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 beautiful. More beautiful than NYC or LA, although they would fight you tooth-and-nail refuting it lol. It is exactly what an American city is supposed to be and is a marvel of modern architecture and civil engineering. I know this place has an amazing future ahead of it... I see it, I sense it whenever I walk along Lake Michigan and feel its energy. I am glad that I am going to be able to be a part of that and just hope I don't get priced out too far (because people are going to be given that boot more and more... reality). I see very good things for this city and believe it has amazing potential. Even with the corruption, gangs, violence, etc. You just can't hold a thing that good down. I just hope the Midwestern value system always prevails because that is one of the very best things about the place. I hope it stays true to its roots and doesn't apologize for it. The gang problem will lessen the same damn way it did in NYC as it gentrifies. Those little chicken sh*ts mean nothing, are nothing, and will be pushed out. I would worry more about the way my manicure looks before I worried about having to pistol-whip these fools. And I am skinny, female, white, and short. They should be more afraid of me. Don't underestimate the working professionals. Just because we're dressed well and have no ink on us doesn't mean we wouldn't kill you and leave you in the street for a good laugh.
very nice eastbound chicago needs people like you keep those stupid gang bangers at bay
The gang problem will lessen the same damn way it did in NYC as it gentrifies. Those little chicken sh*ts mean nothing, are nothing, and will be pushed out.
let's see. we're in a recession that feels far worse than a recession. the cost of gasoline is going to rise through the roof. the age of the automobile that was ushered in with interstate highways and the freedom of the road has turned into an economic, grid lock nightmere. Peak oil is upon us and that era is dying.
if you have a highly centralized, highly major city that has an outstanding mass transit system (despite complaints....don't worry; people complain about their system in every city), you put yourself at the head of the class for the future of America (which, despite what anyone thinks is not going to happen in sprawling, car dominated Houston or the rest of low tax/lower services Texas. For the record: not the case for LA. The city that invented sprawl is the city that got smart. LA's one of the places that get it right now. I digress....but LA's future, like Chicago's, is bright among American cities).
Yes, so Chicago has lost population. Big deal. No city's population goes steadily up. And thank goodness. If your dream is for a super side city, try Calcutta. Or Mexico City. Point is, Chicagoland's population continues to grow and how that population is divided among city and suburb is irrelevant. San Francisco, a small city, thrives at the heart of a very big Bay Area.
I don't think that either San Francisco or Chicago are worried about sun belt sprawl centers that are spewing in their own fumes. Why? Because they're San Francisco and Chicago. 'Nuff said. That says it all.
Chicago lost population on the west and south sides. Guess what, folks: unless you've been living under a rock, these areas have experienced down times from what seems like an eternity.
Meanwhile....the North Side is an urban wonderland, one of the most vibrant and gentrified large tracks of land in America. Downtown keeps growing outward, spreading its boundaries to encompass more of the city. From North Avenue to Cermark, the lakefront to the United Center, this is our own minimanhattan.
And all that talk of high gas prices and the impracticality of the car and the need for centralized jobs. What does it mean:
underpopulated areas on the city's south and west sides are prominent areas for redevelopment in this new age we're entering.
and the fringe areas of chicagoland that used to be residential construction central? guess what: few homes are going to go up in Kenosha County, west of the Fox River, or where Will County peters out to the start of downstate Illinois.
The South and West sides have these areas beat. Want any proof this can happen. Think Orange. As in Orange line. When it was built, areas to the southwest heading out to the Midway, the southern bungalo belt, thrived with easy access to downtown and retail clustering around stations.
You can look at those abandoned properties and declining population in parts of Chicago where, let's face it, the infrastructure was pretty terrible and see a big problem. Or you can see it as I do: an opportunity. All that underused land ripe for redevelopment. Opportunity. Think about it. Someday, someone is going to get the idea that lakefront property in Gary and Hammond and other Calumet region cities or up along the lake in North Chicago, Waukegan, and Zion are really worth something. When the time is right, they will redevelop, and redevelop spectacularly.
But unlike them, for the South and West sides, the time is now. This is the logical place for people to look for housing, not depend on the car, and have an inexpensive and short ride on public transit to work. It's the true American dream, well past the old house with the picket fence in suburbia of a bygone and gassed out era.
