What I love about this board is that it lets you know (among other things) how residents feel about their own home town. And, of course, for the Chicagoans here, how we feel about the good ol' Windy City.

As I've read opinions of people across the country about their home towns, I've picked up how competitive most are about where their city fits in the greater scheme of things (well, duh!?!). A lot of that pecking order crap stems from a helluva lot of insecurity that many people have about the place they call home.

What I find is, the more I read, the more I think about cities, the less inclined I am to put Chicago into that competitive mode in my own mind. And, more and more, this becomes my paradigm:

CHICAGO IS AN UTLERLY FANTASTIC CITY IN-AND-OF-ITSELF. IT DOESN'T NEED COMPARISONS TO ANY OTHER CITY. CHICAGO STANDS ON ITS OWN TWO FEET.

In other words, take a train downtown to Union Station. Walk across the Loop and through Grant Park. Do the Museum Campus. Continue on up the lakefront to Navy Pier. Stroll through Streterville up to the Mag Mile. At the north end, cut through the Gold Coast up to North Avenue and Lincoln Park. Head south through Old Town. Head over to all the residential construction along the river when you get to Chicago Avenue. Head south, back to the west Loop. Return to Union Station.

If you aren't convinced at that point that you are in one of the world's greatest cities, nothing will help you.

So, Chicagoans, where are we on this one:

do we need the comparisons, do we care what other cities think of us, or are we secure enough to say, Who Cares!: questioning Chicago's merit is just plain ludacrous.

Questioning the City's merit may very well be ludicrous; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. As we have all said in many other discussions here in the past, it is the fear of falling from our pedestal that forces us to continue to evolve. If we were truly pleased with our place, complacency would surely spell eventual failure.

Now, allow me to express what I'm sure will be an amazingly unpopular opinion: many of you have stated, time and again, that Chicago is happy being Chicago. I disagree. No matter what we'd like to believe in a fairy-tale world, Chicago aspires to be NY. Every major city aspires to be NY. You may disagree and say that we're not interested in NY's neglected waterfront, overcrowding or horrendous traffic, but, the fact remains that we want NY's aura - that vibe that makes people go "I don't know what it is about it... it's just... you know... New York."

New York is, and forever willl be, the yardstick by which all things urban shall be measured.

^ well, new york is certainly a better city than chicago. any chicagoan who believes otherwise is simply deluding themselves. denial is a great thing for short term happiness, but in the long run it's gets you no where.

as for the original thread question, i really have no idea how secure chicago is because it's a city and cities are inanimate objects that don't have emotions or feelings. are the pople of chicago secure (whatever that means)? i'd say given the diversity of the human species that some are and some aren't.

me personally, i don't give a shit what anyone's opinion of chicago is, at the same time i can clearly recognize NYC's urban superiority on nearly every level. i still like chicago better though, but that's probably because it's my home. if i had been born a native new yorker, i probably wouldn't give two shits about chicago.

Id say Chicago is secure. If its not, then i dont see how any city smaller than us is. You cant just think that New York is the only city secure of itself in the US. Chicago isnt New York, but we are large enough to blow away pretty much any visitor that isnt from New York, and large enough to still impress any New Yorker. The same cant be said about Cincinatti, Atlanta, or Portland. Most people here seem to be happy with Chicago being Chicago. There may be some second city insecurities we have to New York, but we can crap all over any other American city, so it balances out i guess :)

I think from an outside point of view (Dutch) that :

Chicago is a city that doesn't need to compare itself to other cities.
It's unique on its own and i definatly wouldn't want Chicago to try and be something else.
I know it doesn't try that though.
It definatly is one of the greatest / best cities in the world. :guns1:

Guys, I absoloutely love a thread like this: people sharing opinions and perspectives which are neither right nor wrong, but how we see things. It gives me great insight on what others think and give me new ways of looking at things.

In light of some of the observations, I'd like to share some more of my own thoughts:

• While I do believe that cities show varying degrees and modes of greatness, I don't buy into the concept of hierarchy in cities (or, sorry
USN&WR, colleges, or even People magazine's top ten most intersting people of the year)

• I personally also feel that the pecking order philosophy is much a part of the win/lose philosophy we have in society today as oppose to more of a win/win perspective

• I also believe that our interest in #1 and how it translates into the tallest buildings, the largest populations, the most this, and the most that, will ulimately destroy the very cities that we are trying to glorify

• I see some cities as being very complete, whole, and individualistic. While these cities would ignore trends in other cities at their peril, I don't believe they should feel any need to "measure up" to any of their peers. I see cities like NYC, Chgo, and SF as these types of cities.

• While some hold other US cities (and particularly Chicago) up to NYC standards, I don't. And yet NY is one of my favorite cities, one of the world's great metropolises, and outstanding in its fields.

• of the above mentioned cities: nobody does New York as well as New York. On the other hand, nobody does Chicago as well as Chicago. Nobody does San Francisco as well as San Francisco either.

• and while NYC does NYC extremely well (and there are things that it does that Chicago can't), Chicago can does certain things better than NYC...FOR ME, THAT IS:

1. Chicago to me is unparralel in offering a complete metropolis on any measure (business, finanace, educational institutions, culture, restaurants, entertainment, architecture, etc.) without many of the annoyances and inconveniences of urban life

2. Chicago's love of architecture (almost a spectator sport here) and the concern how each piece fits into the urban framework is extraordinary

3. Chicago's core and spoke type of development, with the center being the magnet is, for me, a neater system than Manhattan's linear growth. The fact that the heart of Manhattan (Midtown) has addresses in the 30's, 40's and 50's shows you how that portion of the island was a replacement for the old center in lower Manhattan. In Chicago, the core stayed the core. In Chicago, the Loop and surrounding areas made one center for the city, unlike the two in Manhattan.

4. I love the soft edge of lake, beach, and park that Chicago offers. No city in America faces and embraces open water as ours does.....and, in doing so, makes up for the lack of bridges as magnicent as the GG and GW.

5. I love the fact that expensive, crowded, and tight Chicago will still build 2-3 story town houses in its core, not feeling it has to fill up every space with huge structures. The message to me: the city is here for the enjoyment of its citizens, not as a monument to itself

6. I like the fact that Chicago is so centralized, so big, and yet with such a sense of common place that it can pull of a project like Millennium Park. In fact, I think when it comes to the public sector and what it generates, no city can come up with what we do here

None of which means that on any level NYC takes a back seat to New York. But I will say this (and I've said it before): I've been to NY many times; I have never come back home thinking I was coming home to a lesser city.

And my experience with New Yorkers (which has been more than positive) is that they have all the respect in the world for Chicago. So many have said to me personally about Chgo: "You know, I could live here"

^ that's all well and good, but NYC will always be more of a city than chicago. it's more urban, got more skyscrapers, more subways, more pedestrians, more, more, more. coming home from a trip to NYC, chicago most definitely feels like a lesser city. that doesn't make it a bad place (i love chicago dearly), but chicago is nowhere near as intense on the urban scale as NYC is, and if you're into urban insanity like me, chicago is the lesser city anyway you cut it.

some people may not prefer urban insanity, that's why they might think chicago is the greater city, but that's a really, really silly opinion to have, because cities should be all about urban insanity, at least in my opinion.

chicago just has a long, LONG way to go before it can measure up to new york. we need to have ~5 million in city limits before it even gets close.

^ that's all well and good, but NYC will always be more of a city than chicago. it's more urban, got more skyscrapers, more subways, more pedestrians, more, more, more. coming home from a trip to NYC, chicago most definitely feels like a lesser city. that doesn't make it a bad place (i love chicago dearly), but chicago is nowhere near as intense on the urban scale as NYC is, and if you're into urban insanity like me, chicago is the lesser city anyway you cut it.

some people may not prefer urban insanity, that's why they might think chicago is the greater city, but that's a really, really silly opinion to have, because cities should be all about urban insanity, at least in my opinion.

chicago just has a long, LONG way to go before it can measure up to new york. we need to have ~5 million in city limits before it even gets close.

I think you completely missed by point, sharptent.

