Was Chicago better off when..... (Bloomingdale, Lincoln: condo, hotel, house)

[Irishtom29]

Nice post 103.

Given the imbecilic state of modern American bi-coastal culture it would probably be a good thing that Chicago have less to do with it rather than more.

[brewcrew1000]

Originally Posted by citylove101

--Neighborhoods were so rigidly segregated that black people literally feared for their lives to walk into certain ones

You could probably use this generalization today but just change Black People to White People

[citylove101]

Originally Posted by brewcrew1000

You could probably use this generalization today but just change Black People to White People

No, no, no.

The dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago today are dangerous for ALL people. Black, Asian, White or Latino all have an equal chance of being a crime victim in the roughest 'hoods, all of which are losing population.


I'm talking about a time when the danger was very specifically racially motivated, when a white person could go to, say Bridgeport (there are other examples too) with impunity where a black peorson feared to tread.

The difference is important, critical, and basic.

As far as I know that type of a problem has receded greatly in Chicago, maybe disappeared entirely. I haven't been to every neighborhood in the city, but if its still the same somewhere I'd be interested to know.

[MassVt]

I truly believe that some of the concerns/interests of modern-day urbanists about fine dining, art museums, etc are much more pronounced than they used to be. I grew up in a middle-class neighborhood in VT with parents who were not concerned with modern art, or seeking out the restaurant of the week, etc. We also seldom went out for dinner, did not habitually visit museums, were not particularly interested in clothing fads. The dining element, especially, is what strikes me as quite different here. A family of 7-8 people really couldn't afford to eat out several times a week, and besides, this was the generation of the stay-at-home mom, who was often a better cook than any local chef.

As I recall, I was excited about visiting Montreal, or Boston. I would have been thrilled to visit Chicago, regardless of its "status" in the middle of the country.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Anyone been to a Von Mauer's? Reminds me of Marshall Fields & have Midwestern roots. Von Maur About Us
If the profits justified the expense, it would be cool if they purchased the downtown location from Macy's with the rights to use Marshall Field's name at that location. Von Mauer at Marshall Field Building. I know it is still day-dreaming, but a more "realistic" sort.

i'd say Von Maur is a lot more Nordstrom's than it is Marshall Field's; but it is a great store. It struggles a bit. It doesn't depend on advertising. Their only north suburban store is in the Glen in Glenview and while the Town Center (including the refurbished Terminal from the old GNAS which Von Maur
is built around) is a nice place, it is removed from much of the North Shore area through traffic. Point is, it's a little out of the way, and I don't think VM is doing all that well.

Besides, its lines are somewhat limited; like Nordstrom, heavily into clothes with a strong emphasis on shoes.

But your idea of a different type of store for Macy's (ugh) on State is good. My suggestion:

Macy's should put the name "Marshall Field's" on the State Street store, the one that really matters. Keep the rest of the Chicago stores as Macy's and make WTP their downtown anchor.

Then, turn the State Street store into a one of a kind, using the three brand names Macy's Inc. owns

In other words, some departments would be those taken from Macy's, some from Bloomingdale's, and some from what were the departments of Marshall Field's.

Bring in a fourth element by including some of those independent venders that were part of "Down Under", the lower level of Field's (haven't seen this space since the Field's days as I avoid Macy's; don't know if they have kept this going).

So it's a four way mix (Macy's/Bloomie's/Field's/indies) all under the banner of "Marshall Field's", a huge selling point to Chicagoans, suburbanites, and tourists from out-of-town.

And for Macy's a win/win. They keep the chain name on all other stores, doing whatever they wish to WTP to make it a true anchor so their penetration into Chicagoland is not affected at all, while gaining good will (and profitiablility) by turning the State Street store back to Field's, creating this hybred which would be highly attractive to customers (and thus lucrative)...imagine the critical mass this could reach in an improved economy with the juxtaposition of Millennium Park, a resurrected Field's, and a (hopefully) healthier Block 37 with hopes that Sullivan Center (CPS) and all those new East Loop condos will propel the growth.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Was Chicago better off when...

• Marshall Field’s was Marshall Field’s and not Macy’s and it and Carson Pirie Scott were locally owned and both graced State Street (where they lavished money on their stores and had a strong relationship with the city and might both still be in operation today if they had stayed themselves)?

• When First National Bank of Chicago and Continental Illinois anchored the financial district and were atune to the city’s and the region’s needs?

• When local journalism was strong and Chicago had 4 or more local newspapers, not competing with the likes of USA Today? When journalism was journalism and newspapers told what had to be told in detail, not in cyber bits?

• When local restaurants like Henrici’s, Algauers, Fritzels, the Pump Room (non-LEYE version), etc., ruled the dining scene,not national chains, identical in every city?

• When quirky, personality filled Riverview stood, not some generic Great America?

• When hotels like the Drake and Palmer House were real Chicago institutions, locally owned, not some Hilton?

• When Wrigley Field was the model for other ballparks around the nation with its own individual personality and designed for the fan and not for high rollers in the luxury suites, a time when Chicago had a similiar ballpark, Comiskey Park, on the South Side?

• When grand movie palaces like the Chicago, the State Lake, the Granada, the Uptown, etc., stood and awed their customers....and people dressed up to go to the Chicago, the State Lake, and other downtown movie palaces?

• When what made Chicago tick was far more local than national and certainly international and Chicago, like other great cities, were more about being themselves than in sharing endless and monotinous, and crassy multinational and corporate?

It depends on who you are. If you are me, born in 1986, it won't matter either way. If you were born back in those days when that stuff existed, it would depend on your experiences with it.

[urza216]

Originally Posted by citylove101

No, no, no.

The dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago today are dangerous for ALL people. Black, Asian, White or Latino all have an equal chance of being a crime victim in the roughest 'hoods, all of which are losing population.

It's arguably safer for white people. What white guy in his sane mind just casually walks down the street alone in a high-crime all-black neighborhood? No one in their sane mind and prabobly someone you should keep a distance from.

[TheSunshineKid]

Originally Posted by edsg25

sorry. american "culture" has overrun them through

You're mistaken. Not all cities are plagued by American "culture". After my life changing experiences in said continents, I shall proceed to Asia!

[Larry Siegel]

You're asking some big questions. Was America better off when we had no industrial competition anywhere in the world, when unskilled laborers could make a decent wage, when white people could keep blacks and other minorities at bay, when people got married before they got pregnant (even most minorities did this), when city schools were good and country schools were lousy, when doctor and lawyer were the only two high-paying professions? In some ways, yes; in some ways, no.

Chicago was a microcosm of the U.S. and had these virtues and faults. Today we have much more opportunity and choice, but less security and fewer clear paths for young people to follow. (We also have much better food and longer lifespans today. And better coffee.) I'm almost certainly better off in today's society than I would have been in 1955, but not everyone is, and I'm not better off in every conceivable dimension.

These are worthwhile questions for debate and there is no single clear answer.

[il_blguy87]

Chicago today is so much better today with millennium park, new trump tower than ealier when ugly parking lot with homeless dominated eastern shore of loop.

Let alone mention today u can go on vac to a beach and shoot photo or video and quickly send it to your friends in California or Australia.

Ohare airport getting better, modernized with less delays.

News more national and international than just local. I prefer to look into future.