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.
People from larger cities often put down people from smaller cities/towns/rural areas, and vice-versa. That's not unique to the Midwest. I can't say I've ever heard of anyone "hype up" Chicago to other Midwesterners, though, nor would there be any logical reason to do so, since other Midwesterners are regularly moving to Chicago already. I would say Chicagoans can be guilty of hyping the city to those on the coasts and in other countries, but not really to other places in the Midwest.
As for CD stereotypes, I don't spend any time in the forums of other Midwestern cities, so perhaps there is something I'm unaware of regarding Chicagoans going to those forums to hype up Chicago (though again, I don't see what the point would be). What I see is the opposite, though-- People who don't live in Chicago (whether they be in the IL/NWI suburbs or as far away as Georgia or Texas, usually from "red states") who spend a lot of time on the Chicago forum putting down Chicago. It's a strange impulse that I have difficulty understanding. When I don't like a place, I do my best to avoid it, rather than going there (geographically or virtually) to talk about how much I don't like it.
Great points. . I'm trying to work on not assuming things so I decided to go straight to the source, which is Chicagoans.
Take the major cities/metro areas of the Midwest: KC, StL, M/SP, Milw, Chgo, Indy, Det, Cle, Col, Cin.
Two stand out as different from the rest: Indianapolis and Columbus. They alone reached major city status after the midpoint of the 20th century. It would appear that cities that "came of age" in this post-WWII era, tend to be the ones that really sell themselves, push their assets and are subject to hucksterism. Perhaps the greatest example of this would be Atlanta where an aggressive strategy of self-promotion gave rise to the city we see today.
Indianapolis, arguably more than Columbus, is the prime example of a city selling itself. Once tagged as Naptown, Indy fights that image with vigor. I don't want to call it exactly "delusions of grandeur", but I think Indy feels more in competition with Chicago than does any other Midwestern city because of its aspirations.
One place where this became personal relates to the Big Ten. Chicago was the traditional home of the Big Ten basketball tournament each March. Indy worked to get the tournament and now it shares it with Chicago. They're aiming at us because they view us as completion.
From a Chicago perspective, Indy doesn't register that much at all. I would say the midwestern cities that are most on our radar screens (in no particular order) are St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Detroit. Each a lot more so than Indy.
Of the four, I would say we have a more positive relationship with Minneapolis (which we respect and admire and see as the midwest's second most important metro area) and Milwaukee (which we embrace as being in our region, a city we are more than comfortable in visiting and taking in its pleasures....we realize the great population on the southwest shores of Lake Michigan, tying together northwest Indiana, Chicagoland, and Milwaukee contributes to our benign economic and cultural powerhouse) than we do with St. Louis and Detroit, but on the whole....we're more positive about all four than we are about Indy. I think we see Mpls, Milw, StL, and Det as "real cities", far more than we do about Indy.
That's my spin on it. Others may well disagree.
In broad terms, I think you're fairly accurate, but you have some misconceptions of Indy that need to be cleared up that definitely explains the disconnect some feel between Chicago and Indianapolis. It's complicated, so please excuse the long post. Indianapolis was definitely a "major city" prior to WWII. Its closest peers, when looking at metropolitan district populations as of 1930 were New Orleans (20% larger), Seattle (same size), Louisville and Rochester (both about 20% smaller). The latter two have fallen off the map somewhat, but when we look at the first half of the 20th Century, both were very much major cities when we're limiting this to US cities outside of the North/Mid Atlantic watershed/coast. At this point in time, the Nashville urban area was less than half the size of Indianapolis and Charlotte didn't even qualify for metropolitan district status (probably about 1/5 the size). In terms of importance, Indy was well outside of the league of Chicago, LA, Detroit, Pittsburgh, St Louis, San Francisco, and Cleveland. It was reasonably close to the Twin Cities, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, KC, and New Orleans. None of these were more than twice the size of Indy. On average, Indy was 25 years behind the growth curve of that last list of places.
I have some manufacturing employment research from an old project available for 1919. The following is a list of the largest North Central cities' manufacturing employment to total population ratios (note: not mfg to total employment, which I have somewhere, but this tells the same story): Detroit (21.5%), Rochester (20.3%), Milwaukee (19.5%), Cleveland (16.2%), St Louis (15.2%), Chicago (15.1%), Buffalo (14.9%), Cincinnati (14.8%), Indianapolis (14.7%), Pittsburgh (13.3%, it grew again when steel took back off), Louisville (11.0%), Kansas City (9.4%), Twin Cities (8.7%). By this time, Indy had separated itself from much more manufacturing intense cities like Toledo, Canton and Dayton (that surpassed even Detroit in industrial intensity) and more or less had become a smaller version of diversified, but still industrial cities like Cincinnati and Buffalo. For all of the 20th Century, it was more of a "rust belt" city than Louisville, KC, Minneapolis and Columbus.