I believe everything that you said was 100% true. For you.

And I also believe that what I expressed was nothing more than my opinion. I believe I went out of the way to say that it's all about perceptions and I don't elevate my perceptions above you. So, since this is the most subjective thing, I can say as a total fact: I BELIEVE that Chicago is not in some pecking order with other cities and is not behind NY. And since I started this with "I believe" that makes me 100% and factual; without those two words: just opinion.

I've always viewed Chicago through a very stupid analogy, but it works for me. Chicago is that kid in your highschool class who's sort of popular but doesn't hang out with Paris Hilton bitches and doesn't care too much about the jocks. Therefore, Chicago isn't the most popular kid, and sometimes, the preppies talk shit about it, but Chicago doesn't care. Chicago gets good grades, does well in sports, but still keeps a low profile. People wonder why Chicago isn't more popular, but Chicago doesn't care - meanwhile, whenever Chicago does something good, the jocks and bitches talk shit about it. Chicago does a lot for the school, Chicago volunteers and does a lot for everyone else, but no one seems to notice. But Chicago just doesn't care.

^And Chicago has the biggest....youknowwhat.....in his class! :carrot:

^And Chicago has the biggest....youknowwhat.....in his class! :carrot:

Sears Tower? But please tell me it isn't the Water Tower when it's in a more relaxed mood.

rofl

At any rate... anyone who says there's no pecking order in the Nation's (and the World's for that matter) urban heirarchy is just kidding themselves. And every city, save for NY, has its inferiority complex. Chicago aspires to be NY, Minneapolis aspires to be Chicago, Detroit aspires to be Minneapolis and Gary aspires to be Detroit.

Wanting everything that you don't have is human nature; given that cities are made of humans, it becomes, consequently, the nature of the urb.

yeah and that big shiney oval thing can be the unofficial testicle of Chicago.

rofl

Chicago aspires to be NY, Minneapolis aspires to be Chicago, Detroit aspires to be Minneapolis and Gary aspires to be Detroit.



You really think Detroit aspired to be Minneapolis?
If anything I see Detroit grouped with Chicago by rate of similarities.

What does Milwaukee aspire to be?
Because I think we're happy developing our own city :)

By the way chiphile that is an awesome analogy

What does Milwaukee aspire to be?


Anything but a suburb of Chicago :)

I dont think Milwaukee apsires to be anything but Milwaukee. Why should a city aspire to be like another city? Sometimes, like in the case of Milwaukee, they are already too damn cool as it is ;)

Milwaukee constatly apsires to be itself, 10 minutes from now.

chicago just has a long, LONG way to go before it can measure up to new york. we need to have ~5 million in city limits before it even gets close.

Sharptent, I'm still sticking to my original line here: it's great to read the opinions of others and it's great that we have different opinions than others.and i respect your opinion.

however, i do find that our outlook today for so many of us is truly based on size, height, density, more of this and the most of that. and I really think that such a paradigm serves us poorly.

to a degree, that influences my thinking, too. but as i said here originally, this board has given me an opportunity to look at ideas from so many people and the ability to use that to examine my own thoughts.

and one thought that has gone through my mind and one that i am soooooooooooooo comfortable with is this:

why do cities have to be competitive? why does it have to be good-better-best? why do we have a website that gives us the likes of "fresno vs. baton rouge: which one will knock the shit out of the other and rise to major status?" and you know what? i truly believe that it doesn't have to be.

and that there other ways to think.

so here are some statistics that work for me on the above:

METRO POPULATION
23. Paris 11,200,000
26. Chicago 9,750,000

CITY POPULATION
Chicago 2*862*400
Paris 2*107*700

Chicago is just there for relative purposes. The key here is Paris. PARIS. P-A-R-I-S. I can't imagine that anyone would put Paris anywhere but towards the top of the world's greatest cities. If ever there was a city that doesn't have to prove itself, it's Paris. And for all that the French are focused on the glory of France, I don't think anyone is looking at 2,106,707 or 11,200,000 and thinking, "gee, we sure don't measure up, do we? let's add another 15,000,000"

The beauty of it is that not only doesn't Paris have to look at its population, density, height, etc., to confirm its greatness; neither does New York.

now I don't know about others, but, even discounting Chicago, that win/win look at cities sure is comfortable for me and I'm grateful to Paris for the statistics that help confirm it in my mind.

rofl

At any rate... anyone who says there's no pecking order in the Nation's (and the World's for that matter) urban heirarchy is just kidding themselves. And every city, save for NY, has its inferiority complex. Chicago aspires to be NY, Minneapolis aspires to be Chicago, Detroit aspires to be Minneapolis and Gary aspires to be Detroit.

Wanting everything that you don't have is human nature; given that cities are made of humans, it becomes, consequently, the nature of the urb.

maybe, geoff, but we don't necessarily want the same thing.

to me, the best city to use to support my argument is not Chicago. It's San Francisco.

Look at SF. A mere .75 million, albeit a crowded, dense .75 million. San Francisco touts itself as "everybody's favorite city" (I'm not saying it is; that's pure chamber of commerce). SF is hugely popular, very expensive, and has real estate that goes through the roof. It doesn't, however, have a skyline that goes through the stratosphere. SF is where the term "manhattanization" of the skyline was coined. and SF fought like hell not to let it happen. as is, many San Franciscans are unhappy that the skyline reaches the height it does; today, there are so many restrictions on it that its growth is unbelievably controlled.

SF's topography, its architecture, its quirky personality, its tolerance, its sweeping vistas, its whites and pastels marching up its hills, and all that make it is evocative (fog, bay, wharf, chinatown, cable cars, alcatraz, lombard street, nob hill and on an on) make San Franciscans want San Francisco to be San Francisco.

Do they care that the city is California's fourth largest (and the Bay Area's second largest)? No. Does SF want to be NY? No. Does it want to be LA? It would rather have an earthquake and roll into the bay.

Geoff, I think we do more aspiring here on this board and out on the street, in SF, in Chgo, and elsewhere, a think a lot of folks like their towns the way they are.

yeah and that big shiney oval thing can be the unofficial testicle of Chicago.

will there be a second?

Chicago has no reason to be insecure in relation to other cities, although it can improve itself. Every city does that, to be honest. There are only four cities in the world that are a full tier above Chicago, a city that is in a tier with others right below the top, something the city can be proud of given its history, location, and everything else.

New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo, for all they're worth, are the only cities in the world that truly have no reason to feel envy toward other cities, and often don't.

And for that matter, although people in Tokyo tend to view New York as sort of the God of cities due to the Japanese and their still residual view of Western culture as "exotic," Tokyo both tangibly and intangibly does a LOT of things better than New York, and vice versa.

however, i do find that our outlook today for so many of us is truly based on size, height, density, more of this and the most of that. and I really think that such a paradigm serves us poorly.


it's no so much NYC's raw population or size that i envy, it's the way that the city functions. it's just so damn fucking urban man. when you compare them objectively, chicago just doesn't stack up. now the only reason i mentioned this in the first place is because it sounded to me like you were trying to make the argument that chicago is every bit as much of a big league slugger as NYC, and i just think that's entirely false. i too don't care all that much about city rankings or tiers or whatever, i live in chicago and its the greatest friggin place in the universe in my mind. BUT as cities, in terms of their urban functionality, chicago, along with every single other city in this great land known as america, pales in comparison to the mighty NYC. it just does, and i don't ever see that changing.

I think the reason Chicago always compares itself to NYC, while places like SF or Paris don't, is because of the type of city Chicago is.

Chicago is a city that thrives on superlatives, strives to be great, and has always depended on business & finance, innovation, and the spirit to create great things to strive. This is not to say that many other cities have not created great things, but that spirit has not been as much a part of their core as it is Chicago's.

However, there is one other city in the US that is like that--NYC. And because both NYC and Chicago are cities based on finance, superlatives, and the strive for greatness--there is inevitably going to be more of a heirarchy and sense of comparison between these two cities. More so than places like San Francisco, which pride themselves more as centers of culture, arts, etc--much more intangible things that are difficult to create heirarchies for.

