UP and Geoff have done a great job in introducing new threads here that celebrate Chicago. I'll try my best and join them with mine.

We love competition on the skyscraper board. Thrive on it. Put cities in rank order and see which measure up and, more delicously, which ones do not. So I'll join the fray.

There are two cities that Chicago is VERY MUCH in competition with. Two cities that dominate how we do things here. Two cities that are totally pervasive in how this city works and thinks. This is not sarcasam. This is real. And true.

The two cities? The first is the Chicago-that-was. The second is the Chicago-that-is. Chicago, as it moves to the future, measures itself by both. We celebrate and love both, but we are convinced that the Chicago-to-be will be the best of the trio.

You see, we totally enjoy our uniqueness. And what the past and present have done to create it. So, what is unique...and what makes the city work now and better in the future. No matter what some of you think, there is not another US or world city out there that we aspire to be.

Look at it as a recipe: create a flat inland plain on a vast, inland sea. throw in a river that creates a confined central space from which to grow. Sprinkle in a locale that ties the interior of the continent together. Impose a grid system to keep the whole place tied together. Toss in a rail system to connect it with the world. Stir in industry...and the rich diversity of groups from around the world who helped make it work. Make money off that industry, but invest it in culture. Burn the place down so you can start from scratch and get everything right; bring in the best architects to do the rebuilding. Clear off the lakefront and open it up to parkland for the people. Garnish with jazz, el tracks, a quirky ivied ball park, a mile that is more than magnificent and even a little of Emeril's "BAM" in the form of a racy, gangland past.

So where is Chicago today as it heads to the future? This huge, magnificent city with great big awe-inspriring towers has low rise lands adjacent to its core that allow it to develop like no such powerful city today can develop. New urbanism has found its home.Rail tracks allow for areas south of the Loop to develop on a scale unconfined by the old city grid (or look to Lake Shore East & Central Station to see that type of development taking place today).

Note the number of suburbanites moving downtown for the joy of urban living, increasing the critical mass and, in the process, the city's ammenities. Look at what civic projects like Navy Pier, Millenium Park, Museum campus have done to the urban landscape...and salivate thinking about what a developed river walk, the city/private sector combination at Block 37, the south lakefront reconstruction, the growth in the McC Pl area, the Circle Line, etc.

Look in awe at new construction close to downtown that still comes with 2, or 3, or 4 floors: imagine....a huge, powerful city and it still builds short so that it won't become a forest of soulless skyscrapings. Think of it: the city that created the skyscraper and brought it to new height wants valuable land used for low scale building....and isn't afraid to say to Donald Trump "Get the damned thing right or build it elesewher"Flat out amazing.

Meanwhile look at neighborhoods like Chinatown, Pilsen, Bronzeville, Rogers Park, and others and see our diversity is black and white and Asian and Hispanic and others.

Like no other American city, Chicago is in the process of combining power with available land to build a new American dream city. Some other places have the power but not the land to devleop. Many, many have the land,but not the power. Chicago is unique.

And, somehow, as much as I love the Chicago that was and the Chicago that is, the Chicago that will be will undoubtedly be the best of the bunch. Wishing all a Happy Chicago and a Happy Thanksgiving.

Chicago has all the diversity that other major cities have, but it has one flaw. It still fails to mix them well. New York and DC are much better at this. The best way Chicago can mix races is downtown, and the best way to do that is to provide equal access to all groups.

Improving the brown and blue lines helps whites and Asians. But what about restoring weekend and evening service to the western branch of the blue line? How about extending rail deeper into the south side? Let's bring all these people together.

Oh, and providing parking in garages isn't going to help, either. No person of meager or average means is going to spend $15 just to park downtown.

Oh, and finally, what's up with Chicago being only 4.9% Asian? That's very low for a city of its size

UP, I suspect that population growth shows up greater in numbers than it does in percentage. Certainly that would be true for a huge metro area pushing 10 million.

Raw numbers shows a most sizeable Asian community that has not, but will, be increasingly reflected in %age as well.

UP, I suspect that population growth shows up greater in numbers than it does in percentage. Certainly that would be true for a huge metro area pushing 10 million.

Raw numbers shows a most sizeable Asian community that has not, but will, be increasingly reflected in %age as well.

Chicago's Asian community is growing rapidly.

"Chicago has all the diversity that other major cities have, but it has one flaw. It still fails to mix them well. New York and DC are much better at this."

I can't say that I have firsthand experience of this in New York and DC, but in terms of numbers, Chicago is not any worse than those two--New York and Chicago are tied, and DC is one of only three major US cities that are worse.

"Oh, and finally, what's up with Chicago being only 4.9% Asian? That's very low for a city of its size"

It's about medium for a non-West Coast major city. Of cities east of the Pacific, only New York and St. Paul have Asian populations significantly higher than Chicago's.

^As you know, I live in DC, and I've been to NYC several times. Once again, I agree Chicago has diversity in the same abundance as other world class cities, but the various races just don't mix as much.

