Does Chicago wish it could just pick up and move to the East Coast? (Atlanta: crime, tax)

[the resident09]

Do Chicagoans feel like their city could jump up and be propped over to the East Coast? The city anchors a Midwest region of over 65 million people, in which many people from media to politics still over look. The city of Chicago is beloved by most people that I know personally, but often times the Midwest (not necessarily Chicago) is viewed as "flyover" country. I have relatives throughout the Midwest and those sentiments have come out from time to time. The media coverage at least nationally always seems to center around both coasts, with Chicago being a distant third with regards to the coverage. How is that the case being a world class city that it is the 3rd largest urban metropolis and media market in the country? Couple that with much of the biased coverage being about the crime in Chicago, which we know plagues much of urban America. If Chicago were on the East Coast, what would be different about the city, and what would be different about the respective regions of the Midwest or Eastern Seaboard?

Thoughts...


Also I guess I should have worded my poll differently, as to say provide more than just a simple yes or no. If it is a "no" is that because you prefer living in the Midwest region as a whole, or possibly even love the fact that Chicago dominates its region that much? Or do you not like to associate with the EC? Whatever reasons for saying yes or no, I'd like to understand.

[DC's Finest]

If Chicago was in a warmer location somewhere on the east coast, it would easily have a population of 4-5 million people. I think the winter months affect Chicago's image in a negative way. It would also make the EC much more of a destination than it already is.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

If Chicago was in a warmer location somewhere on the east coast, it would easily have a population of 4-5 million people. I think the winter months affect Chicago's image in a negative way. It would also make the EC much more of a destination than it already is.

I feel like Chicago has the weakest supporting cast with regards to its peer cities of its region. I agree, I think any northern city would automatically see a huge difference in population if it were placed in warm/ sub tropical climate.

Basically what I'm getting at is, as Chicagoans do they prefer to be in a Midwest region where their city is the only world class one in the entire region, or would they prefer it that they were a part of a region with many other world class/highly important cities close by.

[ToriaT]

Chicago would not be the same plopped somewhere else. Nobody that loves Chicago would wish this.

[edsg25]

Am I allowed to say...........I like the Midwest. Seriously. I like the Midwest.

And I am not the least bit ashamed of our location.

[PerseusVeil]

Chicago became Chicago due to its logistically important position in the Midwest and because it knew that it needed to take advantage of the railroads. Take Chicago out of the Midwest and it wouldn't have developed the same way at all, assuming it even would have had the ability to become the size that it did. Additionally, another Midwestern city would have replaced Chicago's logistical position in the Midwest. St. Louis, for example, lost the Midwestern crown due to its failure to embrace railroads sooner. It might have held onto that title had Chicago not been a Midwestern city.

As for just magically dropping Chicago of 2017 onto the East Coast, I think doing so might take away from the city more than benefitting it. It would have added connections to other large and dynamic cities, but it wouldn't be head and shoulders above those cities the way it currently is in the Midwest.

[oddstray]

Well, no. Because . . . why?

The east coast is the east coast. Chicago is Chicago. Comparing apples to gorillas.

[DavePa]

I think the premise is Chicago ..... as it is now. If it was on the East-coast? Would it's significance have risen faster? Gaining mere people? Seen as more important?

I'd say in degrees yes. But primarily on the attributes the city already has mostly. Atlanta is a Eastern city but its southern location some could say? Held back its growth till recent decades.

Corporate America decides which cities boom more and what parts of their cities. Low and NO Corporate tax states they choose most to grow. Therefore the major cities in them states...... reap the benefits of growth. So it also would depend on which states Chicago on the East-coast might be?

Just what is sure more then not today? Chicago being in the Midwest region ..... TODAY is not a asset over the East or West coast if there instead. It merely would have additional benefits it doesn't have in the Midwest. That's all.

I believe its stature and recognition has been rising. Despite negatives all cities have..... but being in a debt situation and the state. Keeps it from even more stature rise it could have.

[ThreeSides]

Originally Posted by the resident09

I feel like Chicago has the weakest supporting cast with regards to its peer cities of its region. I agree, I think any northern city would automatically see a huge difference in population if it were placed in warm/ sub tropical climate.

Basically what I'm getting at is, as Chicagoans do they prefer to be in a Midwest region where their city is the only world class one in the entire region, or would they prefer it that they were a part of a region with many other world class/highly important cities close by.

Meh, it is what it is. I've always enjoyed traveling south, to St. Louis. A different look, feel, etc. I've learned that I could travel even further south, and get a totally different look, feel, etc. I'm referring to Memphis, in particular.

[Slats Grobnick]

Nope, cost of living would be double. It's already getting expensive as is.