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.
The Great Lakes ARE part of the midwest. I'm not contradicting myself, Chicago is a big city and will share big city infrastructure/amenities with other large cities; but that has nothing to do with being midwest. San Francisco shares these same qualities with east coast cities, but is no doubt a west coast city.
Have you ever heard that Boston is the San Francisco of the East Coast and vice versa? I hear it all the time. The attributes that make San Francisco and Chicago so urban, are the same attributes that are found predominantly and pretty much ONLY in the East Coast outside of Chicago and SF, when it comes to big cities. You are also putting to much emphasis on scale as I don't think other people are. It's part of the factor but there is more to it. For example the pace of life in Chicago is more comparable to that of the East Coast than the Midwest, and I don't believe that has to do anything with size, because cities like Houston, very similar in size to Chicago is much much slower paced, where cities like Boston, MUCH smaller than Chicago or Houston has more of a pace of life similar to Chicago.
Yeah totally contradicting yourself now. It seems like you aren't even sure what you are trying to say. So yet no place is purely representative of the region it lives in, no city, as you say, but then you say Chicago is 100% midwest.
I am going to agree to disagree, because I don't think you even know what you are trying to say.
What I am hearing from you and marothisu is that the Midwest is synonymous with Stip Malls, Parking Lots, No Culture, etc.; which of course is not 100% Chicago.
I'm typing from a phone so its hard to express my point My argument is that the Midwest is Diverse, Global, Regional, Racist, Accepting, Cosmopolitan, Segregated all at the same time, it is many different things. This is what Chicago is. it is the absolute definition of the midwest, and I would argue every other city in the midwest takes characteristics from Chicago, as it represents all things midwest better than any other city.
Even within the city limits of Chicago, what is Chicago? The Near North Side shares little in common with Englewood or Hermosa, or Pilsen, but as different as they are and as little as they have in common they are all Chicago.
Despite the fact Pilsen is 50% mexican immigrants (or whatever the number is) the neighborhood is 100% Chicago.
Have you ever heard that Boston is the San Francisco of the East Coast and vice versa? I hear it all the time. The attributes that make San Francisco and Chicago so urban, are the same attributes that are found predominantly and pretty much ONLY in the East Coast outside of Chicago and SF, when it comes to big cities. You are also putting to much emphasis on scale as I don't think other people are. It's part of the factor but there is more to it. For example the pace of life in Chicago is more comparable to that of the East Coast than the Midwest, and I don't believe that has to do anything with size, because cities like Houston, very similar in size to Chicago is much much slower paced, where cities like Boston, MUCH smaller than Chicago or Houston has more of a pace of life similar to Chicago.
My interpretation of the San Fran/Boston analogy is that they are both Geographically small and very liberal. Are you trying to say San Fran "feels" like an East Coast City?
My interpretation of the San Fran/Boston analogy is that they are both Geographically small and very liberal. Are you trying to say San Fran "feels" like an East Coast City?
It has certain prominent attributes that are similar to the East Coast cities, that are not found anywhere else in the West Coast. I would never say if you were to walk San Francisco you would instantly think you are in the East Coast, as I would never say that for Chicago either. But San Francisco I would say has more similarities in its urban lifestyle for its residences to Boston, Philly and NYC, than it does to LA, SD or Seattle. I believe SF has a hybrid/unique feel to it which is not wholly representative of the West Coast.
i went to school in Ann Arbor, my wife is from Minneapolis (have been there literally dozens of times), and I travel to Milwaukee quite often as I own rental buildings there, and have visited on numerous occasions: Cleveland, Cincy, Detroit, St Louis. I'm familiar with the midwest.
Interesting that you mention Ann Arbor. I've been there quite a few times, and I'd say that even Ann Arbor is hard to characterize completely as a Midwestern college town. The topography is a bit different with the extra hills in the area. But most of all, there's a significant percentage of University of Michigan's student population that is either from offshore or from the Northeast (particularly NY & NJ). Certainly U of M-Ann Arbor attracts more out of staters than Michigan State up in East Lansing, MI.
Additionally, it's probably the most liberal town in the entire state of Michigan.
I'm typing from a phone so its hard to express my point My argument is that the Midwest is Diverse, Global, Regional, Racist, Accepting, Cosmopolitan, Segregated all at the same time, it is many different things. This is what Chicago is. it is the absolute definition of the midwest, and I would argue every other city in the midwest takes characteristics from Chicago, as it represents all things midwest better than any other city.
Here's the thing - you know this to be true because you have experience with the midwest. I think it would be a frivolous thing to assume that most people actually know that there's more than just white and black people in the midwest. Honestly, go to Manhattan and ask 100-200 people this and I bet my entire life savings that most people will not think of the midwest the same way that you do. I can't even express to you how many of my coworkers in Manhattan have said this to me and amazed that parts of the midwest has actual diversity and how many of my friends from the coasts who had never even been to the midwest before were amazed that it wasn't all white people in Chicago.
Whether you like it or not, the actual stereotype of the midwest is one where there's not a lot of diversity, not a lot of cultural options, not a lot of walkable areas, etc. If you talk to enough people, you'll realize this. I've had to put up with these stereotypes for years from other people from outside of the region who've really never been to the region or many places within it, it's not even funny. Most of them have the same stereotype of the region. Sure, you don't, but talk to people. You may realize what your thoughts are aren't necessarily aligned with the general idea of the region from outside of the region.