There are two reasons I think people conclude Indy is more different than it really is. The first is the lack of a pro sports team for so many years, hence the town wasn't really "major league". Indianapolis has only continuously had pro sports since 1967 (ABA Pacers). Chicago naturally ties itself socially to the old baseball and football cities of the region. Sports really does reinforce these images and connections. Had the Kautskys become a charter NBA member (and Frank Kautsky was more important to forming pro basketball than Zollner at the time), it might have been a bit different. Had the Indianapolis Olympians basketball team not folded in the early 50s, this perception may have been different too. They folded because they signed Kentucky's starting 5 fresh off their Olympic medal, rebranded themselves the Olympians from the Jets, and then watched it all go down in flames when the two best players (all-Stars Groza and Beard) got banned within 2 years as part of the UK point shaving scandal.
The second reason is the nature of the industry in Indy and the fact that it is more "hidden" than in cities like Milwaukee, Cincinnati or even KC and Minneapolis. Indy lacked navigable waterways, so there was no agglomeration of industry on a massive scale at any one point on water...or huge mill complex like in Minneapolis, or even the regions second most important rail center (KC). To manufacture "heavy" things (relative to their value) like steel, rubber and chemicals you need to be close to the raw materials and you need to be able to ship cheaply (rivers, Great Lakes, or the most established+efficient rail corridor between Milwaukee and Cleveland). Indy's exportable manufacturing didn't make those kind of things. It made non-exportable commodity stuff for locals: hat factories, food processing, breweries, etc. On the exportable side, it made higher end products where the transportation costs could be justified. Insulin manufacturing. Cosmetics/high end personal care (Madame CJ Walker became the wealthiest black woman in the world from this). Brassworks rather than steel. And luxury/performance cars. In 1909, Indy has more automobile manufacturers than Detroit. Then Ford went cheap and accessible. Indy leveraged the industry in Detroit to the north and the highest end aviation developments to the SE in Dayton and developed an automobile hub. Duesenburg and Stutz made the highest performing, most luxurious cars on the market from about 1915-1930. The Chevrolet brothers moved to Indy and started building Frontenac performance cars. These companies were responsible for engine development, power steering, rear wheel drive, and chassis innovations in use today. GM and Chrysler built plants in Indy to leverage a lot of this as did International Harvester. Allison created the most advanced/reliable transmission systems.
Indy took a bigger hit than most during the Depression because the first thing that goes out the window is the more expensive stuff. It wasn't until WWII that the precision manufacturing angle returned. Naval Avionics systems. Western Electric shifted all of their telephone handset production to Indianapolis (from Chicago's Hawthorn works). 90% of your phones from 1950-80 were made in Indy. Eli Lilly kept expanding their pharma production. Dow Agrosciences moved in. Allison is still there. Rolls Royce aircraft leveraged the auto knowledge for turbines. Long story short: Indianapolis has always been more of a manufacturing town than most realize. Much more so than KC and Minneapolis. The industry just happens to be less "muscular" and more precision driven. The higher end stuff weathered the globalization storm much better. It kind of straddles the fence between cutting edge research (like Bell Labs back in the day) and lowest common denominator manufacturing (steel tube, commodity chemicals in Cleveland). The city still lost its lower hanging industry from 1970-90 like other metros in the region, but the higher end things are much more difficult to relocate. The transition has been kinder to Indianapolis as a result.
I can tell you that people in Indy (my hometown) don't really compare themselves to Chicago. You get the typical conservative internet commenter that cracks on taxes and poaching business, but that guy is as likely to be from Merrillville or Columbus or South Bend as Indy. St. Louis (where I am now) is the place with these delusional Chicago comparisons.
From my time in Chicago, there actually has been little to no hate being thrown around to midwest cities. People do sometimes rip Indiana [probably politics]. I've found St. Louis is not really held in real high regard and Detroit can't shake it's image with people who never leave the city limits. No one really goes out of their way to tear either place down, because I think people realize Chicago has the similar problems in many areas and can't walk the walk in that conversation.
I, personally, think Minneapolis/St. Paul is going to challenge Chicago for best city in the midwest during the next 30 years. Anecdotally, many midwestern people I speak to west of Lake Michigan are buzzing about that area way more than Chicago. Now whether that will translate economically time will tell.
People do sometimes rip Indiana [probably politics].
I think it's partly politics, and partly due to the fact that for many Chicagoans their first (or even only) impression of Indiana they see is the industry and decay of Hammond and Gary on their way to their beach place in Michigan or their parents' place in Ohio. It's probably how one might view Illinois if the only thing they saw was Joliet.
