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.
Chicago and Detroit are similar in that they are both large cities in the upper Midwest that grew and prospered in large part due to an influx of immigrant populations and transplanted Southern Blacks were moved to those cities seeking better lives than where they came from. They are both what would be regarded as "working-class" or "blue collar" cities. Both cities are known for having rabid sports fans. Both cities are recognized as having very harsh, snow-bound winter months. Both cities, in some respect, are known and stereotyped as having high crime rates and other public safety issues in certain parts of the city (Chicago - mainly the South Side, Detroit -- nearly Every Side).
But, in my opinion, that is about where the comparisons end........
Chicago's early leaders must have been visionaries. I say that because they "created" a city with mass public transportation and economic diversity in mind FROM THE BEGINNING. They didn't bank their fortunes on one industry being the economic saviour for their region in the same way southeast Michigan and Detroit did. To this day, Chicago still has some of the best old ethnic neighborhoods (i.e. Wrigleyville) you will find in the United States and although both cities now have extensive suburbs and exurbs (just a 21st Century reality that is here to stay), Chicago has retained a diverse population in the city itself. Chicago is a world-class, international destination city. Detroit simply is not.
In my view, Detroit and Chicago should never be compared. It's like comparing Stanford or Princeton to DeVry or ITT Tech -- with Chicago being comparable to the former institutions. Chicago is a city worthy of comparison to the great cities of the WORLD. Detroit is comparable to maybe Milwaukee, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati or St Louis -- a different class of cities all together.
For Detroit to try to benchmark itself against Chicago is reaching for the unattainable, similar to asking me to compare my basketball ability to that of LeBron James. I am pulling for Detroit to make a "comeback" of sorts. It will be good for the State of Michigan if that occurs. But for Detroit to ever parallel Chicago, it would require a paradigm shift so great in the social mindset of the people, such extensive regional cooperation that to date has not existed, almost a complete teardown and re-build of the current transportation infrastructure to retrofit public transportation, a thoroughly re-modeled and possibly privatized school system, the creation of travel and tourism marketing campaigns the likes of which would be unsurpassed, and such a complete makeover of the regional economy that it would take over a half a century or more for Detroit to approach Chicago's CURRENT level. Keep in mind that Chicago will have also made advances during this same time frame and Detroit would never truly "catch up" to Chicago, if you will.
With the proper set of rationalized expectations and sound, unselfish and disciplined civic leaders (let's see how that goes) who prioritize the general economic welfare of the region and don't pander to fringe interest groups, I do believe that Detroit can carve out a place for itself on the North American scene as a decent regional niche city, but probably never a world class one.
I hope I am proven wrong - Go Detroit. But for now, I could not make a rational argument that would elevate Detroit over Chicago. I will say that Detroit's better suburbs (Birmingham, Troy, West Bloomfield, Farmington Hills, Novi, Northville, Plymouth, the Grosse Pointes) are as good or better than the Chicago suburbs. But between the cities themselves -- no real comparison.
Very accurate analysis!! Chicago had done what the East Coast cities have done, and done it as well. Like New York, Philly, Baltimore, and especially Boston, it has never crashed and burned economically. It is not growing in sunbelt fashion, but we would not want it to. Chicago, like the East Coast cities, is better than this, and is a citadel of old money and culture. The key, though, like with the East Coast cities, to not dying is that economic diversity. Pittsburgh is also an old city with many colleges, a fantastic culture scene and many corporate headquarters of large companies. The downtown, as a result, looks fantastic. HOwever, the reality is that, beyond those high dollar corporate jobs downtown, the Pittsburgh area is dying. Thousands of people leave the area every year. Many hate to go, but are forced to by a simple lack of jobs. The city was too focused on steel for too long, and has never recovered from the demise of the steel industry. Regardless of what local promoters may pretend, it never will.
The difference between Pittsburgh and CHicago or Philly is that one industry has never dominated. Both areas have lost jobs in certain industries, but have never been brought to their knees in abrupt fashion. The blows were small enough in the big picture to prevent an economic crash and burn and subsequent population drain.
Why do I mention Pittsburgh? Because automotive plants have been to Detroit as steel once was to Pittsburgh and Youngstown, Ohio. Detroit has done better than Pittsburgh in recent decades by pure luck, as the auto industry has never crashed and burned the way steel has. Detroit has all of the positives of Pittsburgh: Old money, lots of corporate headquarters, lots of colleges. Like Pittsburgh, though, Detroit is blue collar, and was built around a single industry, and has yet to diversify into other industries. That greater Detroit is not loosing people like Pittsburgh is luck. Period.