This is not to say that Chicago isn't a major center for arts/culture, etc--but because Chicago is already in a mindset of comparison, I think a lot of Chicago's great arts/museums come from its competitive nature, ie "they have it, so why shouldn't we? Let's get something even better!" etc. Thus Chicago's great cultural/museum scene was a bit more forced and "purchased", if you will--whereas the same in SF and Paris came more naturally. Regarding NYC--I think there is a bit of both.

^Very good point.

Well, for my money, I'll always insist that Chicago wants to be NY, no matter what anyone else tells me. The two cities have always begged comparison. They grew up together and they're the only two places in America that truly do "urban." Do I love San Francisco more and more every time I go? Absolutely. Would I ever call it urban? Not unless I had a very high fever. You can't help but compare the two - we've always been called the Second City... of course, which is in reference to NYC. So, until we can shirk that nasty (not everyone thinks it's nasty, I suppose) little lexicon, we will ALWAYS strive to become New York.

As far as when I went on my little tangent about which cities aspire to be which... there was no thought put into the list. I was simply naming cities in a descending order of "success." I know damn well that Detroit does not aspire to be Minneapolis; first, it's got to aspire to be St. Louis and then we can talk. It was merely an example.

will there be a second?
i really hope so! Two big shiney nuts in one city.....i could just die with no regrets at the sight.

Well, for my money, I'll always insist that Chicago wants to be NY, no matter what anyone else tells me. The two cities have always begged comparison. They grew up together and they're the only two places in America that truly do "urban." Do I love San Francisco more and more every time I go? Absolutely. Would I ever call it urban? Not unless I had a very high fever. You can't help but compare the two - we've always been called the Second City... of course, which is in reference to NYC. So, until we can shirk that nasty (not everyone thinks it's nasty, I suppose) little lexicon, we will ALWAYS strive to become New York.

As far as when I went on my little tangent about which cities aspire to be which... there was no thought put into the list. I was simply naming cities in a descending order of "success." I know damn well that Detroit does not aspire to be Minneapolis; first, it's got to aspire to be St. Louis and then we can talk. It was merely an example.

I hear what you're saying, but you don't think your view is a bit extreme? Boston, Philly, San Francisco aren't truly urban? You lost me there. Interesting viewpoint nonetheless.

btw, Chicago did not grow up with New York. New York grew up 100 years earlier than Chicago. A number of cities blossomed during the 1800s.

^ jive, we all know that NYC is a significantly older city, but i think geoff might be alluding to the fact that NYC more or less picked chicago to be its midwest outpost, a relationship that was mutually beneficial to both cities, especially chicago. if you read the book Nature's Metropolis, the author goes into great depth explaining the nature of the NYC/chicago connection.

^So in other words, Chicago is NYC's outpost. Europeans built NYC (at least lower Manhattan), while New Yorkers (and midwesterners) built Chicago. Thus, Chicago was created as NYC's "child" and will always look to NYC for guidance, if you will.

LA is different. I honestly think LA came into existence "in spite of NYC"

In essence, NYC is the responsible big brother, LA is the happy-go-lucky baby brother, and Chicago is the ever-so-ignored middle child.

But come on, guys. Chicago has come a LONG, LONG, LONG way from being a midwestern outpost for New York business. It is a bustling metropolis teeming full of its own life, identity, and aspirations

it's no so much NYC's raw population or size that i envy, it's the way that the city functions. it's just so damn fucking urban man. when you compare them objectively, chicago just doesn't stack up. now the only reason i mentioned this in the first place is because it sounded to me like you were trying to make the argument that chicago is every bit as much of a big league slugger as NYC, and i just think that's entirely false. i too don't care all that much about city rankings or tiers or whatever, i live in chicago and its the greatest friggin place in the universe in my mind. BUT as cities, in terms of their urban functionality, chicago, along with every single other city in this great land known as america, pales in comparison to the mighty NYC. it just does, and i don't ever see that changing.

as far as "so damned urban", I would agree. NYC has a pace that is unmatched. And it works exceedingly well for it. I guess where you and I differ is that you seem to see a city's pace/size/crowding as an asset. I see them more as attributes in the sense that they can be could or bad (depending on how they pull it off) and that other cities don't come up wanting if they have less of those attributes.

There are those of us who consider that Chicago works better (and prefer it), in an urban framework, than New York because we have the ammenities and the pace is not quite so hyperkinetic.

A few things seem sure:
1. NYC's pace and density will increase
2. the world's cities' pace and density will increase
3. Asian cities are destined to be larger, more crowded, and faster paced than New York....and NY will be glad about that fact
4. and we are more likely to question these attributes as being asset as excessived growth affects our cities.

I think Chicago is America's prime urban success story, I really do. Yes, there is New York, which I feel stands alone in this nation. But Chicago has overcome the adversities that have brought other once-great cities down. Chicago is an old industrial town, yet it has emerged as a hotbed of new economic opportunities. It burned down to the ground only to be built bigger and better than it was before. It fell hard during the dark years of urban America but managed to pick up the pieces and regain a polished image in the minds of Americans. It has always been a city with great foresight-- looking ahead to the next opportunity to stay competitive. Chicago is truly a progressive city in every sense of the word. It is that can-do spirit that defines Chicago in my mind.

I agree with sharptent in that no city-- not Chicago not LA not San Francisco-- measures up to New York with regard to prominence and the ultimate experience of place, but Chicago has its own thing going on and should be proud of its accomplishments. In my personal opinion, it will always be the one and only Second City.

as far as "so damned urban", I would agree. NYC has a pace that is unmatched. And it works exceedingly well for it. I guess where you and I differ is that you seem to see a city's pace/size/crowding as an asset. I see them more as attributes in the sense that they can be could or bad (depending on how they pull it off) and that other cities don't come up wanting if they have less of those attributes.

well urban intensity may just be a valueless attribute to you, but its the kinetic electricity of the streets of manhattan that makes me feel like chicago is a lessor city when i come home from a NYC trip. not lessor as in it's a worse place to live, just lessor as in it falls short on the urban insanity meter compared to NYC. NYC shouts, chicago talks kinda loud.




There are those of us who consider that Chicago works better (and prefer it), in an urban framework, than New York because we have the ammenities and the pace is not quite so hyperkinetic.

i would actually prefer living in chicago over NYC as well, but not because i think chicago neccessarily works any better than NYC. i think the two towns work differently, not a better/worse situation, just different. i prefer chicago because its my home, not because its better or worse than NYC. my love for chicago has absolutely nothing to do with NYC or any other place for that matter, i've just got chicago in my blood. it's "my" city.

New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo, for all they're worth, are the only cities in the world that truly have no reason to feel envy toward other cities, and often don't.

^
Hong Kong could probably be added to that list as a fifth "untouchable" city.

^Perhaps, but I've been to Hong Kong and although it's awesome as hell, it's very limited due to its physical size even though it's a major international business destination. Hong Kong has more in common with Chicago than with those four, even though it's more intense from an urban standpoint due to its sheer population density over a small area. I'd put it as Asia's #2 city taking all things into consideration, though it doesn't hold a candle to Tokyo.

^In fact, no city in the world holds a candle to Tokyo when taking sheer urban kinetic energy into account over a LARGE area, not even New York. And that's just due to the fact that Japan is almost completely rail-transit oriented and the fact that Tokyo has 34 million people in an urbanized area slightly smaller than Chicagoland.

.......and the fact that Tokyo has 34 million people in an urbanized area slightly smaller than Chicagoland.

good lord, that's just pure, raw crazy. i've got to get myself to tokyo someday to see that place for myself.

^Roundtrip tickets from O'hare to Narita are as low as $850 during the fall or early spring. ;)

Ever seen Lost In Translation? Great movie. :)

^ yeah, i thought lost intranslation was a fantastic movie, and a fascinating glimpse into the world of tokyo- you're probably right, brad, there really is no place on earth on the same level as tokyo. what was that one train station that like 4 million people go through every single day? that's just utter craziness. i'd love to see it in person. or maybe i'd just be scared and over-whelmed. is it possible that tokyo is too much of a good thing?