Chicago is more like a mixed salad. That's fine, but I guess cities like DC or NYC are different in design/philosophy, etc. For example, you will often see Ethiopians, whites, Europeans, Lebanese, Asians all hanging out in the same places. But in Chicago, you're more likely to see Russian bars, Asian clubs, clubs for annoying white suburbanites, and right across the street--a bar where yuppie black people like to hang out. There just isn't a lot of mixing.

Why is Chicago like that? Here's what I think: First, as I mentioned before, downtown needs to act more like a centralizing force for ALL people in the city, thus train service needs to be improved in western and south side neighborhoods.

Secondly, the suburbanites. I couldn't comment on this topic without blaming them. Suburban Chicagoans (many, but not all) are about as back-asswards as the rest of the midwest and essentially think the world is about being white and watching football. No offense, but it's true--and wearing designer shirts and putting gel in your hair isn't going to change that.

Thirdly, the city people. Many of them are transplanted suburbanites. Obviously, many city transplants become more open-minded (and many were open-minded from the start) as they live there. Either way, many are just future Republicans passing through because they want to live in the city, get their groove on, and move on out.

Finally, the biggest obstacle comes back to downtown. But it's not just transportation. Downtown does not provide enough jobs for immigrants other than cab driving. The kinds of jobs immigrants in east coast downtowns have is street vending. Downtown Chicago has no street vendors and thus it completely lacks the ethnic flavor that they offer. Not only does this attract jobs for them, but it provides a multicultural environment that was not there before. Also, just look at the restaurants downtown--mostly bistros, Italian, pizza, etc. All of the great Ethnic restaurants (with some exceptions) are in the neighborhoods. This always keeps people separate.

Downtown Chicago has never made the slightest effort to attract ethnic restaurants into its core. Instead, office workers go there and back to their suburbs having never experienced the savory Kababs that you could get on Devon st or Lawrence Avenue, or the delicious cuisine found in Chinatown. Instead, any open retail space is used up by fucking Wendy's, Baskin Robbins, or that goddamn Walgreens. That is my one huge beef with Chicago. It has all the ethnicities but does not capitalize on them.

^ This is true. The great mixing areas in Chicago are outlying neighborhoods like Uptown and Rogers Park. Downtown needs to be more small-business-friendly in general--most retail there is either chain or fairly upscale. If the Loop saw an influx of small business, a great percentage of that would be non-European, I would imagine.

I think Chicago's biggest segregation problems lie in its storied past. This City was built on segregation, and no amount of thought or planning will ever change that fact. Immigrants moved to the City's near-west side upon entering the Country, displacing the immigrant group before them (who typically migrated as a whole to an adjacent neighborhood where they, themselves, displaced yet another entire group). High cost-of-living kept immigrant groups from inhabiting the "white" areas of the City (the most valuable land with lake-frontage) while blacks were forced to move due south - always boxed in by the great barrier (first, rail ROW's and then the Dan Ryan) to the west and the natural barrier (the lake) to the east.

These patterns have become so clear and so deeply rooted in the City's culture that it's impossible to reverse them at this point. An Asian moving to the city will likely locate in Chinatown, an Irishman would seek out Bridgeport and a Hindu would choose Devon. Surely, these areas will shift and migrate over time as they gentrify, but, ethnicities will always chose mass exodus over cultural isolation.

I hate it when future young repubs live in the city and then move out to say to everyone that they've had the city experience. I go to Loyola and there are some conservatives who go there to get the city experience only to experience that the entire city is a liberal hotbed and so are the professors. Then they whine and even want to change that. Good God, like they can make a city of progress actually regress. I say GO BACK TO KANSAS.

On the other hand you guys, Boystown or all the gay areas have a very good mix of enthicities. People come together in these areas with absolutely no problem. And its because we all have one thing in common- we're all happy people.

In general wouldn't most of you agree that neighborhoods throughout the North Shore are much much less segregated than they are in other parts of the city.

The North Shore neighborhoods are generally the least segregated, yes. Uptown and Rogers Park are the two most diverse community areas, I believe. The North Side east of the river is not so bad; even some parts a little bit west, particularly in Albany Park.

^ This is true. The great mixing areas in Chicago are outlying neighborhoods like Uptown and Rogers Park. Downtown needs to be more small-business-friendly in general--most retail there is either chain or fairly upscale. If the Loop saw an influx of small business, a great percentage of that would be non-European, I would imagine.

oshkeoto: the Loop (and the greater downtown area from North Avenue to Cermak, the lakefront to the UC) is a ghetto. But not racial. or ethnic. It is, or at least close to evolving to, a ghetto for the rich. $$$ counts far more than background. And truthfully, this is not the route to go to build a vibrant city. Despite cost of real estate, more middle class buildings could be built in these areas....and are not. The long term ramfications are not pretty and certainly suggest a Manhattan type of locale, accesible to only the very few.