Another thing that Detroit and PIttsburgh have in common is a rivalry with and hatred of Cleveland. Greater Cleveland has struggled in recent years as a heavy manufacturing center, but has grown slightly as greater Pittsburgh has died. Though no Chicago or PHilly, Cleveland was never totally focused on steel or automotive. Because Chicago is in a different league from Detroit, I think Detroit would be wise to look at CLeveland and Pittsburgh, and to follow the example of Greater Cleveland and avoid making the errors of Greater Pittsburgh.
The problem, of course, is that Detroit thinks it's Chicago, not Cleveland or Pittsburgh.
I was reading Joel Kotkin's The City last night. He argued that St Louis put its lunch on the table, went to sleep, and woke up "amazed" that Chicago "stole" (i.e. worked hard for) it.
Nineteenth century American history ... it's not my specialty, but it's definitely interesting, and relevant: Ohio sucks because Ohio stole Toledo from Michigan (oh and also because Ohio State ain't so great). "Indiana: Abe Lincoln's BOYHOOD home" [take that, Illinois!] - sign seen on I-74 eastbound, heading from Danville, Illinois into Covington, Indiana.
I agree, Chicago is the New York of the Midwest and the only bright spot left in the Midwest right now. However, the cost of living in Chicago is higher than Detroit's so that's something to consider...
I think any objective person that has any sense of the global economy today will tell you flat-out that Chicago is a world-class city. Chicago may not have the same global cultural impact as New York City, London, or Tokyo, but it is most certainly on the level right below them, which, I'm sorry, is a lot more than what Detroit can say right now.
It's interesting to see you make a joke about Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Well, here's the difference between Chicago and a lot of other cities (including, in my opinion, Detroit at this point in time). Instead of wallowing around in the face of a horrible disaster and crying "woe-is-me", Chicago picked itself up and rebuilt itself from scratch as an architectural, financial and cultural center with incredible hard work and visionary planning (i.e. reserving park space along the lakefront instead of putting up factories, creating a grid street system to allow economic development and denser urban neighborhoods, putting in a comprehensive public transportation infrastructure, etc.).
That continued into the past couple of decades where, when the global economy was clearly going to eradicate a lot of the old economy Rust Belt jobs, Chicago pro-actively re-invented itself as a global financial center to make itself a winner in this new economic pardigm. This is in contrast to its Midwestern neighbors such as Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland and St. Louis, who instead of having the vision to adapt to the changing times, tried to fight to "save" old union jobs that were ultimately going to be gone due to natural economic forces. Now, after coming to the realization that protectionism won't work, all of those cities are trying to change their tunes to play catch-up (which may never happen since businesses have long left for proven hospitable environments).
So why hasn't Detroit rebuilt itself when the city itself "burned to a crisp" after the race riots of the 1960s or the economic changes that continue today? Detroit can get better, but it's not just going to happen because of "cheap real estate" (which can be also easily found in the much more business-friendly environments of the South and Southwest). It will take pro-active and visionary leadership and cooperation by both public and private enterprises.
I'll have to say that I feel fortunate to live in the Chicago region where political and business leaders have continued to have shown the ability to adapt to changing times for well over a century. Anyone who thinks Chicago was somehow just lucky obviously has no understanding of what it takes to put together a solid urban socioeconomic core. Hopefully, Detroit can find the same, but be advised that a turnaround doesn't just happen by accident.
Man, I lived there for over a year and a half and just moved back from Chicago in December of last year. Michigan wasn't my first choice by any means but my family was here and it was the cheapest way to get back on my feet and have time to figure out where I want to live permanently.
Chicago flat out sucks.
The only people who get anything out of that city are the big-wigs and top-dogs in charge of companies there. Everyone else suffers.
The commutes are awful, the public transportation system is mandatory only because parking isn't an option 'cept for the super rich, the CTA is nasty, dirt, unsafe and too expensive, the housing market is inflated beyond measure (a STUDIO condo 3 miles away from downtown is $150k+??? WTF???), the payscale doesn't match the cost of living (from talking to many people who work downtown - and these folks where suits and all that - I learned most people only made between 25k and 40k annually. THAT'S IT.).
Plus, the city is NOT SAFE, the public school system is complete crap, racism is everywhere, as are homeless bums (even downtown on Mich. Ave.!), the road system is pathetic (Dan Ryan STILL being fixed?), segregation exists in clearly defined areas (Don't go south of 35th St.! Don't go near Armitage!).
Plus, don't even get me started on the stuck up attitudes of 99% of the Chicago people there - thinking they're all great because they live in a gloomy concrete jungle. Even the weather sucks - it is only slightly better than Michigan in the summer sunlight-wise and terribly-cold in the winter.
