Chicagos history and geography (Peoria, Springfield: city hall, neighborhood, living in)

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I think you're placing too much emphasis on the (rather small) universities.

A much bigger factor, I think, is that manufacturers' headquarters didn't leave town nearly as quickly as the actual manufacturing plants did. They supported ancillary services such as advertising, accounting, law firms, consulting, etc. That bridged the gap, during the 1970s and 80s, between an industrial economy and a post-industrial information economy.

Thats interesting.

When you say leave town, do you include the suburbs as leaving town? Because I think many manufacturers headquarters, and plants are there in many cases.

[SJaye]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Well, Chicago certainly would never be like Toledo or South Bend, and it was too diversified economically (although still based on manufacturing largely) to ever end up like Detroit, but here is the wikipedia link.

Cook County Democratic Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it does explain it. Chicago was simply way too diverse (and I'm not talking just racially although it includes that), to not undergo some sort of "balkanization", competing interest groups that couldn't decide on things and therefore Millenium Park, and dozens of other things would not have got done. Chicago took more hits from deindustrialization than Americas other top 5 cities. (Just not as much as the other midwest cities).

As far as the universities . . . well they certainly did bring help to attract a fair amount of the best and the brightest to Chicago from around the world and around the coutnry over the decades. Lets face it, most immigrants that came to Chicago then and now, are largely ones with little education, that were to busy working (either manufacturing or service) and doing family stuff to really contribute to anything such as a creative class, then and now. So I think the unversities role in Chicago is a lot more like Boston, than one might think.

I don't want to start a large political discussion, there are enough forums around the internet for people to yell at each other over their political differences without having to reveal their identity, but I just don't see a large bullyish organization as necessary to get things done-- anywhere. The argument you made is also basically the argument for monarchy, an effective King or Queen does get things done!

As far as the Universities go, I would be curious if there is any information out there that compares University enrollment vs. population at large for Chicago to places like New York, LA, or Houston. I know New York has a lot of good Universities too (NYU, Columbia). Would you say that they were pivotal in New York's development? If not, what made them more important to Chicago than New York?

[GreatLakesDrifter]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Most teachers and Chicago historians would emphasize that the railroads were the key. By 1900, the city was the center of rail transport in America.
For whatever reason, the rail magnates of the 1800's decided to make sure that all roads led to Chicago.

Even today Chicago is still a maze of tracks, spurs and railyards.

The reason they decided on Chicago was because of its water connections to the east coast; even before the railways were here, farmers were carting their goods to Chicago to be sold to merchants who would then load up the boats sitting on the mouth of the Chicago river, bound for NYC & Europe via the great lakes/erie canal network. St. Louis's & Cincy's water connections went to New Orleans and the gulf of Mexico, which weren't nearly as large tradeports as NYC.

[Irishtom29]

The Erie Canal saved Illinois for Civilization by bringing into the state people from New England and New York; before the canal the state had been settled mostly from the bottom up by southerners.

Moderator: Tom I owe you a very large appology. The edit to your comments was purely accidental. It was not intended, it was entirely my fault in the manner in which I replied to your comments. If you wish to reconstruct your comments it will replaced quickly. ~ linicx

[chirack]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Thats interesting.

When you say leave town, do you include the suburbs as leaving town? Because I think many manufacturers headquarters, and plants are there in many cases.

No I think he means that many cooperate headquarters remained in the city despite moving manufacturing elsewhere. For some reason Downtown was always the place to put either your cooperate office or a large regional office. Sure there are some in the burbs too, but nothing says I'm a big important company like a downtown office.

[linicx]

As you mentione history and geography I thought I would toss this out, roo. .

I believe if we go back in time to when the first white settlers appeared in Illinois we learn they moved through Ohio and Indiana and settled in Central Illinois. Survival meant potable water, available food, timber.and tillable land. Illinois met those requirements from trees to build cabins, to fish, fowl, deer, berries and herbs to rich black loam. It would stand to reason then that more people would live near a large source of water than not. Mile for mile, Lake Michigan has more surface water than amy other body of water in Illinois. Thus the emergence of Chicago as a dominate city comes as no surprise.

Movement downstate was arduous until the Ilinois navigation sustem which began in 1849 was fully developed circa 1900. The 338 mile Illinois River has been a major transportation system ever since. Illinois Waterway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first European building on the Illinois River was erected in 1691 near Peoria when the land was still called Illinois Territory. During the 1760's Jean Baptiste Maillet, a French-Canadian, assumed a leadership role in the village. In 1773 Maillet sold his property to Jean Baptiste Pointe du Sable, Peoria's most notable black settler, who later founded Chicago.
Peoria History - The French

October 8, 1871, the Great Chicago Fire, and the worst forest fire in North American history erupted at nearly the same time in neighboring Wisconsin. It caused five times more damage than the Chicago fire. The Great Peshtigo Fire of 1871

[Mr Downtown]

do you include the suburbs as leaving town?