I copied only a part of your comment, East, since it was the part I wanted to address. That, however, doesn't suggest that the rest of what you said wasn't as spot on as what you said about Chicago getting past its momentary problems. It was.
Given our givens: other cities should be so lucky.
We're getting a new casino in the city sometime soon. My advise: don't bet against Chicago. The fact that Great Lakes water is going to become a helluva lot more valuable to quality of life doesn't hurt anything either.
let's see. we're in a recession that feels far worse than a recession. the cost of gasoline is going to rise through the roof. the age of the automobile that was ushered in with interstate highways and the freedom of the road has turned into an economic, grid lock nightmere. Peak oil is upon us and that era is dying.
if you have a highly centralized, highly major city that has an outstanding mass transit system (despite complaints....don't worry; people complain about their system in every city), you put yourself at the head of the class for the future of America (which, despite what anyone thinks is not going to happen in sprawling, car dominated Houston or the rest of low tax/lower services Texas. For the record: not the case for LA. The city that invented sprawl is the city that got smart. LA's one of the places that get it right now. I digress....but LA's future, like Chicago's, is bright among American cities).
Yes, so Chicago has lost population. Big deal. No city's population goes steadily up. And thank goodness. If your dream is for a super side city, try Calcutta. Or Mexico City. Point is, Chicagoland's population continues to grow and how that population is divided among city and suburb is irrelevant. San Francisco, a small city, thrives at the heart of a very big Bay Area.
I don't think that either San Francisco or Chicago are worried about sun belt sprawl centers that are spewing in their own fumes. Why? Because they're San Francisco and Chicago. 'Nuff said. That says it all.
Chicago lost population on the west and south sides. Guess what, folks: unless you've been living under a rock, these areas have experienced down times from what seems like an eternity.
Meanwhile....the North Side is an urban wonderland, one of the most vibrant and gentrified large tracks of land in America. Downtown keeps growing outward, spreading its boundaries to encompass more of the city. From North Avenue to Cermark, the lakefront to the United Center, this is our own minimanhattan.
And all that talk of high gas prices and the impracticality of the car and the need for centralized jobs. What does it mean:
underpopulated areas on the city's south and west sides are prominent areas for redevelopment in this new age we're entering.
and the fringe areas of chicagoland that used to be residential construction central? guess what: few homes are going to go up in Kenosha County, west of the Fox River, or where Will County peters out to the start of downstate Illinois.
The South and West sides have these areas beat. Want any proof this can happen. Think Orange. As in Orange line. When it was built, areas to the southwest heading out to the Midway, the southern bungalo belt, thrived with easy access to downtown and retail clustering around stations.
You can look at those abandoned properties and declining population in parts of Chicago where, let's face it, the infrastructure was pretty terrible and see a big problem. Or you can see it as I do: an opportunity. All that underused land ripe for redevelopment. Opportunity. Think about it. Someday, someone is going to get the idea that lakefront property in Gary and Hammond and other Calumet region cities or up along the lake in North Chicago, Waukegan, and Zion are really worth something. When the time is right, they will redevelop, and redevelop spectacularly.
But unlike them, for the South and West sides, the time is now. This is the logical place for people to look for housing, not depend on the car, and have an inexpensive and short ride on public transit to work. It's the true American dream, well past the old house with the picket fence in suburbia of a bygone and gassed out era.
I copied only a part of your comment, East, since it was the part I wanted to address. That, however, doesn't suggest that the rest of what you said wasn't as spot on as what you said about Chicago getting past its momentary problems. It was.
Given our givens: other cities should be so lucky.
We're getting a new casino in the city sometime soon. My advise: don't bet against Chicago. The fact that Great Lakes water is going to become a helluva lot more valuable to quality of life doesn't hurt anything either.
relax, folks: we're going to do just fine.
good posting, wish others would see this too.
always gets to me what do we want an overcrowded area like mexico city
like i mentioned population does not mean success but you dont want major declines.
dont bet against chicago- very true
good posting, wish others would see this too.
always gets to me what do we want an overcrowded area like mexico city
like i mentioned population does not mean success but you dont want major declines.
dont bet against chicago- very true
thank you, sunny. we are a people who believe bigger...better....best. there are people who absolutely swoon over a picture of Manhattan where massively tall buildings literally override the island, Central Park one of the few places where one can see the sky without cranking his neck to a 90° angle.