Chicago flat out sucks. It's just a hub for yuppies, moron Cubs fans, "educational" institution cesspools and people who have no idea a world outside of Chicago exists.
The city is only decent if you live AND work in a suburb like Schaumburg.
The only people who get anything out of that city are the big-wigs and top-dogs in charge of companies there. Everyone else suffers.
The commutes are awful, the public transportation system is mandatory only because parking isn't an option 'cept for the super rich, the CTA is nasty, dirt, unsafe and too expensive, the housing market is inflated beyond measure (a STUDIO condo 3 miles away from downtown is $150k+??? WTF???), the payscale doesn't match the cost of living (from talking to many people who work downtown - and these folks where suits and all that - I learned most people only made between 25k and 40k annually. THAT'S IT.).
Plus, the city is NOT SAFE, the public school system is complete crap, racism is everywhere, as are homeless bums (even downtown on Mich. Ave.!), the road system is pathetic (Dan Ryan STILL being fixed?), segregation exists in clearly defined areas (Don't go south of 35th St.! Don't go near Armitage!).
Plus, don't even get me started on the stuck up attitudes of 99% of the Chicago people there - thinking they're all great because they live in a gloomy concrete jungle. Even the weather sucks - it is only slightly better than Michigan in the summer sunlight-wise and terribly-cold in the winter.
...
The city is only decent if you live AND work in a suburb like Schaumburg.
I'll leave out the comparisons with Detroit and/ or Michigan and I won't address the weather complaints. I feel Chicago compares favorably with NYC and Boston, two cities I know well. Jobs are readily available in the Loop, and at salaries much higher than your examples. A college graduate with 3 years experience should be able to start at 80,000 at any number of jobs (financial services, trading, insurance, law, management). A high school graduate should be able to find work at $25/ hour (and complete his Bachelor's in 4 years at any of several night programs in the Loop)
Housing prices are reasonable. 150,000 is a reasonable price for a home: that's about $1000/ month in carrying costs. 800sf studios regulary go for 400,000 in NYC. And 1BRs in neighborhoods like Ukrainian Village (west side), Logan Square (northwest), Hyde Park (south) would all be within reach at or below this price point.
Taxes are low. No city income tax, and a flat 3% state income tax. Property taxes are reasonable. Cars are not necessary, the 'el' travels to many neighborhoods, buses to the rest. It is not a beautiful subway like in Moscow, but it is certainly decent. The Metra railroads (commuter trains) also serve many neighborhoods, and are nicer than the 'el.'
Chicago has significant problems (as do all cities), but it is addressing them: crime is a problem on the far west and far south sides. The problem areas used to be much worse and much closer to the center. Panhandlers emerge in summer, as everywhere, but avoidance is easy. The public schools are bad (this is a worldwide city problem btw). That will probably not change in our lifetimes. Catholic and private schools are the past and future choice for city parents.
The self-segregation is s-l-o-w-l-y dissipating. But the true ghettoes (which are the central and far south sides and the far west side) will never be luxury neighborhoods -- the lakefront is the desirable real estate. The bad areas that abutted the lake (North Kenwood, South Shore) will eventually blossom, especially if Chicago gets the Olympics in 2016. Chicago is the only city that I would relocate to between the coasts.
There are some similarities, most notably in typography (pancake flat) and some prairie-style architecture in (the few) Detroit apartment districts that look somewhat like the too-many-to-count in Detroit. And there is a plain-spoken, steak 'n potatoes, ga-ga beer & sports mentality... But the similarities end there.
Chicago has gotten most everything right about what it takes to be a large metropolis while Detroit has gotten most wrong. Chicago's got great public transportation while Detroit is the largest city in the free, industrial world without rapid rail transit (pretty pathetic, I'd say). Despite its great size (and suburban sprawl) Chicago's got numerous walk-able neighborhoods – it’s a walking city. Its main tourist attractions are in the city, while Greenfield Village and even the Detroit Zoo are in the burbs (oh yeah, the aquarium on Belle Isle closed a few years ago and the potentially scenic island is choked with decay, trash and weeds…. Detroit region’s hottest and best walking neighborhoods – Royal Oak, Birmingham, Ann Arbor are in the suburbs… DEEP in the suburbs at that. Detroit is hopelessly a segregated, all-black city that’s donut-ed by lily-white burbs… Chicago’s lakefront is THE model of urban beauty while there are 2 or 3 apartment or condo high-rises along all of the Detroit River.