^The station you're talking about is Shinjuku Station. The hotel that Bill Murray stayed at, the Park Hyatt Tokyo, is in the West Shinjuku skyscraper district which stretches from the west entrance of the station for about half a mile.

I know this thread is about Chicago, but here's some info on Tokyo.

Shinjuku Station is the biggest anchor-hub station on the western side of Tokyo's Yamanote Loop Line. It's a hub for something like 14 different commuter/subway lines and handles 4 million passengers on a typical weekday, making it the busiest in the world. The Yamanote Loop Line encircles most of central Tokyo in an area about the same size as Manhattan, and most of the line is elevated, so you basically see the whole central area while riding the thing, just like the el in Chicago. The loop is about 21 miles long I think, and a complete circle takes about 30-35 minutes. Most of Tokyo's major office and commercial areas are on this line surrounding the busy stations on it, and it's been that way for decades.

Other stations along this line are also quite notable. Ikebukuro, which is about 3 miles north of Shinjuku, handles about 1.8 million passengers a day and is the second busiest station in the world. Shibuya, about 3 miles south of Shinjuku handles another 1 million or so. That area is the big pop-culture teenager/20-something hangout in Tokyo. Most of Tokyo's western and northwestern commuter rail lines that go to the western suburbs, which are home to some 10 million people (which operate like subways here and handle good passenger loads all day) end or intersect at these three stations.

On the other side of the Yamanote Loop (the east side) you have Ueno, Akasaka, Tokyo, and Shinagawa stations. They all handle somewhere around 500,000 to a million a day, sort of like four Penn Stations on one line within 10 miles of each other. They do the same thing for the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southern "suburbs" of the city.

Typically, the rail lines have 3 levels of service: Local, Rapid, and Express Rapid... each one faster and stoping at less stations than the previous one. Trains are 12-cars long and run at frequencies of about 3 to 7 minutes during all hours of operation, from about 5AM to midnight. Why they don't run after midnight? That probably has to do with Yakuza gangsters controlling the taxi companies. They make a killing.

Here's a map, for your viewing pleasure.

http://photoimg.enjoyjapan.naver.com/view/47/43/enjoyjapan_12/41000/40967.jpg

[QUOTE=sharptentor maybe i'd just be scared and over-whelmed. is it possible that tokyo is too much of a good thing?[/QUOTE]

or new york?

Well, there are some things I like about New York more than Tokyo. New York is way more culturally diverse, Tokyo is pretty much Japanese... although it does have a worldly culture to it. New York is also far more centralized on Manhattan. No place in Tokyo is really as busy or as bustling as Midtown Manhattan, but most of Tokyo's most active areas aren't that far off.

That map is just plain rediculous! It'd take me years to figure that out!

Jive - sharptent interpreted my comment correctly (although, the timeline is less spread than you propose - NY started booming in the early 19th century, Chicago was near the mid-19th). Chicago grew because of New York. NYC financiers and businesses funded Chicago counterparts and deemed Chicago to be the western terminus of all the eastern-US railroads. If you wanted anything to get from the east coast to the west coast, you had to offload and store, overnight, all of your cargo in Chicago.

As far as my omission of Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco as truly urban environments: I would say that there are certainly parts of Boston and Philly that are urban, but, they lack the grit, chaos and pure density exemplified by Chicago; and whie SF is incredibly dense, I would never call it truly urban.

In summation, I am in full agreement that Chicago is probaby the most fore-thinking city in the US; but, that is not to say we do much without learning from NY's failures and successes.

Hmmm...geoff diamond-- some of the things you say are very sensible and credible, but other things you say are completely ludicrous. I don't see how anyone would not consider Boston and Philadelphia dense. Even if they aren't as densely-populated as Chicago, there are parts of both cities that surpass any Midwest city in structural density, including Chicago. The average residential neighborhoods of both Philadelphia and Boston appear to be more dense than the average Chicago neighborhoods, at least visually. Philly lacks grit? Have you been to Philly (outside of Center City)? :runaway:

San Francisco not truly urban? Can you please elaborate? Is it suburban? Rural? What makes a place urban as opposed to "truly urban?"

and whie SF is incredibly dense, I would never call it truly urban.


Geoff, you got me on this one. SF not urban? You have got to be kidding. Tell me what it could do to be MORE URBAN than it is? SF is incredibly urban, far more than just dense....it is a tightly packed, gridded (for most parts), walkable, ammenity filled, diverse, teaming (walk down Stockton in Chinatown), urbane, cultured city. Meanwhile, unlike any other city on the coast, it has a long, lusty history as a major city and, in many ways, has more in common with NY, Chgo, Bos than it does with LA, SD. How in the hell could it be mor urban than that?

Hmmm...geoff diamond-- some of the things you say are very sensible and credible, but other things you say are completely ludicrous. I don't see how anyone would not consider Boston and Philadelphia dense. Even if they aren't as densely-populated as Chicago, there are parts of both cities that surpass any Midwest city in structural density, including Chicago. The average residential neighborhoods of both Philadelphia and Boston appear to be more dense than the average Chicago neighborhoods, at least visually. Philly lacks grit? Have you been to Philly (outside of Center City)? :runaway:

San Francisco not truly urban? Can you please elaborate? Is it suburban? Rural? What makes a place urban as opposed to "truly urban?"

^Boston's density is roughly 12,000 people per sq mile. Chicago's is 12,500--so actually, Chicago is not any denser than Boston, and it is less dense than San Francisco

I agree with you on this one, Jive. I don't know what makes all of those cities less urban. They are all great urban places, in my book
(although Chicago is so much better than all of 'um)

"The average residential neighborhoods of both Philadelphia and Boston appear to be more dense than the average Chicago neighborhoods, at least visually. Philly lacks grit? Have you been to Philly (outside of Center City)? "

I agree with Jive. NY, Philly, and Boston, more so than any other cities, experienced immigration from Europe at a time when they were already major cities. The result was crowding, building up residentially, tennements along the line of 5-6 story walk ups.

Chicago was different. Chicago, far more so than its eastern brethen, was not only a city of immigrants, but a city built by immigrants. Chicago was a relatively small town at the on-set of the second half of the 19th century. Immigrants built the place. Unlike the eastern cities, Chicago's neighborhoods were quite often built by immigrants who were those neighborhoods' first citizens.

Chicago's compactness came from the Chicago River and the way it concentrated the land in the Loop. The city built up downtown because, for a long time, the river was not to be crossed for downtown development.

Chicago ended the 19th century in many ways like the east coast cities. When the post-CW era of initial immigration from eastern and southern Europe, massive US urbanization, social issues in cities, city beautiful movement, industrialization is examined, 4 cities emerge as the model: NY, Bos, Phil, Chgo. Chgo became linked with the 3 eastern cities during this era.

Yet Chicago never matched their density for reasons already mentioned. The result? Even by mid-20th century, Chicago was a facade of high rises along the lakefront and the Loop and relative low density (and lots of problems) behind it.

That, of course, has changed radically today. Density has gone up, but it is still nowhere near what you find in the Bowash cities. It is amazing how many areas not far from the Loop in an era of exceedingly high real estate prices can still be developed as 3 story town houses. It's shocking and a virtual imposibility anywhere in Manhattan.

"The average residential neighborhoods of both Philadelphia and Boston appear to be more dense than the average Chicago neighborhoods, at least visually. Philly lacks grit? Have you been to Philly (outside of Center City)? "

I agree with Jive. NY, Philly, and Boston, more so than any other cities, experienced immigration from Europe at a time when they were already major cities. The result was crowding, building up residentially, tennements along the line of 5-6 story walk ups.

Chicago was different. Chicago, far more so than its eastern brethen, was not only a city of immigrants, but a city built by immigrants. Chicago was a relatively small town at the on-set of the second half of the 19th century. Immigrants built the place. Unlike the eastern cities, Chicago's neighborhoods were quite often built by immigrants who were those neighborhoods' first citizens.

