"Chicago mostly attracts people from elsewhere in the Midwest..." Is that really true? (Lincoln: credit, how much)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Lets not use Portage Park as an example. I think Garfield Ridge would be a better example.

The most public transit, car-free friendly areas of Atlanta are comparable to the less car-free friendly areas of Chicago proper. I'm fine with that.

Yes, let's use a neighborhood on the very periphery of the city instead... that still has numerous bus lines running through it that can deposit a resident at the Orange Line or a Metra station where they'll be downtown 25 minutes later.

Wanna try 0 for 3?

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Vlajos's worlkplace sums it up from my observation..
Lots of Michigan people.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Drover

Yes, let's use a neighborhood on the very periphery of the city instead... that still has numerous bus lines running through it that can deposit a resident at the Orange Line or a Metra station where they'll be downtown 25 minutes later.

Wanna try 0 for 3?

I'm not arguing the specifics about public transit access.

I don't care about that at all, and no its not because I am loosing an argument. The specifics about that I could truly care less about.

What I am saying is that when potential transplants get excited over Chicago, or people talk about Chicago being an amazing world class city, Portage Park and Garfield Ridge hold zero, 0, zilch appeal to what makes Chicago the city that people want to move to.

Fine, the public transit is great there. I am talking about a more general, more abstract idea about the "Chicago" that attracts talent here from the outside. And even if you could live without a car in Portage Park or Garfield Ridge, no one moving to Chicago, excited, will give one thought about living outside of that 1/5 of the city. Many would see no point in living in Chicago if you live in those neighborhoods even if they are decent neighborhoods. They might have well just stayed in Buffalo, NY. (since both Buffalo, NY and the far NW and far SW sides of Chicago have a large population of 3rd generation sons and daughters of Polish factory workers).

That is my point.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I'm not arguing the specifics about public transit access.

I don't care about that at all, and no its not because I am loosing an argument. The specifics about that I could truly care less about.

What I am saying is that when potential transplants get excited over Chicago, or people talk about Chicago being an amazing world class city, Portage Park and Garfield Ridge hold zero, 0, zilch appeal to what makes Chicago the city that people want to move to.

Fine, the public transit is great there. I am talking about a more general, more abstract idea about the "Chicago" that attracts talent here from the outside. And even if you could live without a car in Portage Park or Garfield Ridge, no one moving to Chicago, excited, will give one thought about living outside of that 1/5 of the city. Many would see no point in living in Chicago if you live in those neighborhoods even if they are decent neighborhoods. They might have well just stayed in Buffalo, NY. (since both Buffalo, NY and the far NW and far SW sides of Chicago have a large population of 3rd generation sons and daughters of Polish factory workers).

That is my point.

Then you should tell that to all the foreigners who live in those two neighborhoods -- the same people who made a special effort to get to those very neighborhoods of all places on Earth and whose presence makes a significant contribution to the vast tapestry that does, in fact, make Chicago an amazing world-class city.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Here's another way to look at it.

It is why I perfectly understand why two metropolitan areas in the countries, (and possibly to an extent a third: Boston) can somewhat compare to Chicagoland.

People might say San Francisco is only 800,000 people. The entire Bay area (combined stat area) is officially over 7 million. Might also say Washington D.C. is only 600,000 people, but 8.5 in the D.C-Baltimore area.

To me it is compareable:

San Francisco + Oakland(equivalent to Chicago south side) + San Jose/Silicon Valley = Chicago proper.

D.C.+ Arlington/Alexandria, VA + Baltimore (equivalent to Chicago south side = Chicago proper.

Not in a literal sense obviously. I know again that not all of these areas, are structurally urban, but then again, neither is Chicago NW of the 90/94 split, or even large tracts of south of the Stevenson. But those are the multicentered powerhouses that combined are closer to Chicagos powerhouse.

Chicago proper still has more people, but not enough, to make someone think that it would be a "downgrade" (especially for obvious reasons those two areas being powerhouses for technology and government respectively). Now all of these are somewhat urban, and may have public transit, but for most, it is more specifically D.C. and San Francisco out of these large metro areas that are TRULY urban, where one can live carless very easily. Just like the area within 4 miles of the lakefront from downtown up north is the truly urban part of Chicago proper. The rest is more like Arlington/Alexandria/Baltimore in DC, or like Oakland/Berkeley/San Jose?Palo Alto. Again not in a literal sense necessarily. These metro areas are simply very multicentered. But they all act as one region.