… I could go on and on, but I’d be writing “War and Peace.” There’s some positive signs and some growth in Detroit, esp downtown and in the Cass Corridor. It’s not like there are NO redeeming qualities there. Palmer Woods/Sherwood Forest are beautiful, in-city wealthy enclaves to die for... But comparing Chicago to Detroit is like comparing Abe Lincoln to George W. Bush.
Prof, it seems to me like what I was trying to say, is said best by what you wrote.
mr2007, it sounds like you are from metro Detroit or have lived there. Now I've been there a couple times, and having gone to school in Michigan I have known MANY people from the area, and I don't encounter people with the attitudes you describe. It seems like people are hard working and amitious and adaptable just like anyone else. It seems like you are a little unfair
While I understand unions can have a negative effect on peoples ambtion/drive and are in many cases corrupt. I know as college instructor who just starting out and takes my job seriously I know I get to thank my salary (its still not very high at all) because of a union. I hardly have any benefits but there are a few. If I wasn't doing this I would be doing something else, or somewhere else, but I know I could never work in real fast paced corporate environment.
I understand I know nothing about UAW or anything like that. I do know however labor strikes, unions, and protection of workers rights are also a part of Chicago history (Haymarket Square, Studs Terkel, etc.).
Frank: in regards to Chicagos planning. Much of Chicagos lakefront was still industrial use WELL after the fire. The area around Navy Pier/Aon Center (where the river emtpies into the lake) was heavy industry, railyards, and the Lake Calumet still has a lot of industry. Other well loved world class cities really don't have lakefront parks at all. Toronto (it seems they spend more on actually taking care of their own, rathering than just cosmetic cover-ups), Boston, and San Francisco (which spent its energy in protecting REAL, NATURAL coastline), not the strips of lawn between the condos and lakefront, which in Chicago is still mostly concrete walls, with a few beaches.
Jackson Park is really the only real stunning Park Chicago has. Grant park is mostly a bunch of rectangular gardens and homogenous rows of planted trees. But those are just my opinions you certainly don't have to agree with them. The Forest Preserve District now that is a PRICELESS gem, that I lucky to have. The one thing not many people really talk about, because none of them are located "downtown."
Its sad what the Prof said about Belle Isle, being on an island like that, would be a stunning park if they had the money to take care of it.
Don't get me wrong, I love Chicago too! Geography is not one of its strong points in my opinion. The street grid pattern is solely practical, functional and efficient, and thats it. It makes Chicago seems very monotonous and a little unattractive. I don't think it necessarily led to more dense development. Besides, If you compare the peak populations of Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis in 1950 they were all abou the same density.
1950: Chicago: 3.6 million, Detroit: 1.9 million, and St. Louis: 900,000. I don't know sq miles of cities off hand.
Chicago still lost people since then, and there are still large of the West and S. side that are pretty blighted.
Transportation, well no argument. The "El" while old and falling apart is finally getting some revetments and not having any real maintenance since the 50s.
Yes Chicago is the product of hard work and long-term visions. But it was also the product of political bosses that ruled the city in a vulgar and brazen way. Read "Boss" my Mike Royko. Yes its over 30 years old now, but it really is a good biography of Richard J. Daley. If you want a current one, read American Pharoah. I can't quote anything off hand. But the author basically states that is was his ruling with an iron fist is what kept Chicago vibrant and strong, and could've gone the way of St. Louis or Detroit. A mayor, who, growing up in segregated Chicago, took what he grew up with and applied it to city planning. A mayor that let Martin Luther King march in the city, but with great protests from native white Chicagoans. A mayor who was so adamant about keeping law and order and keeping riots from happening that he gave his police the complete authority, and as a precaution at the '68 conventions beat up many young people and hippies protesting the war.
No one wanted this to happen, and I'm not bashing ChicagoDaley did a lot of great things, that propelled Chicago into what would be the post-industrial world. Had huge building built, had O'Hare built (very important), had UIC built (displaced local people - I'm just saying), Meigs Field - so coporate executives could easily get to and from the Loop easily,etc.
But the point is yes, Chicago is a world class city. But its not because native Chicagoans are any more progressive or the city is any more intrinsically charming that any other urban midwesterners. To think that just is being smug and in denial. In my opinion if Detroit didn' have the urban decay and didn't go down that direction, it might've be more beautiful than Chicago. It has a layout and classic old buildings that look a little Bostonian or Philadelphia-esque.
Part of Chicagos success is hard work and great planing, but its just not right to deny the ugliness as well. But hey, whatever its a new era, but don't deny parts of the citys heritage because it takes away from the fact, that Chicago had to work to acheive world class city status (with the audacity and brazeness).
