Why do public leaders have such a presence in Chicago?

[Chicago76]

Apart from the media in Chicago being more present than in most metros, I'm convinced it is the type of municipal government and the balance between the number of aldermen, the number of constituents, and aldermanic privilege that leads to the emphasis on local politics.

In a non-ward, consolidated system with general elections, there is no accountability. X people represent the entire city. Tere is no one to go to for your neighborhood. In a ward system with too many wards (like my current home of STL), an each alderman represents roughly 10,000 people. Districts are small enough to be personal, but not large enough for the representative to wield considerable influence. NYC is the opposite: too big to be personal but large enough to be influential. Chicago is more balanced then either end of the spectrum, so people have access, get an understanding of how the "machine" works and realize its influence. Political knowledge at the neighborhood level is very, very strong in Chicago as a result and the interest extends naturally up the ladder.

Then you toss in the fact that neighborhoods in the city have really changed a lot in the last 40 years (and some wealth has stayed in the city), and you've got additional interest: white to hispanic to yuppie neighborhoods, older whites replaced by hispanic families, the delicate hispanic/white/black balance in Chicago, the influx of money in the near downtown neighborhoods.

Change in Chicago is also fast enough (and significant enough) to be easily perceptible, but slow enough to have policy discussion about these changes. In NYC, a neighborhood like Williamsburg can change in 3 or 4 years. It's too damn fast and inevitable to frame discussions. In my current neighborhood in STL, it happened over 15 years, but it's an area of 5,000 people, so hardly anyone gives a damn. In Chicago, it can happen in the NW side, Uptown, Pilsen, etc over 10-15 years, but it impacts massive amounts of people. Enough to make it story worthy.

Other stuff too like unions being fairly strong, protest groups being able to lean heavily on local aldermen for given projects they oppose in a setting where aldermen are definitely on the news radar. It just boils down to a balance between big enough to matter to enough people while being local enough to keep the process from becoming to detached.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Apart from the media in Chicago being more present than in most metros, I'm convinced it is the type of municipal government and the balance between the number of aldermen, the number of constituents, and aldermanic privilege that leads to the emphasis on local politics.

I think you nailed it. It's the patronage system type of thing, which used to exist in many major American cities, but no longer exists other places the way it does in Chicago.

It's definitely not a difference in media coverage that I'm talking about. I'm talking about a seemingly blind reverence for, or at least fascination with, local political leaders among the general public. I see it more with Chicago-area natives than I do with transplants. They're viewed sort of like celebrities, or almost royalty, whereas in other cities local leaders are viewed more as hired servants of the people, who can and will be replaced if their performance isn't satisfactory.