Chicago's compactness came from the Chicago River and the way it concentrated the land in the Loop. The city built up downtown because, for a long time, the river was not to be crossed for downtown development.

Chicago ended the 19th century in many ways like the east coast cities. When the post-CW era of initial immigration from eastern and southern Europe, massive US urbanization, social issues in cities, city beautiful movement, industrialization is examined, 4 cities emerge as the model: NY, Bos, Phil, Chgo. Chgo became linked with the 3 eastern cities during this era.

Yet Chicago never matched their density for reasons already mentioned. The result? Even by mid-20th century, Chicago was a facade of high rises along the lakefront and the Loop and relative low density (and lots of problems) behind it.

That, of course, has changed radically today. Density has gone up, but it is still nowhere near what you find in the Bowash cities. It is amazing how many areas not far from the Loop in an era of exceedingly high real estate prices can still be developed as 3 story town houses. It's shocking and a virtual imposibility anywhere in Manhattan.

^Interesting but wrong :)

If you take density as people per sq mile, Chicago has more than Philly or DC, and is equal to Boston. Only NYC is more dense

^Not structural density though. Philly and Boston appear to be much more crowded together than Chicago.

^Not structural density though. Philly and Boston appear to be much more crowded together than Chicago.

^Well I guess they must have a lot of empty buildings, then

Come on, you can't really disagree with that, Urban Politician. You have eyes don't you? And it does not necessarily that they have a lot of vacant buildings. Let's not play semantics. They look older and more crowded-- structurally. Period. Don't be offended, it's just a fact.

^I'm not offended at all. Actually, I agree that Boston and Philly are structurally denser. But the numbers can't be ignored, either. I think a lot of those structures have become hollowed out, that's all..

The one thing I wish Chicago would take home from the east coast is street vendors. Street vendors downtown would truly enhance pedestrian life. Damn!

Just because a city's population or density has declined does not necessarily mean that it has "hollowed out." Reduction of family and cohabitation size is probably the greatest factor in urban population decline. A building that once housed 3 or 4 families may now only house one. That affects the numbers drastically.

If you take density as people per sq mile, Chicago has more than Philly or DC, and is equal to Boston. Only NYC is more dense

Depends on how you measure "density." When density is measured for the whole metro area, including suburbs, the top five densest metros include Providence, Milwaukee and Honolulu. Makes sense, cuz these metros have a compact little core surrounded by relatively little sprawl. Half of metro Milwaukee's 1.5 million folks live in the city proper. Compare this to Mpls/St. Paul, where only about 500,000 of the region's 3 million people live in the city propers.

As for the topic hand concerning Chicago's comparing itself to NY, this is a product of how midwestern cities grew up generally -- in competition with each other. Pick up the book "Cities of the Heartland" (can't remember the author). It's a history of the industrial cities of the Midwest and how they all started mostly at the same time in the nation's history as small outposts, and grew in competition with each other, striving to become the "greatest city in the world" literally. Most of this was tied up with the aspirations and dreams of wealth of some real estate guys. At mid 19th century each was convinced that their city would not only be the greatest in the Midwest, but the greatest in the world. This focus on starting a city from scratch with the intention of making it "great" was pretty much absent in East Coast cities' early development.

Anywho, Chicago "won" the race for becoming greatest in the Midwest, but "lost" in trying to become Greatest City on the Face of the Planet. This sense of having won, but not won "enough" is a big part of the Chicago psyche.

And, once the railroads arrived and made Chicago the hub of the heartland, Milwaukee pretty much said "the hell with competing, let's drink beer." I'm actually drinking my fourth beer right now (saturday 10AM) Ahhhhhh, life is grand.

Okay, you have to forgive me. I am guilty of ignoring places outside of downtown (as I always do). My statements refer, strictly, to downtowns and the areas that immediately surround them.

First, San Francisco:
http://www.uh.edu/~doan2580/san%20francisco.jpg

I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again. I LOVE San Francisco; so, don't take any of this a knock (I'm not sure how you could). Yes... they're are parts of SF that are just rediculously packed and yes, they've got the best Chinatown I've ever experienced... but, there's just no grit or grime. Look at the picture! Does that look urban to you? It doesn't to me. It's too light, too pretty, too nice. I don't know how to explain it empirically - it's just a subjective observation and feeling.

Now, for Philly and Boston - how can anyone say that their cores are more structurually dense than Chicago's? Again, I thoroughlly enjoy both of these cities, but, I've just never had the same feeling in either of them that I get from NY or Chicago. Maybe, for me, "urban" is more an expression of size than anything else. When I stand in the middle of a city's CBD and can easily see, from my vantage, where that CBD ends... something doesn't feel right.

At any rate... I don't know how to explain any of this to anyone... they're just personal feelings of mine, so, perhaps it's best if I don't even bother trying :) That is, at the risk of losing any respect I may have earned on this forum :)

^I see your point, GD, but actually, Philadelphia's center city is huge! It's bigger (in gross area) than downtown Chicago, and it's safe to say that when you're there, you don't feel like you can see where it ends either.

However, Chicago's central area still kicks its ass massively (and with current trends, is soon to have more people, too)

geoff diamond, I take it you haven't been to Boston or Philly. If you have, you would see the extreme density in these cities (yes, downtown). Chicago is a city of grand boulevards, the downtowns of Philly and Boston are comprised primarily of very narrow streets. Chicago doesn't have too many streets like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/pacino_84/Center%20City%20Nov%2004/CenterCity011.jpg

They are a dime a dozen in Philly and Boston.

hey, geoff, i can disagree with you without losing respect for what you post.

in my scheme of things, downtown SF is incredibly dense. Walk down Montgomery Street, in the heart of the financial district, and you will get a lot of the feel of LaSalle Street. SF, BTW, transitions from downtown to neighborhood better than just about any US city. The transition is almost seemless. SF density has always meant areas to the west of downtown would be also have their own degree of crowdedness. And SF is one of the few walkable cities (in other words, not the LA's of the world) where getting out into the neighborhoods (Lombard Street, Palace of Fine Arts, GG Park, Twin Peaks, the Haight, Cliff House, Union Street/Cow Hollow, the victornians, Mission Dolores, the Wharf, Fort Point, Presidio, etc.) is as much of a joy as being in the city's core. That's pretty damned unusual...and lots of wonderful highly urban neighborhoods out there.

And I in no way think you'll disagree, Geoff...as I said, your opinions are not only as good as any others, but you've always offered a lot of good things to think about here.

I think I get what he's saying about San Francisco lacking grit. I am a grit-lover too, but I don't think it's necessary to have an abundance of grit in order to consider a place urban. Perhaps "hard" would be a better word to use in your description, geoff. But San Francisco is very urban in every sense of the word.

btw, if you go to the Castro in SF, you will see no shortage of grit. San Fran has one of the most notorious Skid Rows on the planet. There are a lot of down and out people in that city.

Allow me to preface what I am about to type as my opinion, and my experience.

First let me begin by saying what a great thread this has been. I have been too busy this week to take the time to read the whole thing until today. Wow!

As for density, Chicago is #3 behind NYC and SF. While San Francisco may lack the massiveness of Chicago or NYC, it is very dense, and very urban in it's own unique way.

It is refreshing to find find that as a whole we all agree that Chicago doesn't hold a candle to NY in regards to it's greatness overall.

I love Chicago, but when I spend time in Manhattan, there is an electricity in the air of almost the entire island that makes me feel alive in a way I have felt nowhere else. When I come home to my place in the Loop, I think about how amazing it would be if we had even half that electricity here.

For me Chicago is about reality and compromise, in that if money were no object, I would live in Manhattan in an instant. But, I chose to live here because I have a standard of living I could never achieve in Manhattan. I am able to live here and have much of what I would have in NYC, without several of what can be overwhelming challenges of living in what I would consider the center of the universe.

