nearly Every Side).
But, in my opinion, that is about where the comparisons end........
Chicago's early leaders must have been visionaries. I say that because they "created" a city with mass public transportation and economic diversity in mind FROM THE BEGINNING. They didn't bank their fortunes on one industry being the economic saviour for their region in the same way southeast Michigan and Detroit did. To this day, Chicago still has some of the best old ethnic neighborhoods (i.e. Wrigleyville) you will find in the United States and although both cities now have extensive suburbs and exurbs (just a 21st Century reality that is here to stay), Chicago has retained a diverse population in the city itself. Chicago is a world-class, international destination city. Detroit simply is not.
In my view, Detroit and Chicago should never be compared. It's like comparing Stanford or Princeton to DeVry or ITT Tech -- with Chicago being comparable to the former institutions. Chicago is a city worthy of comparison to the great cities of the WORLD. Detroit is comparable to maybe Milwaukee, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati or St Louis -- a different class of cities all together.
For Detroit to try to benchmark itself against Chicago is reaching for the unattainable, similar to asking me to compare my basketball ability to that of LeBron James. I am pulling for Detroit to make a "comeback" of sorts. It will be good for the State of Michigan if that occurs. But for Detroit to ever parallel Chicago, it would require a paradigm shift so great in the social mindset of the people, such extensive regional cooperation that to date has not existed, almost a complete teardown and re-build of the current transportation infrastructure to retrofit public transportation, a thoroughly re-modeled and possibly privatized school system, the creation of travel and tourism marketing campaigns the likes of which would be unsurpassed, and such a complete makeover of the regional economy that it would take over a half a century or more for Detroit to approach Chicago's CURRENT level. Keep in mind that Chicago will have also made advances during this same time frame and Detroit would never truly "catch up" to Chicago, if you will.
With the proper set of rationalized expectations and sound, unselfish and disciplined civic leaders (let's see how that goes) who prioritize the general economic welfare of the region and don't pander to fringe interest groups, I do believe that Detroit can carve out a place for itself on the North American scene as a decent regional niche city, but probably never a world class one.
I hope I am proven wrong - Go Detroit. But for now, I could not make a rational argument that would elevate Detroit over Chicago. I will say that Detroit's better suburbs (Birmingham, Troy, West Bloomfield, Farmington Hills, Novi, Northville, Plymouth, the Grosse Pointes) are as good or better than the Chicago suburbs. But between the cities themselves -- no real comparison.
Good clear coherent analysis mr2007.
I think the blurb about the suburbs makes me realize that, being a Chicago suburbanite I probably don't appreciate just how world class Chicago is I guess.
I read Charles Madigan's 2004 book 'Global Chicago' earlier this summer. It discusses Chicago's history quite well.
Chicago suburbs are expensive. Detroit's upper end suburbs are much more affordable ... for obvious reasons (fewer high-paying jobs to go around than Chicagoland).
Detroit is below Chicago, but a notch about the other usual suspects (Cleveland, Milwaukee, St Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh).
In my view, Detroit and Chicago should never be compared. It's like comparing Stanford or Princeton to DeVry or ITT Tech -- with Chicago being comparable to the former institutions. Chicago is a city worthy of comparison to the great cities of the WORLD.
Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!
That is the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time.
Paris...Rome...Tokyo...Chicago & it's multimillion dollar metal bean...LOL
Also, please remember that the great cow fire allowed Chicago to be rebuilt from the ground up when better city designs had been discovered,allowing the city to grow in a very organized and "controlled" way (the city is on a grid mostly). If Detroit had been burned to a crisp by livestock, who knows - it may have been a second New York LOL
That is the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time.
Paris...Rome...Tokyo...Chicago & it's multimillion dollar metal bean...LOL
Also, please remember that the great cow fire allowed Chicago to be rebuilt from the ground up when better city designs had been discovered,allowing the city to grow in a very organized and "controlled" way (the city is on a grid mostly). If Detroit had been burned to a crisp by livestock, who knows - it may have been a second New York LOL
I think any objective person that has any sense of the global economy today will tell you flat-out that Chicago is a world-class city. Chicago may not have the same global cultural impact as New York City, London, or Tokyo, but it is most certainly on the level right below them, which, I'm sorry, is a lot more than what Detroit can say right now.
