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.
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.
Thanks for stating this, just to give me a better perspective of Chicago.
Actually, when I went out to the Bay Area, that's one of the things that I really criticized. While San Francisco has public transportation, a system that many out there were very proud of. I came to SF/Bay Area after NYC, and SF's MUNI system was more of a commuter system than anything remotely similar to NYC connecting all the different neighborhoods, etc.
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.
I was referring to other CITIES that are more unappreciated yet have VERY large immigrant communities. Houston is an obvious one. Its foreign born population is huge, from Vietnam to Nigeria, and obviously Mexican. Metro Detroit centered on Dearborn, is obviously the center of one of the largest Arab communities. Yet Houston and Detroit are not on the top of peoples' list of cities.
I could go on. So, that what my point was about immigrants in cities across the country. I'm not sure if I really understand your statement. Should Chicago immigrant-rich neighborhoods be more impressive than similar neighborhoods in New York, LA, or Miami because Chicago is not a coastal port of entry city??
If there is a reason why many immigrants end up in those neighborhoods, its probably because they have affordable single family homes close to the major airports I guess.
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.
Yeah, true, but there are a lot of people who love Chicago for its Blues and jazz heritage, and come here to hear that stuff in Chicago because a lot of the creative energy was here for that, even though its not really created here anymore either. Same with New Orleans.
San Francisco is very lenient on its homeless population. Plus the mild climate, not to hot, not to cold, makes it a haven for homeless. LA is the same way, possible more so. In LA and San Fran, people live with roommates to get around housing costs. However, there is still quite a bit of free to cheap entertainment in both cities.
I was referring to other CITIES that are more unappreciated yet have VERY large immigrant communities. Houston is an obvious one. Its foreign born population is huge, from Vietnam to Nigeria, and obviously Mexican. Metro Detroit centered on Dearborn, is obviously the center of one of the largest Arab communities. Yet Houston and Detroit are not on the top of peoples' list of cities.
I could go on. So, that what my point was about immigrants in cities across the country. I'm not sure if I really understand your statement. Should Chicago immigrant-rich neighborhoods be more impressive than similar neighborhoods in New York, LA, or Miami because Chicago is not a coastal port of entry city??
If there is a reason why many immigrants end up in those neighborhoods, its probably because they have affordable single family homes close to the major airports I guess.
What the f#&king hell does Houston or Detroit have to do with the question posed inthe premise of this thread? Do you even remember what the original topic is, or have you forgotten it in your journey down the path toward Argue-ville? Do the immigrant populations of Houston or Detroit take anything away from the dynamism of Chicago? Does the demographic data on Houston or Detroit or Singapore or Jakarta or Karachi have any bearing whatsoever on the question? Is Detroit even a remotely apt comparison? And if you believe it is (as apparently you do by bringing it up in this conversation), then should I even bother to continue with this line of conversation?
To answer the latter-most question, it seems the obvious answer is "no."
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."
Is this opinion or fact?
Quote:
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) operates the nation’s second largest public transportation system. The Chicago Transit Authority provides service to Chicago and 40 surrounding suburbs. The CTA provided a total of 521.2 million rides in 2009, a 1 percent decrease (5.1 million fewer rides) over 2008 numbers.[2]
CTA operates 24 hours each day and on an average weekday provides 1.7 million rides on buses and trains. It has approximately 1,800 buses that operate over 140 routes traveling along 2,230 route miles (3,658 km). Buses provide about one million passenger trips a day and serve more than 12,000 posted bus stops. The Chicago Transit Authority's 1,190 train cars operate over eight routes and 222 miles (357 km) of track. Its trains provide about 750,000 customer trips each weekday and serve 144 stations in Chicago.
Must be nice for the five square miles in Lincoln park and Lakeview, as it must have ast least six overlapping bus routes to overserve the area while the south and west sides haven't seen a bus since the sixties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
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.
Don't forget how much weather is a deterrent to drawing people to Chicago, yet still manages to draw a sizable population. A testament to its greatness.
Besides weather, what do the southern cities really offer that Chicago doesn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer
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.
That's my real major hangup -- or misunderstanding if you will. The town is okay for all intents and purposes, but I can find 90% of the same vibe and scene in Chicago at damn near 50% of the cost.
Although I suspect it has more to do with government meddling (rent control) than actual market demand.
Point being, I'd give it a lot more credit if it were more reasonably priced. At this kind of money, I might as well just go all the way and head to Manhattan.
Quote:
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.
I'm still surprised about that out here. The cops out here are pushovers, they let people just set up shop and drop a bunch of stuff on private property and stay there for weeks.
Not only that, but in Chicago, if the cops didn't take their stuff off the street, the 'urban beavers' would come along and pick them clean when they weren't looking. Like a finely tuned ecosystem, it tries to find balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer
Thanks for stating this, just to give me a better perspective of Chicago.
Actually, when I went out to the Bay Area, that's one of the things that I really criticized. While San Francisco has public transportation, a system that many out there were very proud of. I came to SF/Bay Area after NYC, and SF's MUNI system was more of a commuter system than anything remotely similar to NYC connecting all the different neighborhoods, etc.
I've been here for a month now car free armed with a clipper card (auto debit card accepted on all lines) and an iphone and I still can't figure this system out. Get off the bart, onto the muni then to a bus. (each charging $2+ or more, no free transfers) What the hell?
When boarding a train, why can't they just have a sign at the station showing an arrow pointing to one way showing one end of the line, and an arrow facing the other? I've gotten on more trains and busses going the wrong way (and walking miles and miles) than I care to remember.
And don't forget, I'm a reasonably smart guy, armed with an iphone and still flipping hard.
Then, as great as it is, the cost. $4.50 to cross the bay, damn near $10 to ride the BART to the airports. Seriously? It could be a LOT better.
CTA can do 90% (if not more) of what the system here can do and it's only $2.75 to go anywhere you like.
I guess therein lies the crux of my criticisms. If I'm paying twice as much for something as I do in Chicago, I expect it to be almost twice as good -- or at least twice the value. Which, it's clearly not.
Other than the weather, I'm not sure what the draw is.
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."
Is it the fact that the CTA serves these areas differently (I seriously doubt it) or, is it the fact that those areas of the city are different to begin with?
For instance, living in Lakeview, do you even need public transit? If you were to walk 10 minutes in any direction, how many grocery stores, liquor stores, and restaurants would you pass?
Of course it would seem like these areas are better served, especially when your destination is ONLY 1/4 mi away.
For instance, living in Lakeview, do you even need public transit? If you were to walk 10 minutes in any direction, how many grocery stores, liquor stores, and restaurants would you pass?
Well, Lakeview is a big area, so it depends on where you live. I know your point, but most people don't just go out in their direct areas. They expand, and public transit is good for that and going to other neighborhoods. I'd also say that having that much public transit is a big draw to a number of areas.
Thanks for stating this, just to give me a better perspective of Chicago.
Actually, when I went out to the Bay Area, that's one of the things that I really criticized. While San Francisco has public transportation, a system that many out there were very proud of. I came to SF/Bay Area after NYC, and SF's MUNI system was more of a commuter system than anything remotely similar to NYC connecting all the different neighborhoods, etc.
Unfortunately the same is true about Chicago: its transportation system is mostly geared towards commuters thus can't be even compared to that of New York. Moving from NYC to other US cities most of the time means a huge dissapointment as New York is the top US with respect to urban development including public transportation.
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.