Quote:
Despite the fact Pilsen is 50% mexican immigrants (or whatever the number is) the neighborhood is 100% Chicago.
Funny - I have a former co-worker who is from Mexico City and lived in Chicago for about a year. I took him to Little Village and we also drove through Brighton Park and McKinley Park. First words out of his mouth "Holy crap - I feel like I'm back in Mexico City." I said "well, you're only saying that because of the Spanish on the signs and everyone speaking Spanish." He told me that wasn't the only reason. He told me that on the commercial strips that many of the buildings' architecture actually looked like some parts of Mexico City and he felt like he'd been transported to where he grew up. We also stopped by that Discount Mega Mall on 26th in Little Village and he said "I feel like I'm in a mall in Mexico in the 80s." From his perspective, it wasn't just the Spanish everywhere, but also the actual setting.
What I am hearing from you and marothisu is that the Midwest is synonymous with Stip Malls, Parking Lots, No Culture, etc.; which of course is not 100% Chicago.
I'm typing from a phone so its hard to express my point My argument is that the Midwest is Diverse, Global, Regional, Racist, Accepting, Cosmopolitan, Segregated all at the same time, it is many different things. This is what Chicago is. it is the absolute definition of the midwest, and I would argue every other city in the midwest takes characteristics from Chicago, as it represents all things midwest better than any other city.
Even within the city limits of Chicago, what is Chicago? The Near North Side shares little in common with Englewood or Hermosa, or Pilsen, but as different as they are and as little as they have in common they are all Chicago.
Despite the fact Pilsen is 50% mexican immigrants (or whatever the number is) the neighborhood is 100% Chicago.
I am just going to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. I don't think Chicago is a good representation of the Midwest, just as SF isn't of the West Coat or Miami of the South. Chicago is very different and at the same time very similar to the Midwest and its surrounding region. I really don't think it has to do with size either. I think it has to do more than with anything else, that Chicago was booming at the same time the East Coast cities were and San Francisco too. Which created large, dense, diverse populations, comparable economies and industries. While the East Coast cities are older, back in the day Chicago was a rival to them in the 1800's/1900's and growing with them and even competing with them. Hence why Chicago is not similar to the likes of Houston or LA because the relationship with Chicago and those two cities were very different and they really grew at a much later time. So historically I think there is something there that laid the foundations for Chicago to have similarities to the East Coast. Chicago never had to really compete with the Midwest cities, but sure as heck had to with the East Coast, which is why I definitely think that has something to do with building the foundation of the city's culture and residents.
I am just going to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. I don't think Chicago is a good representation of the Midwest, just as SF isn't of the West Coat or Miami of the South. Chicago is very different and at the same time very similar to the Midwest and its surrounding region. I really don't think it has to do with size either. I think it has to do more than with anything else, that Chicago was booming at the same time the East Coast cities were and San Francisco too. Which created large, dense, diverse populations, comparable economies and industries. While the East Coast cities are older, back in the day Chicago was a rival to them in the 1800's/1900's and growing with them and even competing with them. Hence why Chicago is not similar to the likes of Houston or LA because the relationship with Chicago and those two cities were very different and they really grew at a much later time. So historically I think there is something there that laid the foundations for Chicago to have similarities to the East Coast. Chicago never had to really compete with the Midwest cities, but sure as heck had to with the East Coast, which is why I definitely think that has something to do with building the foundation of the city's culture and residents.
This is absolutely true. Some of the earliest movers & shakers in Chicago were actually transplants from New York as well. Think about it. Before California became a boom state, Chicago was considered the "west" in some ways. Chicago was where a lot of the glamorous rail lines from NYC would terminate. The Broadway Limited & the 20th Century Limited:
This is absolutely true. Some of the earliest movers & shakers in Chicago were actually transplants from New York as well. Think about it. Before California became a boom state, Chicago was considered the "west" in some ways. Chicago was where a lot of the glamorous rail lines from NYC would terminate. The Broadway Limited & the 20th Century Limited:
Yep - In the 1890s, San Francisco was pretty much the only city where people considered going west to past what is now considered the midwest region. Every other city there was barely populated - LA, San Diego, Portland, Seattle. None of them had pretty much anything greater than 50K or 55K population. Phoenix didn't even have 5000 people at this point living there.
It wasn't until a few decades later where people actually bypassed the midwest to go to the west coast en masse (my dad's side being one of them - they came from NYC and settled in San Francisco first in the early 1930s and then eventually made their way down to LA in the 1940s and 1950s. My dad is actually the first person in his entire family born outside of Europe and NYC). Before that though, when people didn't want to live in NYC anymore (and they weren't farmers - since farmers eventually inhabited all o the US) and didn't want to go to Philadelphia, Boston, or DC, they came to the midwest to cities like Minneapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. There is a reason why these cities still have walkable areas. However none of them even come close to the scale at which Chicago was done.
But at the same time, Chicago was a booming city which attracted people from all over. John Root was from Georgia but also raised for awhile in England, Daniel Burnham's parents moved from NY near Canada, Potter Palmer was from NYC, Montgomery Ward was part raised in New Jersey part in Michigan, Charles Atwood and Louis Sullivan were both from Boston, etc
Last edited by marothisu; 10-23-2015 at 01:10 PM..
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.