Personally, as someone who didn't grow up in either state, I find the whole Illinois/Indiana mutual hate to be strange, because once you get outside of the city of Chicago there isn't much difference between the two states. I'd love to drop someone off in a cul-de-sac or strip mall parking lot in Munster or Schaumburg and have them tell me (without looking at license plates) which state they are in. Same with the corn fields and barns once you get a little further out. By the time you get to central and southern Illinois and Indiana, those regions have way more in common with each other than they do with the northern parts of their own states.
In broad terms, I think you're fairly accurate, but you have some misconceptions of Indy that need to be cleared up that definitely explains the disconnect some feel between Chicago and Indianapolis. It's complicated, so please excuse the long post. Indianapolis was definitely a "major city" prior to WWII. Its closest peers, when looking at metropolitan district populations as of 1930 were New Orleans (20% larger), Seattle (same size), Louisville and Rochester (both about 20% smaller). The latter two have fallen off the map somewhat, but when we look at the first half of the 20th Century, both were very much major cities when we're limiting this to US cities outside of the North/Mid Atlantic watershed/coast. At this point in time, the Nashville urban area was less than half the size of Indianapolis and Charlotte didn't even qualify for metropolitan district status (probably about 1/5 the size). In terms of importance, Indy was well outside of the league of Chicago, LA, Detroit, Pittsburgh, St Louis, San Francisco, and Cleveland. It was reasonably close to the Twin Cities, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, KC, and New Orleans. None of these were more than twice the size of Indy. On average, Indy was 25 years behind the growth curve of that last list of places.
I have some manufacturing employment research from an old project available for 1919. The following is a list of the largest North Central cities' manufacturing employment to total population ratios (note: not mfg to total employment, which I have somewhere, but this tells the same story): Detroit (21.5%), Rochester (20.3%), Milwaukee (19.5%), Cleveland (16.2%), St Louis (15.2%), Chicago (15.1%), Buffalo (14.9%), Cincinnati (14.8%), Indianapolis (14.7%), Pittsburgh (13.3%, it grew again when steel took back off), Louisville (11.0%), Kansas City (9.4%), Twin Cities (8.7%). By this time, Indy had separated itself from much more manufacturing intense cities like Toledo, Canton and Dayton (that surpassed even Detroit in industrial intensity) and more or less had become a smaller version of diversified, but still industrial cities like Cincinnati and Buffalo. For all of the 20th Century, it was more of a "rust belt" city than Louisville, KC, Minneapolis and Columbus.
There are two reasons I think people conclude Indy is more different than it really is. The first is the lack of a pro sports team for so many years, hence the town wasn't really "major league". Indianapolis has only continuously had pro sports since 1967 (ABA Pacers). Chicago naturally ties itself socially to the old baseball and football cities of the region. Sports really does reinforce these images and connections. Had the Kautskys become a charter NBA member (and Frank Kautsky was more important to forming pro basketball than Zollner at the time), it might have been a bit different. Had the Indianapolis Olympians basketball team not folded in the early 50s, this perception may have been different too. They folded because they signed Kentucky's starting 5 fresh off their Olympic medal, rebranded themselves the Olympians from the Jets, and then watched it all go down in flames when the two best players (all-Stars Groza and Beard) got banned within 2 years as part of the UK point shaving scandal.
The second reason is the nature of the industry in Indy and the fact that it is more "hidden" than in cities like Milwaukee, Cincinnati or even KC and Minneapolis. Indy lacked navigable waterways, so there was no agglomeration of industry on a massive scale at any one point on water...or huge mill complex like in Minneapolis, or even the regions second most important rail center (KC). To manufacture "heavy" things (relative to their value) like steel, rubber and chemicals you need to be close to the raw materials and you need to be able to ship cheaply (rivers, Great Lakes, or the most established+efficient rail corridor between Milwaukee and Cleveland). Indy's exportable manufacturing didn't make those kind of things. It made non-exportable commodity stuff for locals: hat factories, food processing, breweries, etc. On the exportable side, it made higher end products where the transportation costs could be justified. Insulin manufacturing. Cosmetics/high end personal care (Madame CJ Walker became the wealthiest black woman in the world from this). Brassworks rather than steel. And luxury/performance cars. In 1909, Indy has more automobile manufacturers than Detroit. Then Ford went cheap and accessible. Indy leveraged the industry in Detroit to the north and the highest end aviation developments to the SE in Dayton and developed an automobile hub. Duesenburg and Stutz made the highest performing, most luxurious cars on the market from about 1915-1930. The Chevrolet brothers moved to Indy and started building Frontenac performance cars. These companies were responsible for engine development, power steering, rear wheel drive, and chassis innovations in use today. GM and Chrysler built plants in Indy to leverage a lot of this as did International Harvester. Allison created the most advanced/reliable transmission systems.