It's insane. We put our cities in some insane pecking order and population becomes one of the rating points. so does density, even if it reaches insane proportion. the goal is to reach the "ultimate". I've often felt NYC's persona as the official "World's Greatest City" comes at a big price. When you are all about being #1, what happens to your persona when that eventually changes (as change is constant) and, let's face it:
mercifully aren't we all happy that that is BS and there is no real #1?
Chicago may be Goldilock's baby bear (baby Chicago Bear, if you will). It's the just right place. New York and LA are incredibly great cities, but a lot of that greatness comes with a price of too large a population and little to tie it all together. Those cities and their metropolitan areas work more like megalopolis than a traditional city and its metro area.
On the other end of the scope, San Francisco and Boston are incredibly great cities, too, but for all their endless urban joy, they come across as smaller towns, somewhat devoid of the complete package of the bigger cities.
So if you got one group of NY and LA, a second of Chicago, a third of SF and Boston....all great, all wonderful.....the middle "group"....Chicago is the one that is the true balanced place with the managable size and the full urban spectrum.
For the record, my list (it's my own...nobody else's....so it doesn't mean i'm right, only that this is my evaluation), the truly great American cities (in geographical order....east to west to be fair......are Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
Others, I know, would disagree. and rightfully so. they have their own lists.
It's great to see I'm not the only one who sees things this way. The truth, I believe, is that over the next few decades many cities will be revitalized. People will begin to realize how expensive owning a car is and reverse the sprawl back inward. I view that as a good thing. Also, the fact Chicago sits on Lake Michigan is absolutely an asset. It will become more and more valuable as fresh water becomes more scarce. It also could be a source of hydroelectric forms of energy in the future, something that could attract many companies and investors to the area. It has more room for expansion than NYC by far just because of the way it's geographically laid out. So it will be able to sustain periods of growth, just the way its original developers envisioned. While I am bringing my car with me I will be driving it very little and the savings are going to be phenomenal (literally thousands per year). That is money that I can take and invest back into the city every time I go out on the town, go shopping, go to a play, etc. I get more enjoyment out of those things and the great part about it is that it directly benefits the city (as opposed to a lot of that money going to foreign oil companies). I get sick to my stomach thinking about how much we give these people every time I'm at the pump. I feel better knowing that money goes into the hands of the waitress, sales clerk, acting company, etc. We're in a very competitive world and we can't afford to keep giving to those who don't even like us to begin with.
I understand the automakers do get hurt in this but that's okay with me. Born and raised in Michigan, I saw these companies send most of the work to Mexico and overseas without much care or concern. I am glad to be leaving that state. Chicago's future looks bright but not Detroit's. It hurts a little because I know how much I'm going to miss my family. But that area has gotten so bad I feel like I have to go. I was in my grandmother's neighborhood today in Eastpointe, which is several miles outside of Detroit proper. It used to be such a lovely, beautiful place. But today, looking at all of the boarded-up houses and blight I literally cried. She will be leaving soon to go further north. The entire inner-ring of suburbs there is really being shot to hell and it's sad because they were pretty decent up until recently. That is part of what makes Detroit and its suburbs so dysfunctional- the natural pattern with peak oil is going to be to move inward to the city, not outward. But Detroit is a unique exception in that most people wouldn't relocate there and its transit system is terrible. So it leaves you wondering where people should go if they can no longer afford their commuter lifestyle. The truth is that neither option offers them much, and that is part of the reason so many have already left the state.
Last edited by EastBoundandDownChick; 07-25-2011 at 03:38 PM..
I understand the automakers do get hurt in this but that's okay with me. Born and raised in Michigan, I saw these companies send most of the work to Mexico and overseas without much care or concern. I am glad to be leaving that state. Chicago's future looks bright but not Detroit's. It hurts a little because I know how much I'm going to miss my family. But that area has gotten so bad I feel like I have to go. I was in my grandmother's neighborhood today in Eastpointe, which is several miles outside of Detroit proper. It used to be such a lovely, beautiful place. But today, looking at all of the boarded-up houses and blight I literally cried. She will be leaving soon to go further north. The entire inner-ring of suburbs there is really being shot to hell and it's sad because they were pretty decent up until recently. That is part of what makes Detroit and its suburbs so dysfunctional- the natural pattern with peak oil is going to be to move inward to the city, not outward. But Detroit is a unique exception in that most people wouldn't relocate there and its transit system is terrible. So it leaves you wondering where people should go if they can no longer afford their commuter lifestyle. The truth is that neither option offers them much, and that is part of the reason so many have already left the state.
