Okay, guys, I really want your insight into this, especially those of you who know Chicago and its history very well (b/c I sure as hell don't)

What do you think of the different mayoral styles of the current mayor and his late father? Were they similar? Who was more effective? Who was better/worse for the city? Surely there are some similarities, but undoubtedly different times called for very different people.

My take, from the best of what I know, is this:

Richard J Daley took reigns in the 1950's, when Chicago was at its greatest peak, but was still largely industrial. It was a much more conservative city that was filled with families, and had a large population of black immigrants from the south that whities didn't want in their neighborhood. The car was beginning to dominate, as well. That reflected in his style--conservative. Also, he built the same public housing highrises that his son would now demolish. Even though he took control of a very powerful city, during the entire time he was in office Chicago would lose population and jobs to the suburbs, a process he knew he couldn't reverse. In a sense, R.J.Daley had to deal with a great city on its decline, and surely that made his job enormously tough!

Richard M Daley, on the other hand, had a different city to deal with. It was a more diverse city in a more open-minded era, but also still had great issues with racial division and crime. He was dealing with a post-WWII city that had deindustrialized and had likely bottomed out. Yet luckily for him, it was a city that was still very healthy with a very strong financial presence (thanks in part to the CME formed in the '70's). But he had new energy and vision, but he was also lucky enough to take office during an economic boom (the '90's) and an era when people were starting to criticize sprawl and move into cities. The city's population leveled off and even increased, while Daley tapped into this newfound energy by measures to make the city and its neighborhoods more livable. Also, Daley had insight and vision for a new city--one with a 24/7 core rather than just a financial core. But should Daley take credit for his vision or is Chicago's rebound more a factor of demographics out of everyone's control (just as population losses in the 60's and 70's were out of his father's control)?

Those are my thoughts. I would truly enjoy hearing opinions from anybody who is interested in this discussion :)

Richard M Daley definatly.

However, mad props to Richard J Daley. He took the reigns of a city that was in chaos... declining neighborhoods, businesses, race riots, the DNC... Chicago was a runaway freight train headed to the same direction as Detroit, but R J Daley stopped that reality from happening, granted, while using racist and other unorthodox methods... riot police instructed to control crowds, projects to house the African American migration, expressways to divide the races... many neighborhoods fell into complete and utter decline, but because of his actions, he had also saved many others, and kept the city financially viable, which would inevitably lead to its great rennaissance today. Otherwise, we would be a much larger, and much uglier version of Detroit right now.

I couldnt sing Richard M Daley's praises any louder than i already do. I dont need to mention what he has done for our great city.

Urban Politican and Rivernorth: outstanding observations.

Rich Daley is a remarkable mayor. As noted, he is in office long after the Chicago machine controlled the city and was able to get things done. Remember the old line that Bush I didn't get "the vision thing"? Richie gets the vision thing.

What is truly remarkable in these times when individuals act more as individuals than as a part of a group and it is hard to get an agenda accomplished that Daley is able to exert the power to get things done. The man has an incredible understanding of Chicago's role as a global city. What he is doing that makes Chicago exceed any city in the US and quite possibly the world is making the city's physical landscape inviting to augment what is happening in Chicago's finanacial, business, and art communities.

Daley has help build Chicago into a stage where people want and enjoy doing international business.

Did you ever think of how extraordinary Rich Daley's accomplishment truly is? How rare is it for a son (in this case, a son with the SAME name) to get elected to the same office as his father, an icon without peer, and then create an administration every bit as spectacular (while completely different) as his father's?

I, for one, am at a loss to think of any politican who came in under these circumstances and do what Rich Daley has done.

Jesus! It's not even close. Richard J. was terrible. He was a racist, reinforced and constructed the city's current lines of segregation; used the police for brutal intimidation, in the 1968 Democratic convention, of course, but that is certainly not the only instance; I don't even need to go into the issues of corruption, the fact that he threw a presidential election; he built things. He was powerful. He gave us some good stories. But I can't say much else good about him.

Richard M. is much, much more progressive. He's tearing down his father's high-rise ghettos and replacing them with mixed-income communities which, while not working out perfectly, is certainly an improvement on his father's work; he's beautifying the city in absolutely amazing ways, has put together public works projects of enormous magnitude--still corrupt, but not nearly as much so as his father.

So I'm not huge fans of either, but the son is about a billion times better than the father.

You have to consider the times. Chicago was rapidly declining. If we had any other mayor, Chicago would be just like Detroit. He held the city together, using unorthodox and unethical means. What he did was wrong, ofcourse. But he saved the city, there is really no denying that. He saved it for better times when the mistakes of his past could be corrected.

There's no reason to choose, they're both amazing. But, if I had to, I'd say M. He has brought Chicago to the forefront of a very competitive global scene and has made, what I believe, more positive changes to the City than his father.