I am able to own my home here. I don't have to struggle to exist in a housing market where ownership is nearly impossible to any one that isn't in the top 10% of income earners in the country. NY is a city where to have 600 square feet of space is considered a trophy place. I am able to shop in stores that are larger than a 7-Eleven for my groceries. While we think the "L" gets crowded here, it is nothing compared to dealing with the subways in NY. The list goes on and on. From the simple things we take for granted, like getting a real christmas tree into your home, shopping at Target, the fact that, although I don't have one, it is actually possible to own a car in Chicago, whereas in NY, it is a luxury that many of the rich cannot even justify. (not that I advocate we should all own cars.)

While living in Manhattan has it's rewards, the day to day stress of living in and amongst all of that electricity can take it's toll on you. My best friend lives in NY and he will be the first to tell you it is a hard life, one with many compromises, and challenges. For him, it is worth it, but for me at this time in my life, I am not willing to deal with it. I am not willing to give up my standard of living that I have worked so hard to achieve in Chicago, only to spend $1400 a month on a 300 sq ft studio apartment that hasn't been updated in 40 years.

Do I wish that Chicago was more like New York, sure I do, but along with that would come many things that would make Chicago as challenging a place to live as New York.

I view Chicago as New York Lite... Much of the flavor, without the calories.

I like Chicago the way it is, and I am proud to live here. From my early childhood growing up in the suburbs of Central California, I dreamed of living in a loft in the heart of a huge urban city. I also thought that city was New York. I consider myself quite fortuanate to have achieved that dream, while not quite on the scale I had imagined, none the less, an achievement in it's own right. (I am not trying to boast here, just making the point that Chicago is a more realistic dream for most of us.) As the years have gone by, that dream is still there, but the reality of NY, is that it has become a city for the very wealthy, and my reality is that I am not. So for now I am here.

Looking back, I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that I would be living in Chicago. I thrive living in urban chaos and mayhem. Here in Chicago I have found enough of the daily chaos, and urbanity to satisfy most of my daily urban needs. I am fortunate that I can fly to NY a few times a year, have a place to stay for free, and get my injection of hardcore urbanity shot directly into my arm. I can then come home, and use that fix until I am able to make a visit again for my next fix. During those in between times, I use the mega dose I get in Manhattan, along with the daily fix I get here to keep me going.

Chicago my not be quite what I dreamed of as a child, it is for me, second only to NY, and I cannot imagine living in any other place in the US.

Just my thoughts...

I have heard that Manhattan grocery stores are small. I don't give a damn how many its has, that isn't a good thing. In Streeterville, I can walk to 8 or so good sized grocery stores. 2 Treasure Island, 2 Jewel, Bockwinkels,
Whole Foods, Potash Brothers, Dominics, etc. There are more coming to this area as well.
I am not counting smaller markets, probably more than a dozen in a half mile radius. There are 4 movie complexes in walking distance including the huge River East. Tons of department stores, big box stores (Sports Authority has 9 levels), bars, restaurants, etc.
Streeterville/Cathedral District/Gold Coast/North Bridge has every damn thing you can think of. I can't see myself living anywhere else no matter how much I make in the future. This area can go toe to toe with anywhere else in the U.S for urban living, maybe even the world. This area will only become more upscale, more dense, and offer more services to residents and tourists.
But it has one HUGE advantage over SF or Manhattan. The LAKEFRONT. Sorry, but I could care less about the Hudson or East River. No comparsion.

there are parts of both cities that surpass any Midwest city in structural density, including Chicago. The average residential neighborhoods of both Philadelphia and Boston appear to be more dense than the average Chicago neighborhoods, at least visually

I used to live in Boston, while Boston may have a dense urban core it is a small city and the density tapers off real fast. The Fenway is Boston densest neighborhood, abuts downtown and is 30,000 people a square mile but it is only one square mile, thats it. Philly and Boston have nothing on the size, density - structural or population, and scale of Chicago's northside meoghborhoods. Chicago's northside is around one million people at 22,000 to 24,000 people a square mile - that is twice the size of the whole city of Boston and aproaches the size of the whole city of Philly.

What is being built in Chicago and its downtown is unprecented - 6000 condos a year on average and an average of 6000 condos a year being sold. No other city in America, save NYC, comes anywhere remotely close. In the past 15 years 80,000 condos, most within the past feew years, have been built in Chicago and the vast majority of them have been in downtown Chicago and its close in neighborhoods or instead you could say in the past 6 years 70,000 condos have been built. In the past several years 33 300 foot or higher buildings have been built, 11 are under construction and another 33 are proposed. Shall we add up Philly and Boston's numbers or lets combine what has been built in all American cities downtowna put them together and then compare to only Chicago. That is one hell of a new built up environment for Chicago let alone what was there before.


Boston, Philly have nothing on this and to say otherwise is dreaming. The neighborhoods in the right third of the picture without any of the highrises are around 30,000 people a square mile, this picture is only halfway up the northside and continues a 30,000 people a square mile all the way up to the city border. This type of structural and population density continue all the way up to Evanston the city's northern border. Structural density, population density whatever - name another American city than can do this below - they can't and not even close, to say otherwise is ignoring a fact:
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2251

THE HOUSE HUNTER
Massive project aims to become vertical village

Sharon Stangenes
Published December 18, 2004

Daniel Burnham's admonition to "make no little plans" has stirred the souls of developers for a hundred years and has been most evident recently in sprawling subdivisions on the outskirts of the metropolitan area.

Now a massive new urban development is beginning to take shape at the junction of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan.

Lakeshore East, a $2.5 billion project planned for 4,950 residents, 2.1 million square feet of commercial space, a 400-student public school, 2,200 hotel rooms and up to 770,000 square feet of retail space, is rising on the former site of a slightly scruffy urban golf course.

The complex, approved by the city in 2001, is a joint venture of Magellan Development Group Ltd. and NNP Residential & Development with a targeted completion date of 2012 to 2014.

According to the developer's press materials, the project "is believed to be the largest parcel of downtown land under development in a major city." The complex is touted as a "village in the heart of downtown Chicago." But unlike many of it suburban counterparts, this village will be mostly vertical and cover just 28 acres.......



Look at Central Station which is larger than Lakeshore East from the above article, River East, Riverside, the old Montgomery Wards complex, etc.

How many Chicago forumers hang out and dispute and troll St. Louis threads when the boosterism of St. Louis gets to be too high - none. It is one thing to have someone from NYC or LA troll the Chicago forums for years on end but someone from St. Louis trolling the Chicago forums, been like that since I joined and a google search proves this goes on for well before I joined, seems so incredibly silly - you are from St. Louis. Lets get back down to earth!

^You call me a troll, yet you don't even read my comments. I've had some great exchanges with other Chicago forumers, both on the public forum and via PM. You can kiss my ass, half the time I'm not even talking to you but you feel so threatened by little old me that you have to spend your time searching for each and every thing I've ever said to support your arguments.

btw, I don't know why you are even bringing my city up in this discussion. Does it make you feel important?


you are from St. Louis.
Yes, thank you, I am.


Structural density, population density whatever - name another American city than can do this below:
At least one comes to mind, but you might get offended again. And you completely missed my point. I said nothing specifically against Chicago, I was defending some other cities that were deemed "unurban" by another delusional Chicago forumer.

Philadelphia actually could structurally parry with Chicago, its just its area is a lot more decayed and less full of residents. Its area of urbanity continues way beyond 100 square miles, which is similar to when Chicago becomes the bungalow belt. You can't really say which one is more dense. Where Chicago lacks in narrow streets, it makes up for it in density of the numerous apartment buildings. Philadelphia's buildings rarely extend 2 stories, whereas Chicago's are usually 3-4 stories.

No threatened at all. Just tired of reading your inaccurate posts about Chicago. Go talk about another city for the next few years please. PLEASE!

Condo boom will continue in '05


What will the 2005 real estate market look like in Chicago?


While the Gold Coast remains the biggest market in the booming downtown area, "new" neighborhoods such as the West Loop, South Loop, Loop, River North and New East Side will continue to receive a growing amount of attention, according to Gail Lissner, of Appraisal Research Counselors.


Lissner spoke at the Chicago Association of Realtors' annual economic forecast meeting.