I kind of disagree with you on a few points.
Yes, public transportation is great. It is absolutely something to push. And yes, wasting natural resources with no foresight is a crime.
But, I think this disdain and viscous contempt for the automobile is rediculous. We, as Americans are not going to give up individualized transport and living in detached houses the way extreme urbanophiles think we are.
Is the era of hour-long commutes over? Is the era of gas-guzzling SUVs over? New construction of mcmansions in the middle of farm fields over? Sure.
But that doesn't mean that cars are going away. We will have our electric cars, we will have smartcars, etc. We will have more infill development, more efficient land-use of existing suburbs. But some people envision a future, where people all go carless, take subways, and only grow things in their community gardens because everyone lives in multiunit buildings. Not everyone is going to, or has to do that.
We WILL still be driving individualized transport. Remember even Europe, Germany has a thriving car industry. Yes they don't drive pickups unless they actually use them for their jobs, but they still drive cars.
Suburbs can be great, sustainable places. We shouldn't hold in contempt the forces that allowed Americans to own yards and easily go away camping for the weekend. That ability to be around greenery and nature is part of what made America great. I would not want a future like what you see in South America or Asia, where 1/3 of the country gets concentrated in 2-3 high-rise dominated mega-cities. There is a balance.
And I totally realize your views of the Detroit area are a product of growing up there, and you see what has happened there. And I do realize you are talking about Macomb County (where Eastpointe is) doesn't have the types of potential and amenities as Oakland County. I however, after visiting there several times, I am continuously fascinated to learn more about the area.
I love the vibrant suburban downtowns of Birmingham, Royal Oak and Ferndale. The very diverse suburban areas around Southfields, the lakes and state parks just a bit further to the northwest. The heritage of the Henry Ford/Greenfield Village, and the biggest Arab/middle eastern population in the country in Dearborn. The proximity to Ann Arbor and Canada. The urban pioneers and artists living amongst the cultural amenities of Midtown. The beautiful architecture of places like the historic Whiteny house there. The blocks of vacant land that can be turned into urban gardens and parks.
Urban areas take many forms. There isn't just one. Letting the urban core rot is a shame, but so is for urbanites being cut off from their regions hinterlands. They should know the natural beauty in their own state. Backpacking through Europe and going to Costa Rica is something one should do is one gets the oppourtunity. But one should also explore their proverbial back yard, and it can be difficult to do that wihout a car.
Chicago's future looks bright but not Detroit's. It hurts a little because I know how much I'm going to miss my family. But that area has gotten so bad I feel like I have to go. I was in my grandmother's neighborhood today in Eastpointe, which is several miles outside of Detroit proper. It used to be such a lovely, beautiful place. But today, looking at all of the boarded-up houses and blight I literally cried. She will be leaving soon to go further north. The entire inner-ring of suburbs there is really being shot to hell and it's sad because they were pretty decent up until recently. That is part of what makes Detroit and its suburbs so dysfunctional- the natural pattern with peak oil is going to be to move inward to the city, not outward. But Detroit is a unique exception in that most people wouldn't relocate there and its transit system is terrible. So it leaves you wondering where people should go if they can no longer afford their commuter lifestyle. The truth is that neither option offers them much, and that is part of the reason so many have already left the state..
i think any real american feels the tragedy of detroit. it is truly a national tragedy and a tragedy of our own making. let's not forget that is was america...not the city of detroit....that allowed the Big Three to tank and produce all that poverty and problems when it did. even the racial conflict of detorit was caused in part by the auto industry's decline. while european ethnics were making a good living in the Big Three auto plants for decades (certainly strongly in the 1950s), but just when the time when blacks were filling those jobs to the american dream, the troubles were beginning in earnest.
detroit would have had a far economically better off black community if Motown industry was still going strong. And that has contributed to the racial divide.
also, Detroit is an interesting city of when it came of age. It rose spectacularly with the start of the 20th century and the automobile but (and maybe because of cars), the city never invested in rapid transit or commuter rail (short of the late, half hearted people mover downtown). This killed any chance that DT Detroit would be connected to the suburbs and suburbanites work downtown via public transit.