I kind of compare it to what Houston is going through right now. People think Houstons lack of zoning makes it ugly and confusing, but its the "let business do whatever they want" attitude which is making it economically diverse and bringing people from all over the country and all over the world making a new life in a city that has so much to offer and is relatively cheap, and is now the Gulf coast/states regions leading urban center. Does this mean native Houstonians who have been there a couple generations are any more "progressive" than those in places like New Orleans or Memphis. I don't know, never been there. But from, what people say probably not. Chicago is just old enough, that it feels established and charming.
Chicago doesn't have the natural features and European-like historic charm that Boston and San Francisco have, so its had to reverse the trends that were happening all over the midwest.
I love Chicago, and yes it is a world class city. but I choose not to resort to being smug and "New York wannabe-ish" toward my fellow midwesterners.
Here's one thing that at least appears to be the case when I peruse these forums (and feel free to tell me if I'm wrong) that seems to point out a huge difference between Chicago and Detroit. In the Chicago area, the city and suburbs might have some squabbles every so often, but the region overall feels like one cohesive unit and most suburbanites, even if they chose to move away from the city, still have a great affinity for the city and understand that the city/suburb relationship is a mutually beneficial one. There's rarely any talk anymore about "the city taking all of the suburbs' money" or "all the white people are moving to the suburbs" (if anything, the main complaint from long-time city dwellers is about all of the yuppies that keep moving in and driving up housing prices). You'll see pockets of infighting, but generally, everyone identifies themselves as Chicagoans around here.
With what I've seen from the forums on the Detroit area, on the other hand (once again, this is just from taking in the small sample size of this board), is that there is a huge distrust if not downright hatred between the city and suburbs. A lot of city dwellers seem to be quick to characterize people that live in or move to the suburbs as "running away from the problems" or even racist. At the same time, the suburbanites appear to try to argue that they really have nothing to do with the city's problems on both the economic and crime fronts and should really just consider themselves as an entirely separate entity.
From my view, that's a huge impediment to progress. I think suburbanites in the Detroit area that believe that they have no stake in the city's development are completely wrong - if the city is in bad shape, it's going to end up reflecting negatively on the suburbs in the area (and it already has in terms of attracting businesses and a real estate market even worse than the rest of the country). Meanwhile, city residents aren't going to get anywhere if they continue to demonize suburbanites since the city needs the suburbs' political and economic support if the city is going to turnaround.
What the Chicago area has figured out is that the city and suburbs really do need each other even if they don't always agree (or at the very least understand that both areas are intertwined and need to be strong in order for the region to succeed - they can't demonize each other as being "separate worlds"). Until the Detroit area is able to produce that same type of harmony, all of the government initiatives in the world aren't going to do much.
That is very true. I have noticed that (urban suburban cooperation).
For the most I rarely ever hear of Chicago suburbanites say they are afraid of the city. But on this forum, it does sound like many Detroit suburbanites still are.
That cooperation does make a difference and I hope there starts to be some real cooperation in the metro Detroit region. It would help their overall situation.
The most contentions there are between city and suburb in Chicagoland, are say the O'Hare expansion and the city wanting to annex part of Bensenville and bulldoze the houses on several blocks in town. The locals residents are pissed too! But thats all you hear.
I do agree as well that a poor image of the city is still going to affect the city. I doesn't matter how nice Oakland County is, the rest of the county (and world) will simply think of the region collectively as "Detroit" so it is important. And it takes a while to overcome an image.
I still occasionally get people who know nothing about Chicago asking me about Al Capone/gangsters, and that occurs 80 years ago!!
That is very true. I have noticed that (urban suburban cooperation).
For the most I rarely ever hear of Chicago suburbanites say they are afraid of the city. But on this forum, it does sound like many Detroit suburbanites still are.
That cooperation does make a difference and I hope there starts to be some real cooperation in the metro Detroit region. It would help their overall situation.
The most contentions there are between city and suburb in Chicagoland, are say the O'Hare expansion and the city wanting to annex part of Bensenville and bulldoze the houses on several blocks in town. The locals residents are pissed too! But thats all you hear.
I do agree as well that a poor image of the city is still going to affect the city. I doesn't matter how nice Oakland County is, the rest of the county (and world) will simply think of the region collectively as "Detroit" so it is important. And it takes a while to overcome an image.
I still occasionally get people who know nothing about Chicago asking me about Al Capone/gangsters, and that occurs 80 years ago!!
yes the suburbs aren't in cooperation with the city. they kneed to, and the city will get back on it's feet. they have made strides though. like quicken moving from livonia to detroit.
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.
