Would Ill. been better or worse off without Chgo? (Chicago: transplants, school)

[edsg25]

any Illinois school child knows that the original proposed northern boundary of our state gave it no Great Lakes frontage and so the territory pushed to have its border fixed to include what is now Cook and Lake County and all areas to the west to the Mississippi.

So Illinois got its foothold on Lake Michigan and that vital east/west traffic. Question is though: was this a good or a bad move for the new state? would it have been better or worse off if the original northern boundary with no Lake Michigan shoreline had been instituted.

Downstate (and I'm using the term as we do use it here in Chicagoland: all areas in the state outside of metro Chicago) Illinois benefits from the taxation of Chicagoland. But the areas downstate suffer in their minimal representation in the State Legislature, struggle with the fact that the voice of downstate has little influence in how the state, totally dominated by Chicago and its suburbs, runs.

and that doesn't even bring up the question of identity: downstate Illinois provides no image of itself as any image of Illinois is dominated by Chicago.

so…on the whole….would you say that that originally planned state would have been better or worse off if Chicago and environs were acquired?

[chet everett]

Geographically and from a historical business development perspective it is, of course, a no-brainer that Chicago was crucial to the success of Illinois. That said, the disgusting patterns of corruption, racism, inequality and violence that are not just tolerated by seemingly encouraged by the hordes of mindless fools that continue to vote for the same power-mad politicians that have driven the whole state into massive debt are likely to see the ruination of Illinois in the coming decade.

[Surf&Turf]

How is that even a question? Without Chicago Illinois would be Ohio...no offense...

[probablyimnotsure]

Originally Posted by Surf&Turf

How is that even a question? Without Chicago Illinois would be Ohio...no offense...

More like Indiana...which is even worse

[steeps]

It always amazes me that Chicago gets little respect from those living in Southern Illinois. Perhaps it is better then past decades or possibly worse? In my State we have Philly and Pittsburgh. I never heard voters wish the State did not have these cities being near neither today. But when I lived in Chicago it seemed the norm was little respect downstate.

When I first read about how Northern part of Illinois from the Southern Tip of Lake Michigan. Was to NOT BE part of Illinois. I believe it probably should NOT HAVE. But part of Wisconsin.

Chicago surely would NOT BE Worse off. Might have had more Respect from Wisconsinites? After all... most Chicagoans head north for fun and short trips. Some might rather they don't in Wisconsin. But most see it as... if they spend money here.... so be it.

You would think some Pride would be had from locales in the South? To have one of the Nations Top city's in its boundaries and a City with Global status in the Financial, Banking and Investment sectors......

But most in far South Illinois.... seems as Chicago is viewed negatively, and to have the city in their State.

[Maintainschaos]

Illinois without Chicago is really more like Iowa than it is either Ohio or Indiana. Of course, the inclusion of Chicago has been instrumental in the success of IL over the past ~100 yrs. However, Chicago is both a blessing and a curse to the rest of the state, since it is so much more populous than anything else in the state (or the Midwest for that matter). As a former resident of downstate, it's always a bit irksome how natives are woefully ignorant of the rest of the state, which does offer more than Chicago residents are ever willing to admit. But then, most Chicago residents (and a lot of transplants) don't really know too much about the rest of the Midwest in general, so it's perhaps unsurprising.

Short answer: yes, Chicago's inclusion has been a good thing for the state; long answer: given the financial uncertainty of the future, Chicago's inclusion might prove to be extremely detrimental to the state.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by steeps

You would think some Pride would be had from locales in the South? To have one of the Nations Top city's in its boundaries and a City with Global status in the Financial, Banking and Investment sectors......

But most in far South Illinois.... seems as Chicago is viewed negatively, and to have the city in their State.

Why? It's hundreds of miles away from them and has little influence on their day to day lives outside of politics. I grew up in the Illinois suburbs of St. Louis, which is the largest population concentration in Illinois outside of Chicagoland, and it was not uncommon to meet someone who had never even gone to Chicago, or if they had, only once or twice. St. Louis was the city that influenced their daily lives, not Chicago. Hence the disdain for many of their votes counting for nothing in Springfield.

It's even worse when you go further south from the St. Louis area down by the Kentucky border. St. Louis doesn't have a pull on them, Chicago certainly doesn't, and it honestly feels like you've entered the South in some places.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Surf&Turf

How is that even a question? Without Chicago Illinois would be Ohio...no offense...

Originally Posted by probablyimnotsure

More like Indiana...which is even worse

No, it'd be far more like Iowa or Kentucky, rural states with no dominant cities. Both Indiana and Ohio have large cities that, while not nearly as dominant as Chicago, still heavily influence their states.

Were it not for Chicago, Illinois would likely be dominated by St. Louis, with Milwaukee also having stronger influence than it does today. Having your most influential metro areas outside of your own state isn't usually a good thing.

The other thing to consider is that Chicago has drawn a lot more infrastructure into Illinois than it would otherwise have. If not for Chicago, Indy's "Crossroads of America" slogan might be more than just a slogan.

[pete6032]

Kind of a silly question to boil down into a yes or no answer.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

Why? It's hundreds of miles away from them and has little influence on their day to day lives outside of politics. I grew up in the Illinois suburbs of St. Louis, which is the largest population concentration in Illinois outside of Chicagoland, and it was not uncommon to meet someone who had never even gone to Chicago, or if they had, only once or twice. St. Louis was the city that influenced their daily lives, not Chicago. Hence the disdain for many of their votes counting for nothing in Springfield.

It's even worse when you go further south from the St. Louis area down by the Kentucky border. St. Louis doesn't have a pull on them, Chicago certainly doesn't, and it honestly feels like you've entered the South in some places.

I understand that... it basically answers the question though? YES IN SOUTHERN ILLINOIS THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS. IF CHICAGO IS IN THEIR STATE.... AS TO HAVE A GLOBAL CLASS CITY IN THEIR STATE. Central Illinois has a larger affiliation with St Louis too then Chicago.

So the answer is.... the original plan for Illinois to begin from about the Southern Tip if Lake Michigan Southward. SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT.

I grew up in PA. I actually moved to Chicago before I ever visited Philly or Pittsburgh. I was 2 1/2 hours + From Philly and 4 hours to Pittsburgh. BUT SPORTS FANS WERE SPLIT MORE TOWARD PHILLY TEAMS AS WE WERE CLOSER THERE THEN PITTSBURGH. SOME NYC AND DC TOO.

Even references to Philly as Filthadelphia.... But NEVER A COULDN'T CARE LESS OF THEM CITIES IN THE STATE. I still saw some Philly TV stations and going into Central PA and west they Got Pittsburgh ones. Cable was pretty necessary in the mountains. Probably in Southern Illinois the Stations are already more St Louis, Indianapolis, Memphis/Nashville. But I can't say I know that.

Even up to Almost Central Wisconsin are Bears Fans. Not sure if any are left in Southern Illinois? After All... the state is very long.

I am surprised you would ask WHY SHOULD THEY CARE OR AFFILIATE IN WAYS IN THE SOUTH WITH CHICAGO??? WELL BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJOR CITY IN THEIR STATE AND NATION.....

My State had Two large cities. Still between the Two the state splits. Yes some NYC and even a few DC. Sports Fans...

I still say. Chicago should have been part of Wisconsin. JUST MY OPINION.... I know it matters little.