The downtown market has continued to boom, with 80,000 units developed in the city center during the last 15 years, but rentals account for only 18 percent of that, according to Lissner. Look for more concessions and lower rents in this softer segment of the market during 2005, Lissner says.


Condo sales, however, bounced back in 2004, and developers will be scrambling to complete the units they've sold in the coming years.


The city center being the neighborhoods in downtown and the abutting neighborhoods which I would imagine encompasses an area that would include as far away as Lakeview. Of that 80,000 about 70,000 have been in the last several years. Please compare apples to apples is my point.

You're probably right qwerty. I guess I do hang around the Chicago forums a bit too much for my own good. I guess since it's the capital of the Midwest it's natural for me to gravitate over here to see what's going on. I won't be bugging you guys anymore. I don't know why this thread was even started, it appears that most of you are very secure.

btw, I've been very silly and I recant all my nonsensical arguments. Of course San Francisco, Boston and Philadelphia are not truly urban. What was I thinking?!


It is one thing to have someone from NYC or LA troll the Chicago forums for years on end but someone from St. Louis trolling the Chicago forums...seems so incredibly silly.
You don't have to worry about that anymore, qwerty. I will stay away from now on. I'm sorry you interpreted my participation in these threads to seem like trolling. For the record: You are better than I am because you live in a bigger city. Seriously. Don't ever let anyone accuse you of being superficial, you are from Chicago-- only people from New York and LA are worthy of stating their opinions to you.

Goodnight Chicago.

^
The Chicago forum just wouldn't be the same without you.

I think I get what he's saying about San Francisco lacking grit. I am a grit-lover too, but I don't think it's necessary to have an abundance of grit in order to consider a place urban. Perhaps "hard" would be a better word to use in your description, geoff. But San Francisco is very urban in every sense of the word.

btw, if you go to the Castro in SF, you will see no shortage of grit. San Fran has one of the most notorious Skid Rows on the planet. There are a lot of down and out people in that city.

and here we disagree. An early morning walk from Union Square to Market Street is an edgier and grittier experience than a similiar walk up State Street heading over to Grant Park and Michigan Avenue.

I find downtown Chicago far more santitized than downtown SF (not saying that's a plus)...and i find that SF has lost a little of its ability to stay above the urban fray of problems. That's how it used to be; not how it is.

Intheloop,

I find New York's round the clock excitement a great thing, but it probably means a lot less to me than it does to you. I still look at Chicago as being Chicago and not New York Lite.

I will say this though: the amount of residential construction in the greater downtown area is extraordinary, over the top. I don't think any of us have a real sense of how this will all play out, but I suspect that Chicago will aquire some of that energy you describe in NYC.

The rate of growth here is unbelievable and it is just impossible to get a handle on where it is all going. I took my wife and daughter out today. We drove to Chinatown for lunch, which is evolving into a whole different kind of community than it once was (did you folks see all the townhouse developments going up in the area). After lunch, we drove up State St. Even though I've driven it many other times, it gets disoreinting....all the new buildings; big structures starting far south of Congress and much closer to Cermak. State Street was wall-to-wall people,lined up late in the afternoon to see the windows at Field's. Stopped at Due's to pick up a pizza...had to circle around a number of times, because wall-to-wall traffic didn't allow pulling over.

The point is....this place is jumping...and we have no idea what will happen to its energy level in ten years. Look out, NYC

^Edsg, you just refuted your own point.

As long as people like you feel compelled to "drive" to Chinatown and "drive" up State Street, Chicago will lack a key feature of NYC's energy.

In Manhattan, nobody even thinks about driving to Chinatown or driving to Fifth Avenue. You walk. You take the subway.

Sure, millions of Chicagoans use transit as well--but it's still not the same.

Edsg, get out of that damn car! :)

You're probably right qwerty. I guess I do hang around the Chicago forums a bit too much for my own good. I guess since it's the capital of the Midwest it's natural for me to gravitate over here to see what's going on. I won't be bugging you guys anymore. I don't know why this thread was even started, it appears that most of you are very secure.

^What?

You are always welcome on these forums. And yes, I agree with your arguments about density and urbanism on the east coast. I thought we were having a friendly discussion.

And no, you weren't trolling. I hate the word "trolling". It's stupid. This is a forum for everybody, and we can post on whatever thread we want. Since when did that not become the case? Shit, I live in DC and I"m posting in the Chicago forum all the time--does that make me a troll?

Intheloop,

I find New York's round the clock excitement a great thing, but it probably means a lot less to me than it does to you. I still look at Chicago as being Chicago and not New York Lite.

I will say this though: the amount of residential construction in the greater downtown area is extraordinary, over the top. I don't think any of us have a real sense of how this will all play out, but I suspect that Chicago will aquire some of that energy you describe in NYC.

The rate of growth here is unbelievable and it is just impossible to get a handle on where it is all going. I took my wife and daughter out today. We drove to Chinatown for lunch, which is evolving into a whole different kind of community than it once was (did you folks see all the townhouse developments going up in the area). After lunch, we drove up State St. Even though I've driven it many other times, it gets disoreinting....all the new buildings; big structures starting far south of Congress and much closer to Cermak. State Street was wall-to-wall people,lined up late in the afternoon to see the windows at Field's. Stopped at Due's to pick up a pizza...had to circle around a number of times, because wall-to-wall traffic didn't allow pulling over.

The point is....this place is jumping...and we have no idea what will happen to its energy level in ten years. Look out, NYC

Edsg, I have no issues with your point of Chicago being Chicago. Yes, I do wish we had more of the energy in the air than we do. I feel greatful that I have been able to get my foot in the door with regards to the increase if residential in the Loop. Especially along the State/Wabash coridor, which seems to be turning into a whole new neighborhood with regards to residential. Hmmm What will we call it? East Loop? StateBash? WaState?

I also want to point out what TUP brought up. I have to say that I agree with him. It's too bad you had to do all that driving. I think the only way to truly experience a city is to get out and walk the streets, or take transit. Leave the car at home, gather the family, take the train in, and enjoy the city the way it was meant to be enjoyed. In person, not inside a car.
There are lots and lots of families coming into the city on Metra during the weekend to take advantage of the holiday shopping in the city, and they don't have to deal with the hassle of parking.
Even at this moment (11:40 PM), as I sit here typing this out, a couple of hours after the stores have closed up for the night, I look out and see several families on the sidewalk in front of Fields checking out the windows. That is one of the joys I have experienced living here, seeing families carry on traditions of getting together, traveling to the Loop, and visiting Fields. Certainly an experience few cities can offer to this degree.

"Yes, I do wish we had more of the energy in the air than we do."

Where do you feel that energy? Honestly, I've been to New York and I've been awed, but I've never felt any magic there that I haven't gotten in other urban environments, including Chicago.

I think we create our own energy in places like that. There are little girls (and a couple guys I know) who would faint of joy in Paris, or shed tears on the Golden Gate Bridge--but only because they have built those places up in their minds as magical things. Same goes for New York. After growing up in Chicago, I've spent the last two years in Evanston. The people here talk in awed voices about New York and how amazing it would be to go there, and yet never set foot south of Howard Avenue. Are they really looking for a raucous urban experience? No. If they were, they would find it in the metropolis directly south of them. They dream of New York because it is *New York*, the thing they see in movies and all that, not because of what is physically there.

^ And, that being said, many more people have that magical feeling about New York than Chicago. I give you that. But that, I don't really care about. People can make magic what they want.

Although I will say that it pisses me off when people here talk about how amazing East Coast cities would be and then ask me why the hell I spend my time in Chicago.

Phew...judging from the title I thought this was a thread by a paranoid American...with respect to terrorism of course.

Chicagoans...the only thing I think you should be 'insecure' about is your professional sports teams' woes and deterioration of some of the neighborhoods I've seen. Other than that...it's the best in the midwest.

^ And, that being said, many more people have that magical feeling about New York than Chicago. I give you that. But that, I don't really care about. People can make magic what they want.

Although I will say that it pisses me off when people here talk about how amazing East Coast cities would be and then ask me why the hell I spend my time in Chicago.