It's interesting to see you make a joke about Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Well, here's the difference between Chicago and a lot of other cities (including, in my opinion, Detroit at this point in time). Instead of wallowing around in the face of a horrible disaster and crying "woe-is-me", Chicago picked itself up and rebuilt itself from scratch as an architectural, financial and cultural center with incredible hard work and visionary planning (i.e. reserving park space along the lakefront instead of putting up factories, creating a grid street system to allow economic development and denser urban neighborhoods, putting in a comprehensive public transportation infrastructure, etc.).
That continued into the past couple of decades where, when the global economy was clearly going to eradicate a lot of the old economy Rust Belt jobs, Chicago pro-actively re-invented itself as a global financial center to make itself a winner in this new economic pardigm. This is in contrast to its Midwestern neighbors such as Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland and St. Louis, who instead of having the vision to adapt to the changing times, tried to fight to "save" old union jobs that were ultimately going to be gone due to natural economic forces. Now, after coming to the realization that protectionism won't work, all of those cities are trying to change their tunes to play catch-up (which may never happen since businesses have long left for proven hospitable environments).
So why hasn't Detroit rebuilt itself when the city itself "burned to a crisp" after the race riots of the 1960s or the economic changes that continue today? Detroit can get better, but it's not just going to happen because of "cheap real estate" (which can be also easily found in the much more business-friendly environments of the South and Southwest). It will take pro-active and visionary leadership and cooperation by both public and private enterprises.
I'll have to say that I feel fortunate to live in the Chicago region where political and business leaders have continued to have shown the ability to adapt to changing times for well over a century. Anyone who thinks Chicago was somehow just lucky obviously has no understanding of what it takes to put together a solid urban socioeconomic core. Hopefully, Detroit can find the same, but be advised that a turnaround doesn't just happen by accident.
That is the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time.
Paris...Rome...Tokyo...Chicago & it's multimillion dollar metal bean...LOL
Also, please remember that the great cow fire allowed Chicago to be rebuilt from the ground up when better city designs had been discovered,allowing the city to grow in a very organized and "controlled" way (the city is on a grid mostly). If Detroit had been burned to a crisp by livestock, who knows - it may have been a second New York LOL
I am not sure if that quote was as hilarious as you make it out to be, but assuming that you are not very objective and a Detroit apologist, I will assure you of one thing: A fire that took place in 1871 did not vault Chicago over Detroit.
Detroit's major problem is the social welfare state known as the automotive industry that paid high-school dropouts six-figure incomes and pacified the masses into economic and educational complacency, while educated and intellectually gifted citizens with Master's degrees and Doctorates who didn't want to work in automotive could barely scratch middle income status because Michigan has no other major industries to speak of. The automotive industry has served as the "back-up plan" or "fall back option" for generations of ne'er-do-wells, low-aspirants and the under-ambitious. The automotive industry has been biggest rewarder of mediocrity that I have ever witnessed -- but it was not without a purpose. Those inflated salaries led to a level of blind loyalty and pacification that makes people complacent and satisfied with their current condition. When a person has that state of mind, they generally do not seek to improve, they instead seek to maintain. The same is true of Michigan and Detroit. The state business and politcal leaders have chosen maintenance of a comfortable lifestyle over the often uncomfortable task of endeavoring to diversify and think about opportunities in other markets. Add to that leaders who are more into the prestige of "having the job" than "doing the job", it is clear to understand why SE Michigan and Detroit are so utterly dysfunctional.
In my opinion, the state of Michigan's fortunes are akin to someone who won the lottery. Michigan was blessed (or cursed depending upon your view) with the good fortune of being the birthplace of Henry Ford and Billy Durant. However, akin to someone who came from nothing and won the lottery, Michigan just lived off the winnings and never cared to invest for posterity. Well, the annual lottery installments have run out and Michigan has little left to show for it. Michigan has pretended to be a Rockefeller, a Vanderbilt or a Carnegie (wealth earned through entrepreneurship, investment, and visionary opportunism) when truthfully, and all this time the state has really just been more like a lottery winner that squandered his/her winnings and is now bankrupt.
Detroit's major mistake is that our industries cared more about how strong your back was than how gifted your brain was and we are now paying for it. Everybody around here has just been satisfied and content with automotive and now that the automotive wage scale has regressed to a level where it should have been a long time ago, people can't cope with the new, lower wage reality.