Now for many, people still might think Chicago/Chicagoland is more "emerald city" than these two regions.

This is why I don't understand why unless one spent all their time within Chicagos core (downtown and north side within 4 miles of the lakefront) their whole lives and never stepped foot in the suburbs, why anyone in Chicagoland would seriously think of D.C.-Baltimore, or the San Fran-Oakland-San Jose Bay Area as a "downgrade." or moving to a "slow pace". In fact it can still be possible for one to think the opposite if one spent time in Chicaoland AWAY from the core-corridor from downtown to the north and near northwest.

But again, whatever everyone has had different experiences.

Just because I wasn't born yesterday and have seen the end of this story, the summary is that it is your opinion that Chicago is a worthless podunk of a town that no matter what we quote, cite, or rebut, will never change your opinion of Chicago.

Got it.

And I'm the one that's closed-minded.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Drover

Then you should tell that to all the foreigners who live in those two neighborhoods -- the same people who made a special effort to get to those very neighborhoods of all places on Earth and whose presence makes a significant contribution to the vast tapestry that does, in fact, make Chicago an amazing world-class city.

As do immigrants who made a special effort to make it to specific neighborhoods in specific cities all over this country, including ones that people are rather "meh" about make a significant contribution to make America a world class nation.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by rparz

Just because I wasn't born yesterday and have seen the end of this story, the summary is that it is your opinion that Chicago is a worthless podunk of a town that no matter what we quote, cite, or rebut, will never change your opinion of Chicago.

Got it.

And I'm the one that's closed-minded.

Saying that San Francisco and D.C. can easily compete and match up with Chicago is hardly putting down Chicago as "podunk." I realize I have a history of sounding anti-Chicago, but its really just discovering that those cities can match up thats all. (with Houston and Boston right behind).

[Lorielicious]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Lorilicious? Can you back me up here?

You remember my map. Ha! Chicago public transit map redux.

Seriously, though, he's right about car-free mobility in Chicago being fantastic in a small portion of the city, and in the rest, an overwhelming meh. While the CTA does serve the entire city, slow-moving and often infrequent buses don't make for good public trans. Most places, including East Asscheek, Michigan, have slow and terrible buses. Access to trains, which don't stop on every corner and rot in traffic, and run more frequently than every 20 min is what makes for good transit, and makes for an easy life without a car. That doesn't exist in very much of the city.

I don't agree, however, that unless you live in this little tiny block, you don't live in "real Chicago."

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

As do immigrants who made a special effort to make it to specific neighborhoods in specific cities all over this country, including ones that people are rather "meh" about make a significant contribution to make America a world class nation.

So if people are categorically "meh" about these neighborhoods, why do so many immigrants end up in them? It's not like Chicago is a major coastal port of entry where immigrants just end up here by accident of geographical location. Or when you say "people" do you really mean "people whose values I understand and share?" Because if it's the latter, it might be a useful bit of introspection to recognize and acknowledge as much.

While it may seem obvious to you and many of us CD regulars that Chicago wouldn't be what it is without places like Lakeview and Lincoln Park, it might be too easy for people who are comfortable in those enclaves to forget or fail to acknowledge that it also wouldn't be what it is without places like Portage Park and Garfield Ridge.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

It partly depends on ones' interests and tastes. Every since I was in high school, and got into the Grateful Dead when/right after Jerry Garcia died, it was forever etched in my mind, that wow: if a city can give the world a band like this, there must be something in the water there. And this is coming from someone who never really lived that lifestyle! (except for trying weed only twice in college). I find a lot of good stuff on youtube, whenever I want to hear some Dead. But its little things like that, that forever left a very positive impression on San Fran.

I've always had an equally very positive view of San Franciso, even now. I always loved the left-leaning side of San Francisco quite a bit.

But I think that era of San Francisco, I mean the Greatful Dead side of it, long ago left for the Pacific Northwest. Portland and Seattle seemed far more creative and interesting.

By the time I got to San Francisco, 2002, I found a city with a ton, I mean MAJOR ton of yuppies all over the place...and of course a large gay scene....(I don't mind gays, but I'm not personally gay, but that didn't bother me so much). I guess I was just disappointed that you needed major major bucks to live in San Francisco, and be employed very professionally. As I wasn't, I couldn't adequately find my place.

In addition to that, San Francisco had a major homeless problem...which is another thing I don't generally mind. But, it seemed like I couldn't walk for more than 5 minutes at a time, without some guy hassling me for money. Not asking for money, but hassling a person for money.