Indy took a bigger hit than most during the Depression because the first thing that goes out the window is the more expensive stuff. It wasn't until WWII that the precision manufacturing angle returned. Naval Avionics systems. Western Electric shifted all of their telephone handset production to Indianapolis (from Chicago's Hawthorn works). 90% of your phones from 1950-80 were made in Indy. Eli Lilly kept expanding their pharma production. Dow Agrosciences moved in. Allison is still there. Rolls Royce aircraft leveraged the auto knowledge for turbines. Long story short: Indianapolis has always been more of a manufacturing town than most realize. Much more so than KC and Minneapolis. The industry just happens to be less "muscular" and more precision driven. The higher end stuff weathered the globalization storm much better. It kind of straddles the fence between cutting edge research (like Bell Labs back in the day) and lowest common denominator manufacturing (steel tube, commodity chemicals in Cleveland). The city still lost its lower hanging industry from 1970-90 like other metros in the region, but the higher end things are much more difficult to relocate. The transition has been kinder to Indianapolis as a result.
I can tell you that people in Indy (my hometown) don't really compare themselves to Chicago. You get the typical conservative internet commenter that cracks on taxes and poaching business, but that guy is as likely to be from Merrillville or Columbus or South Bend as Indy. St. Louis (where I am now) is the place with these delusional Chicago comparisons.
Absolutely nothing to excuse at all. Thank you for providing me (and all of us) with such interesting information.
I don't think that Chicagoans "put down " other Midwestern cities, but there is certainly a feeling that they are not in the same category as us. For example, few Chicagoans regularly "put down" Milwaukee, but when comparing the two, the Chicagoan might say "Psh, not comparable."
The only one I would say that those in the Chicago metro target with their scorn regularly, more often than any other metro in the U.S., is St. Louis, and I think the root cause of this is mainly sports-related due to the Cubs/Cardinals rivalry. Growing up, we never had anything against Indianapolis or Milwaukee by default, in fact we loved visiting Milwaukee and Madison.
I don't know if Chicago specifically targets Detroit/Cleveland more than the rest of the population of the U.S. does, though I do know that the rest of the population of the U.S. does like to have a laugh at Illinois and Chicago's expense, at times.
I really don’t think so. Other midwestern governments, though, love to dump on Chicago and Illinois, in typical beggar-thy-neighbor awfulness. Because even though Cali and Bos-Wash are eating everyone’s lunch, the Midwest simply cannot stand a non-conservative place in its midst.
Let’s focus our energies on cutting off our own legs, right? At least then we’ll die pure.
To put things in perspective, I’m in the Chi right now, and there’s a bunch of ads running down Chicago and touting Wisconsin. Apparently Scott Walker is flummoxed that talented young people aren’t flocking to his low-tax, low-wage, forced-birth utopia. (The funniest has a miserable-looking dude on the subway, because apparently it’s better to live in a place that doesn’t have a subway.)
I think the ads are ridiculous and offensive. But the anecdotal responses I’ve seen from locals amount to a collective, sanguine shrug.
And I think that about sums up the relationship Chicagoans have with their hinterland neighbors.
I really don’t think so. Other midwestern governments, though, love to dump on Chicago and Illinois, in typical beggar-thy-neighbor awfulness. Because even though Cali and Bos-Wash are eating everyone’s lunch, the Midwest simply cannot stand a non-conservative place in its midst.
Let’s focus our energies on cutting off our own legs, right? At least then we’ll die pure.
To put things in perspective, I’m in the Chi right now, and there’s a bunch of ads running down Chicago and touting Wisconsin. Apparently Scott Walker is flummoxed that talented young people aren’t flocking to his low-tax, low-wage, forced-birth utopia. (The funniest has a miserable-looking dude on the subway, because apparently it’s better to live in a place that doesn’t have a subway.)
I think the ads are ridiculous and offensive. But the anecdotal responses I’ve seen from locals amount to a collective, sanguine shrug.
And I think that about sums up the relationship Chicagoans have with their hinterland neighbors.
The Midwest is really a mixed bag, politically-speaking. Minnesota has voted blue for many years, as has Michigan. Wisconsin has too, although the margins have been rather slim, in both directions. Iowa and Ohio go back and forth, while Indiana and Missouri have been predictably red for a long time. Someone from the East or West coasts might acknowledge Chicago, Minneapolis and the college towns of Madison and Ann Arbor, but casually drift over most other sections...
I like Madison ( having lived there) , and Milwaukee has some great neighborhoods, but other parts of Wisconsin I'm not that interested in. Scott Walker is turning the Badger State into a provincial backwater, the kind of place where the best and brightest leave at the first opportunity, and also a place to be avoided on vacations by other Americans. Too bad, because it used to be known as the "Progressive State", but those vestiges seem far, far away..
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.
. I'm trying to work on not assuming things so I decided to go straight to the source, which is Chicagoans.