Chicago and Detroit paralleled each other for the first half of the 20th century, the two industrial giants of the midwest. But Chicago had something that Detroit never did: the strong white collar component and the incredible investment in infrastructure and public works downtown. In the post WWII years, the cities began a true divergence when industry was literally and figurately going south and Chicago was able to cash in on non-industrial advantages Detroit didn't have.
We all in the Midwest would benefit from a robust Detroit. But I agree with you...it's not likely to happen. I hate to say this, but Ann Arbor comes across as the greatest city in southeast Michigan today.
I think folks in SE Michigan and specifically Metro Detroit truly cling to the value of their entire metropolitan area more (hence the phrase Metro Detroit), whereas a lot of folks that live in Chicago's city limits (esp. the yuppie areas) never venture out to Chicago's suburbs. Can't exactly blame them when there isn't really a reason for many of them to leave the dense, thriving north side of the city + downtown unless they have a job in the suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
i think any real american feels the tragedy of detroit. it is truly a national tragedy and a tragedy of our own making. let's not forget that is was america...not the city of detroit....that allowed the Big Three to tank and produce all that poverty and problems when it did. even the racial conflict of detorit was caused in part by the auto industry's decline. while european ethnics were making a good living in the Big Three auto plants for decades (certainly strongly in the 1950s), but just when the time when blacks were filling those jobs to the american dream, the troubles were beginning in earnest.
detroit would have had a far economically better off black community if Motown industry was still going strong. And that has contributed to the racial divide.
also, Detroit is an interesting city of when it came of age. It rose spectacularly with the start of the 20th century and the automobile but (and maybe because of cars), the city never invested in rapid transit or commuter rail (short of the late, half hearted people mover downtown). This killed any chance that DT Detroit would be connected to the suburbs and suburbanites work downtown via public transit.
Chicago and Detroit paralleled each other for the first half of the 20th century, the two industrial giants of the midwest. But Chicago had something that Detroit never did: the strong white collar component and the incredible investment in infrastructure and public works downtown. In the post WWII years, the cities began a true divergence when industry was literally and figurately going south and Chicago was able to cash in on non-industrial advantages Detroit didn't have.
We all in the Midwest would benefit from a robust Detroit. But I agree with you...it's not likely to happen. I hate to say this, but Ann Arbor comes across as the greatest city in southeast Michigan today.
Yes, public transportation is great. It is absolutely something to push. And yes, wasting natural resources with no foresight is a crime.
But, I think this disdain and viscous contempt for the automobile is ridiculous. We, as Americans are not going to give up individualized transport and living in detached houses the way extreme urbanophiles think we are.
Is the era of hour-long commutes over? Is the era of gas-guzzling SUVs over? New construction of mcmansions in the middle of farm fields over? Sure.
Exactly. If gas went to $100/gallon tomorrow it would not end the suburbs or cars. It would result in a move away from the internal combustion engine, but not much more than that. We are at the beginning of the end of the suburbanization of America. That does not necessarily mean that city cores are going to explode with population. It does mean that city centers will see a slow and steady growth and the furthest suburbs will atrophy.
I actually think that Chicago is really well positioned for the transition away from far flung suburbs. It offers many of the benefits of both urban and suburban living. Take a look at the commercial corridors that are replacing the industrial corridors along Elston and Clybourn on the Northside. There are big box stores that anyone in Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Bucktown, Avondale, Logan Square, Old Town, etc. can reach in almost no time at all. That is a convenience that is seen as a suburban perk (and is not as available in other solid transit cities like Boston, DC, SF, NYC) but it is just as available in Chicago as it is in any suburban community. Chicagoans have access to those stores while still being able to use public transit to commute to work and also have local stores that offer a wide variety of unique offerings. Chicago offers choices like no other city.
I should note that I support local businesses like crazy, but if I'm buying paper towels I'll go to Costco and not a local store. If I'm buying 2X4's I'll go to Home Depot. There are generic items that it makes sense to buy in bulk at a large retailer.
Chicago has a solid transit system along with streets that aren't so congested that an automobile is useless. That is what is needed for the transition away from the 1950's suburban/urban model. Very few cities can offer that. Many parts of the city offer SFHs on small lots along with a population density that can be 5 to 10 times denser than suburbs - thereby supporting a much wider range of businesses and services.
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.