I think Chicago's biggest segregation problems lie in its storied past. This City was built on segregation, and no amount of thought or planning will ever change that fact.

geoff, in my opinion it was a lot easier to pull off the racial discord when the issue was as simple as black and white; more precisely black vs. white.

Let's thank the Hispanics and Asians: it's difficult to make it black vs. white vs. Asian vs. Hispanic (although economics does, at time, make it appear white/Asian vs. balck/Hispanic). With Chicago (and America) heading to no racial group majority, you get away from that whole majority-minority crap.

Add to this the incredible amount of intermarriage that goes all between all these groups and you realize you see a bigot's worst nightmere: the mixing of groups that cannot be UNMIXED. So I don't see race has being a huge factor in our divisions in the future (and, sadly knowing that without it, we as the human race will find other equally insidious ways to divide ourselves from each other).

guys, i don't know if we're having a semantic difference or not here.

what are you referring to by "North Shore"?

My definiton has always been: Evanston to Lake Bluff (with Northfield, Deerfield, and a few other inland places holding on for dear life).

By North Shore, are you really referring to North Side lakefront neighborhoods?

The North Shore neighborhoods are generally the least segregated, yes. Uptown and Rogers Park are the two most diverse community areas, I believe. The North Side east of the river is not so bad; even some parts a little bit west, particularly in Albany Park.

ironically what seems to assist Rogers Park in keeping the wonderful attribute of diversity is its very strange inability to gentrify. I never figured this one out. Rogers Park may be the most immune place for this to happen and I'm not sure why: lakefront neighborhood, adjacent to Evanston, and all. Even Uptown and Edgewater are turning around. Why not RP?

I don't know if anyone else see RP this way...but, if you do, any idea why this may be the case.

"ironically what seems to assist Rogers Park in keeping the wonderful attribute of diversity is its very strange inability to gentrify. I never figured this one out. Rogers Park may be the most immune place for this to happen and I'm not sure why: lakefront neighborhood, adjacent to Evanston, and all. Even Uptown and Edgewater are turning around. Why not RP?

I don't know if anyone else see RP this way...but, if you do, any idea why this may be the case."

One reason may be that it's simply too far away. The type of well-off young and old people who are moving into the city are moving there to get close to the amenities of downtown--and if you're a 60-year-old empty-nester or 23-year-old Northwestern grad from Evanston, what's the point of moving six blocks south to Rogers Park?

I've heard good things from residents of Uptown, though, saying it will never fully gentrify simply because there are too many homeless shelters that would be very difficult to remove. One of my friends there, for example, lives in an apartment on the 21st floor of a building facing south, about two blocks from Lincoln Park. She has stunning views and can be at the lake in five minutes on a whim. But it's affordable because behind her building is the largest concentration of ex-sex offenders in the state. The neighborhood isn't unsafe, really--it's no Norwood Park, but it's no Englewood, either--but the negative perception of those homeless shelters drives enough people away to keep things more reasonable than elsewhere.

I'm counting on that phenomenon to allow me to rent there when I finish college.

Rogers Park is fine how it is, culturally diverse, gritty, and plenty of activity on Clark street, why does every neighborhood have to gentrify and become replicas of lincoln park?

Rogers Park is fine how it is, culturally diverse, gritty, and plenty of activity on Clark street, why does every neighborhood have to gentrify and become replicas of lincoln park?

i agree. my comment was more on the line of what was preventing prime N. Side lakefront property from not gentrifying....I was advocating gentrification.

The two cities? The first is the Chicago-that-was. The second is the Chicago-that-is. Chicago, as it moves to the future, measures itself by both. We celebrate and love both, but we are convinced that the Chicago-to-be will be the best of the trio.



I think that in many ways "the Chicago that is" is overshadowed by the "Chicago that was". In the 19th century Chicago boomed so large and was so important in the face of the unsettled and untamed west economically that the Chicago of today or even of the future will be hard pressed to match that. I get the fealing that Chicago is overshadowed very much by it's past glories because those glories will probably never be regained. The problem is that in Chicago's greatest boom days during the late 1800's and early 1900's the people of Chicago got such a high expectation of the city that couldn't be maintained in the face of the growth of other economic centers such as Los Angeles and more recently Houston. Chicago just isn't the only big dog west of New York anymore and for good or bad that is going to continue to temper Chicago's growth and glory.

^very good observation, Suburbanite.

But tell me, do you really think Chicago was truly its greatest 100 years ago? I have a hard time believing that. As an industrial powerhouse, you have a good point. But as an overall city--financial strength, culture, beauty, quality of life, think-tanks, educational opportunities, etc. I think it is a fair argument to say that Chicago has made enormous headway and is much better off now than it was before. But this is only when you average out everything, without just examining one factor at a time.

However, Chicago must deal with more competitors than it had to deal with 50 years ago. But so does New York, and so does every other city out there..