No, I thought we were talking about metropolitan areas in economic and geographic terms rather than artificial city limits lines.

Lake Michigan has more surface water than amy other body of water in Illinois

It was the lake's importance for transportation, not for drinking, that was decisive. Illinois is well watered, bounded by the continent's largest rivers. There would have been no shortage of water anywhere in the state.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by SJaye

I don't want to start a large political discussion, there are enough forums around the internet for people to yell at each other over their political differences without having to reveal their identity, but I just don't see a large bullyish organization as necessary to get things done-- anywhere. The argument you made is also basically the argument for monarchy, an effective King or Queen does get things done!

As far as the Universities go, I would be curious if there is any information out there that compares University enrollment vs. population at large for Chicago to places like New York, LA, or Houston. I know New York has a lot of good Universities too (NYU, Columbia). Would you say that they were pivotal in New York's development? If not, what made them more important to Chicago than New York?

Well, I guess I was thinking of the major projects like O'Hare and McCormick place. These two things are crucial to the citys and regions economy and as far as I know, they are more or less a product of R.J. Daleys administration. Those are two big ones, but also UIC, (before that there weren't any major public universities in the city itself, The three big tall buildings (before the Trump) were sponsored I guess you might say during his administration. BUt I certainly don't condone any dictator-like govenment.

As far as the university comment. Chicago had to do more "reconstructing" of its economy than the other "top five cities" in the country (NYC, SF, DC, LA, although Boston did have to work to transition away from textile miles etc., but that was earlier) due to as someone said in a previous post "Chicago has one foot in the post-industrial rustbelt world and the other in the creative class world-class cities world."

Houston too, is working hard to diversify its economic base to include more than energy. And I'm sure having universities are especially crucial to cities workign to diversify its economy away from dependence on industry and manufacturing.

[linicx]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

No,

It was the lake's importance for transportation, not for drinking, that was decisive. Illinois is well watered, bounded by the continent's largest rivers. There would have been no shortage of water anywhere in the state.

I disagree. Did the black man who founded Chicago look at the lake as a source for major transportation? Or did he look at it a source for potable water and food? Chicago was an untouched forest then and 15 miles was a full day ride by horseback.

There were many areas in the state that did not have a source for potable water. The Illnois plains are a good example. You can drive miles and never see a stream. The earliest settleements emerged near a sources of potable water such as Sand Lake, Spoon River, Kickapoo Creek, Mineral Springs, etc..

The Great Lakes enormous contribution to western expansion and the importance to commerical shipping has never been questioned. If not for Chicago ingentuity there would be no waterway system between Chicago and St. Louis - but, it was not finished until 29 years after the Great Fires of 1871.

[linicx]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

The Erie Canal saved Illinois for Civilization by bringing into the state people from New England and New York; before the canal the state had been settled mostly from the bottom up by southerners.

After Illinois Territory was ceeded back to the United States it was was opened for expansion. In Central Illinois many of the pioneer settlers moved through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Inidiana. Pioneers from the "long state" and Kentucky did too, but it was later and many prefered the southern most part of the state for its abjdance of food and water sources and milder weather. From Central Illinois a few moved north into Chicago and pushed westward into Kansas, Missouri and into Oklahoma Territory. It not a mass exodus as central illinois is blessed with an abundance of wildlife, water, timber, fruits and herbs plus miles fertil soil. Some pioneers from New York stopped briefly in Chicao and continued to pushedwestward into the Quad Cities. Not liking the area some moved into Iowa while others turned south into the current counties of Knox and Peoria or settled further west on the Mississippi River. in a town now called Quincy.

After the RW there ws a mass exodus of Dutch who moved from New Jersey wno moved into Kentucky. It is from here they moved westward into central Illinois where the first and only Dutch church was erected not too far from oreent day Astoria. It is still serving the community 170 years later. Descendants of many of the original families are still on the land their pioneer settlers owned.

I suppose one could say Illinois was settled from the bottom up considering Fulton County in Central Illinois was once nearly the size of the our present day state. However, the earliest settlers were born and raised on the East Coast. The true southerners did not begin to move into central Illinois until after the Civil War. Even so, many had strong English roots as their ancestors were very early settlers in Virginia.