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.
There is a culture clash but probably not along racial lines as much as those cities you mentioned. Chicago is pretty segregated and the prevailing culture really isn't driven by minority representatives as much as a place like Atlanta.
How wide is the gap between Chicago (including suburbs) and the rest of the Midwest (save perhaps Detroit and Cleveland)? I'm asking because as a Southerner there's certainly a huge gap between Atlanta and even some of the regions second-tier cities (Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham), plus the big Texas cities (depending on whether you call that the South).
In short, does metro Chicago culture clash with Midwestern culture to the extent that Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston clash with Southern culture? Thanks in advance.
I hear from a lot of people in downstate Illinois that they dislike Chicago and wish that they were their own state.
Another way I think of this is that the midwest is generally pretty similar in scenery, but do you see people from outside the midwest planning 3-day getaway weekends in Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Des Moines, Minneapolis, St. Louis? Maybe a tiny bit, but in that way Chicago is again far beyond these other cities.
As a Michigander, I am not completely in agreement that the Midwest is pretty similar in scenery. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota maybe share some similarities, but the rest of the Midwest is not that similar to the above-mentioned states. Perhaps the bottom section of Michigan (Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor-Detroit Corridor) might look a bit like Illinois, Indiana, Ohio etc, but northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula do not share the same scenery with the rest of the Midwest except some areas of Wisconsin and Minnesota.)
Regarding people, however, I would say that people in Chicagoland are similar to people in Metro Detroit except that people in Metro Detroit have more of an affinity or familiarity with Canada than would people in Chicagoland.
How wide is the gap between Chicago (including suburbs) and the rest of the Midwest (save perhaps Detroit and Cleveland)? I'm asking because as a Southerner there's certainly a huge gap between Atlanta and even some of the regions second-tier cities (Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham), plus the big Texas cities (depending on whether you call that the South).
In short, does metro Chicago culture clash with Midwestern culture to the extent that Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston clash with Southern culture? Thanks in advance.
Not at all if you are talking urban areas. I've lived in four Midwest states and Chicago is unremarkable in terms of its cultural differences with other cities here, e.g. Milwaukee and Detroit. Bigger and blingier perhaps, but not all that fundamentally different. Sure differences exist, but the more obvious ones in the Midwest are rural vs. urban regardless of state, Chicago is hardly unique in that regard.
Not at all if you are talking urban areas. I've lived in four Midwest states and Chicago is unremarkable in terms of its cultural differences with other cities here, e.g. Milwaukee and Detroit. Bigger and blingier perhaps, but not all that fundamentally different. Sure differences exist, but the more obvious ones in the Midwest are rural vs. urban regardless of state, Chicago is hardly unique in that regard.
There are SIGNIFICANT differences between Chicago's urban environment and EVERY other Midwest city. Detroit in the early/mid 20th century may have been somewhat similar to Chicago, but even then it lacked the infrastructure of Chicago.
Suburban Chicago probably shares more similarities with suburban Milwaukee/Minneapolis/Detroit, but even then there are still substantial differences. An easy one is commuter rail. Many of Chicago's suburbs have evolving downtown's anchored by Metra stations. Starting to see more and more high density apartments/condos built near these stations, which has in turn brought in more retail/restaurants. These changes have created a more urban environment in these historically sleepy downtowns.
I think Chicago is on it's own level but it doesn't clash with the rest of the midwest at all. It's the jewel of the midwest. If anything, it provides a stronger connection to other places than any other city in the region.
...
I would say that Chicagoans (at least in the city since I've never lived in the burbs) indulge in their cultural offerings more than others in the surrounding region. This is mostly because of the larger variety of cuisine, museums, plays, local and international fashion stores. There's more to do here. For me personally, what has helped is a better mass transit system.
...
Two things:
First, Chicago has more domestic tourism than all but New York and Orlando. And all three are within 10% of each other most years. So people outside of Chicago proper but still between the costs definitely come to Chicago to experience what we have here.
Second, I agree about mass transit. No other city outside of the Eastern seaboard and, possibly, San Francisco can even make a serious comparison to Chicago on transit. Even places like Portland, which is often said to have excellent transit "for its size" can't really compare to Chicago when it comes to transit. Many other cities do have functional transit, but in Chicago there are large swaths of the city you can live a convenient life without a car. Most cities with a metro area over a million have at least a few places where you can live car-free without too much hassle, but they're often a very small portion both geographically and as a percentage of the population. Chicago pales in comparison to New York and even trails places like Boston, but it's at least comparable to Boston. Transit in Indy, for example, really isn't comparable to Chicago, especially if you take frequency of service into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by froglipz
Chicago just has way too much shooting and killing every weekend!
St. Louis and Detroit both have higher murder rates than Chicago does - in the case of Detroit, their murder *rate* is nearly triple Chicago's. Detroit's numbers are lower than Chicago's only because its population is so much lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuja1
I hear from a lot of people in downstate Illinois that they dislike Chicago and wish that they were their own state.
They'd wish that right up until they discovered that, despite what their politicians tell them, the Chicago metro area pays the bills and most of the rest of the state are basically freeloaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil
Chicago is, by far, the top Midwest city. I will take it a step further, it is the top city between the East and West coasts. Similar to the way that New York is unparalleled in the U.S.
I'd agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil
I've lived in StL for most of my life. It is on the upswing. Cranes everyone in the Central Corridor. We have a decent rail system, considering our size, and there is an ongoing push for expansion. Several neighborhoods that were trashed 20 yeas ago have been gentrified and filled with young folks. Sure, the black areas on the north side are struggling. But that's not any different than such areas in any other large city.