Autoworkers -- as much as they have been cannonized and worshipped in SE Michigan -- have always come a dime a dozen. Just because the UAW negotiates a high wage for you doesn't mean that wage is a proper valuation of what your skills are worth in the modern market. If the Big 3 were smart, they would have held a hard line to the unions years ago and never allowed them to become this powerful. Unions are money rackets with roots tied to organized crime. Ron Gettelfinger is a friggin' millionaire for Pete's sake! Are you kidding me?
Detroit's problems stem much more from the misaligned value system of its citizens and the lack of forward-thinking leaders who cared to take the region in a direction other than automotive than any other factors. Michigan has simply been an automotive welfare state for the better part of a century. Now that people are getting (figuratively) kicked off welfare and told to compete and defend their value and skills against other states and in other industries that have not fallen under the welfare model, we are finding that there isn't much substance to this state economically.
Regarding Chicago -- I have been to every one of the cities you metioned. When I talk about world class cities, I am referring to world class economically. Have you ever been on Wacker Ave in Chicago or visited CBOT? I'm not talking about The Louvre or Eiffel Tower or some histroical notions of what a world class city is. I am referring to -- in terms of major US cities -- which one's are world class and which one's are not -- Chicago is a world-class city. Being well-traveled, I will tell you that Chicago is internationally recognized as such. Just because you may take Chicago for granted because you can fly there in a half-hour from Detroit, drive there in 4 hours and the Tigers can beat White Sox doesn't mean Chicago isn't an outstanding city.
... and there is nothing modern about 1871 -- that is a lame rationale for the difference between the cities. I don't care what happened in Chicago back when the US was only about 6 years removed from slavery and still almsot 50 years from women being able to vote. Detroit's problems were primarily complacency among the citizens, racial tensions, lack of foresight by business and political leaders, and the extremely divisive tenure in office of COLEMAN YOUNG!
The whites who used to live in the Detoit area will continue to move to South Lyon and Milford and Brighton and Howell and Hartland and even farther out to Fowlerville, Webberville and eventually up to Okemos, even White Lake, Holly and Grand Blanc and Owosso while the Blacks in the city of Detroit continue to claim it as there own and tell people that if you don't like the way they are running things in the City, they can get their a-- back across 8 Mile!
I don't care how much the Illitches re-invest in the Fox District, Greektown, the Universtiy District, or the New Center Area or who opens headquarters where downtown or what casino expands, Detroit is nearing the status of being an irretrievably lost city -- and if we aren't careful Michigan will slowly achieve that status as a state when compared to other states. No aesthetic improvements will ever be enough. Changing Detroit will require substantive actions designed to yield results, not lip service and forming a committee.
If these changes do not take place, the only thing that will save Detroit is the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ -- and I say that not being a religious man.
There are some similarities, most notably in typography (pancake flat) and some prairie-style architecture in (the few) Detroit apartment districts that look somewhat like the too-many-to-count in Detroit. And there is a plain-spoken, steak 'n potatoes, ga-ga beer & sports mentality... But the similarities end there.
Chicago has gotten most everything right about what it takes to be a large metropolis while Detroit has gotten most wrong. Chicago's got great public transportation while Detroit is the largest city in the free, industrial world without rapid rail transit (pretty pathetic, I'd say). Despite its great size (and suburban sprawl) Chicago's got numerous walk-able neighborhoods – it’s a walking city. Its main tourist attractions are in the city, while Greenfield Village and even the Detroit Zoo are in the burbs (oh yeah, the aquarium on Belle Isle closed a few years ago and the potentially scenic island is choked with decay, trash and weeds…. Detroit region’s hottest and best walking neighborhoods – Royal Oak, Birmingham, Ann Arbor are in the suburbs… DEEP in the suburbs at that. Detroit is hopelessly a segregated, all-black city that’s donut-ed by lily-white burbs… Chicago’s lakefront is THE model of urban beauty while there are 2 or 3 apartment or condo high-rises along all of the Detroit River.
… I could go on and on, but I’d be writing “War and Peace.” There’s some positive signs and some growth in Detroit, esp downtown and in the Cass Corridor. It’s not like there are NO redeeming qualities there. Palmer Woods/Sherwood Forest are beautiful, in-city wealthy enclaves to die for... But comparing Chicago to Detroit is like comparing Abe Lincoln to George W. Bush.
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.
Chicago Is Superior To Detroit In Nearly Every Sense