While I agree that St. Louis is slowly improving, unless a lot has changed in the past 18 months it's still not even in the race compared to Chicago. 18 months ago I flew to St. Louis during what was accidentally during Mardi Gras. I took the light rail into the city for my hotel, but the rest of the time I felt kind of trapped due to the limited transit (in coverage, frequency of service and length of daily schedules) and ended up renting a car for my last day to be able to get around and see stuff.
And as far as "cranes everywhere," have you been to Chicago lately?
Here's a map of just 3 square miles of the north half of central Chicago. The red dots are buildings under construction right now. The purple ones are buildings that will be starting any day now, the yellow ones were recently completed (and that's just a few of them, I got bored and didn't fill in all the recently completed ones), and the green ones are solid proposals of which I would guess about 80% of them will at least start construction within 2 years. All the green ones are for high-rises of 12+ stories. Most of the red ones are also highrises of 12+ stories - probably 90% of them, with 10% just shorter but still significant developments. There are about 45 red dots. Of those, at least 35 of them are residential highrises, with an average unit count of probably 250. In central Chicago the occupancy rate for units averages 1.5 people per unit, so that means in those 3 square miles there will be about 13,000 new residents within 2 years. If all the green ones get built by the next census, that would be another 8,250 people. I think there have already been about 15,000 new residents within the area of that map, so we're potentially talking about as many as 35,000 new residents in just half of the central area. If we included the south half, it'd probably be another 25,000 people, for a total of perhaps 60,000 new residents in 6 square miles of Central Chicago between 2010 and 2020. Are there any other Midwest cities even coming close to those sorts of numbers in their core?
They'd wish that right up until they discovered that, despite what their politicians tell them, the Chicago metro area pays the bills and most of the rest of the state are basically freeloaders.
Much to agree with, but some things are simply not true...
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
Two things:
First, Chicago has more domestic tourism than all but New York and Orlando. And all three are within 10% of each other most years. So people outside of Chicago proper but still between the costs definitely come to Chicago to experience what we have here.
Second, I agree about mass transit. No other city outside of the Eastern seaboard and, possibly, San Francisco can even make a serious comparison to Chicago on transit. Even places like Portland, which is often said to have excellent transit "for its size" can't really compare to Chicago when it comes to transit. Many other cities do have functional transit, but in Chicago there are large swaths of the city you can live a convenient life without a car. Most cities with a metro area over a million have at least a few places where you can live car-free without too much hassle, but they're often a very small portion both geographically and as a percentage of the population. Chicago pales in comparison to New York and even trails places like Boston, but it's at least comparable to Boston. Transit in Indy, for example, really isn't comparable to Chicago, especially if you take frequency of service into account.
St. Louis and Detroit both have higher murder rates than Chicago does - in the case of Detroit, their murder *rate* is nearly triple Chicago's. Detroit's numbers are lower than Chicago's only because its population is so much lower.
They'd wish that right up until they discovered that, despite what their politicians tell them, the Chicago metro area pays the bills and most of the rest of the state are basically freeloaders.
I'd agree.
While I agree that St. Louis is slowly improving, unless a lot has changed in the past 18 months it's still not even in the race compared to Chicago. 18 months ago I flew to St. Louis during what was accidentally during Mardi Gras. I took the light rail into the city for my hotel, but the rest of the time I felt kind of trapped due to the limited transit (in coverage, frequency of service and length of daily schedules) and ended up renting a car for my last day to be able to get around and see stuff.
And as far as "cranes everywhere," have you been to Chicago lately?
Here's a map of just 3 square miles of the north half of central Chicago. The red dots are buildings under construction right now. The purple ones are buildings that will be starting any day now, the yellow ones were recently completed (and that's just a few of them, I got bored and didn't fill in all the recently completed ones), and the green ones are solid proposals of which I would guess about 80% of them will at least start construction within 2 years. All the green ones are for high-rises of 12+ stories. Most of the red ones are also highrises of 12+ stories - probably 90% of them, with 10% just shorter but still significant developments. There are about 45 red dots. Of those, at least 35 of them are residential highrises, with an average unit count of probably 250. In central Chicago the occupancy rate for units averages 1.5 people per unit, so that means in those 3 square miles there will be about 13,000 new residents within 2 years. If all the green ones get built by the next census, that would be another 8,250 people. I think there have already been about 15,000 new residents within the area of that map, so we're potentially talking about as many as 35,000 new residents in just half of the central area. If we included the south half, it'd probably be another 25,000 people, for a total of perhaps 60,000 new residents in 6 square miles of Central Chicago between 2010 and 2020. Are there any other Midwest cities even coming close to those sorts of numbers in their core?
I agree with many if your points, especially regarding tourism, transit and even crime rates -- Chicago gets
too little attention for its positives and far too much for the bizarre patterns of handgun violence.
It is not at all true at Chicago as a city "pays for the rest of the state" in any meaningful way. I have spent a signficant part of my own time sitting through schools board, park district, village, tollway and even regional transit meetings that clearly show how costly running the government of this region has become and it is abundantly clear that many of the areas shouldering the highest burden are areas that have suffered mightily from the terrible business climate created by clueless Chicago based politicians.
It is further shocking to me how many of my friends who have spent decades in commercial real estate have already laid plans for a what can only be called a "survival mode escape hatch" as many parts of the regions have seen plummeting values in industrial / commercial property. Unless a HUGE shift happend very soon even once very vibrant parts of the region are going to become ghost towns. Many of the so-called "two year time horizon projects" are no such thing; the folks marketing these projects are hoping that foolish investors with no ability to acknowledge the writting on the wall regarding the horrible fiscal conditions of Illinois and Chicago can be conned to pay commissions on deals that are wholly unfeasible...
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.
Much to agree with, but some things are simply not true...