^I don't know, Oshkeoto. Perhaps thats how ass-face suburbanites see things, but their opinions are going to be stupid anywhere you go (except for some of the awesome suburban Chicagoans we have on this forum :) )

Regarding New York--sure people even in Chicagoland may be fascinated by New York, but I think it's more because, as you said, it's New York, not because they want a great urban lifestyle. Because if they did, they would have moved into Chicago long ago. Besides, many suburbanites are moving into Chicago so there definitely is a need that is being fueled by the "Chicago experience"

But regarding the people you're meeting--I highly disagree. During the short time I was in Chicago, most people loved being there and thrived in its urbanism. The roar of the 'L, the droves of people downtown during the day, the excitement of Michigan Avenue, the cars, lights, architecture, taxi cabs, etc is something you are very concious of when you're in Chicago, and Chicago is one of those few cities that say "HEY! You're in Chicago" when you're there.

In other words, I never met anyone who said "why are you in Chicago?" It was assumed that most people wanted to be there. The only few exceptions were some of the people from California who missed home or didn't like the weather, and one guy from New York who had just moved to Chicago and missed NYC--but even in his case, I think he never got to see Chicago because of such busy work hours that all he did was go home and go back to work every day.

delete

^ It's funny how you say that, as living in the east coast whenever I talk about Chicago I get interesting comments.

1) First of all, about 50% of the people I talk to think Chicago is absolutely incredible and have been there before

2) 2 New Yorkers I've met (both in NYC and DC) said Chicago is too "midwestern" although they couldn't define what they were trying to say, and thus left it at that

3) Many DC people think the world revolves around NYC. I can't get a fuckin Chicago magazine here except at Barnes & Noble. Not only that, but various bookstores have calenders of NYC, San Francisco, and even the pathetic LA skyline but won't have Chicago's--ranked the world's 3rd best skyline

4) I knew a hot Persian girl who wanted to eventually live in either NYC or LA. She said she "wanted to be in a great city". I asked whether she has considered Chicago she said "yeah, I also heard that is an awesome city. Hmm.. but I don't know much about it"

5) I have a coworker friend who is from the east coast, lived in Chicago, and now is back here in DC. He says he loves Chicago and wants to go back

6) But the #1 comment I always hear. Why don't you consider moving to Chicago? "It's too cold!"

6) But the #1 comment I always hear. Why don't you consider moving to Chicago? "It's too cold!"

And this morning, they'd be right.... brrr.

After growing up in Chicago, I've spent the last two years in Evanston. The people here talk in awed voices about New York and how amazing it would be to go there, and yet never set foot south of Howard Avenue. Are they really looking for a raucous urban experience?

You got me on this one, oshkeoto: totally confused.

What do you think is fueling the 30 storey condo boom in downtown Evanston, the condos and town houses that are now lining Chicago Ave from downtown to Howard Street?

I'd say that much of the credit goes to:

CTA
Metra
and a short drive down Sheridan Road and the Drive

Evanston's boom (as is Skokie's and Oak Park's and a whole bunch of close in places) is due to Chicago. Proximity. People are choosing Evanston because it is actually cheaper than Chicago for urban living...but offers the city at a stone's throw away.

And most people I know...in Evanston and thoughout the North Shore, in Chicago, in the NW burbs, absolutely love the city. I also know very few of them who compare it to New York on any level. They are far more Chicagocentric...and, quite frankly, think our city is the best of all cities.

Consider the massive plans for the west side Manhattan waterfront (Jets stadium, Javitis Center expansion), the removal of elevated sections of the FDR Drive on the East River, continued development around South Street Seaport. Consider the Chicago lakefront.

Do you feel that with Manhattan's desire to rework the waterfront, New York can parlay this into no longer being "Chicago Lite" and fulfill its most fervant dream of actually becoming Chicago? Not tomorrow, of course, but say in 60 or 70 years? Or is this totally unrealistic and not likely to happen in our lifetime? And am I dilussional to think that such a challenge could even be met?

"And most people I know...in Evanston and thoughout the North Shore, in Chicago, in the NW burbs, absolutely love the city. I also know very few of them who compare it to New York on any level. They are far more Chicagocentric...and, quite frankly, think our city is the best of all cities."

Your experience has been different than mine. There are certainly plenty of people here who do spend their time in the city, but they are a distinct minority. Most people here think of Chicago as the Magnificent Mile surrounded by neighborhoods you probably shouldn't be in past dark with nothing to do when it's light.

"There's nothing in Chicago that there isn't in Evanston," is how one person put it to me.

^ I've also had more than one person explain to me that New York and Los Angeles were the only two "really important" cities in the U.S.

Man, I don't like the suburbs.

^ I've also had more than one person explain to me that New York and Los Angeles were the only two "really important" cities in the U.S.

Man, I don't like the suburbs.

Those same ignorant suburbanites don't know jack shit about LA either.

Man, Oshkeoto, I'm surprised that you have experienced this. I will believe you, since you have lived there longer and have known more suburbanites than I have. Most of the people I knew lived in Chicago, thus the stereotype didn't apply.

However, the one thing that refutes your point is the simple fact that a large number of buyers of condos/homes/townhomes all over the city (not just downtown) are suburban empty nesters and singles. So what you're saying doesn't seem to equate. Not only that, but whenever I went to clubs in Chicago, I would always meet a lot of suburbanites who came into the city to party/dine/see a show, etc (I always found them annoying, BTW).

I agree that Chicago's relationship to its suburbs is shaky. But please! Those people you've been talking to don't know shit--take it from someone who has lived in and visited other places--Chicago easily has the entire east coast beat (other than NYC)--Washington DC is beautiful but is pure shit compared to Chicago. LA? Gets more attention, but Chicago is a much grander and greater city--even if a smaller metro

delete

"And most people I know...in Evanston and thoughout the North Shore, in Chicago, in the NW burbs, absolutely love the city. I also know very few of them who compare it to New York on any level. They are far more Chicagocentric...and, quite frankly, think our city is the best of all cities."

Your experience has been different than mine. There are certainly plenty of people here who do spend their time in the city, but they are a distinct minority. Most people here think of Chicago as the Magnificent Mile surrounded by neighborhoods you probably shouldn't be in past dark with nothing to do when it's light.

"There's nothing in Chicago that there isn't in Evanston," is how one person put it to me.

Pick up a copy of North Shore magazine. Virtually every issue celebrates the city and embraces it into a union with the North Shore.

I'm not doubting your experiences, but my life puts me around folks from Evanston, Skokie, Glenview, Northbrook, Wilmette, Winnetka, Highld Pk, etc., and frankly I know few who think Chgo is all about the Mag Mile. You may be in touch with different folks than I am, but what you have described as for suburban attitudes on the city is a far cry from mine.

In fact, the most critical thing I hear people out this way say about Chicago (believe it or not) is "it's too damned expensive"

I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else is in the north burbs and what their experiences on this chi-suburban relationship is like.

aion,

you talk of the south suburbs being a dumping ground for lower income blacks squeezed out of Chicago. the flip side of that is the tremendous number of African American middle class families that fled to places like Hazelcrest, CCH, Matteson, Park Forest, long before Chicago had gentrified.

South suburbia, sadly, has had a sorry record on integrated housing and neighborhoods going from white to black. But it aslo has an incredibly strong middle class black community which is faring much better in a society that has taken too damned long to reach towards equality.

BTW, you talk about south suburbia dealing with issues of race that other parts of suburbia do not; yet places like Evanston and Oak Pk have grappled with racial issues for years.

I'm thinking you must have misunderstood me so I apologize if my post was not clear on its intent. I'm well aware of the history of the south burbs as my family's history goes back there to the 1960's when my mom and dad moved here from the east coast. So I know that before the gentrification of Chicago these areas had a large middle class African American population, as these were for the most part the people I grew up with as child who lived in the following burbs: Park Forest, University Park, and Chicago Heights. I'm also well aware of Evanston and Oak Park. I lived in Evanston for six months and I know exactly what sort of place it is, I actually rather like it and know that it is not all the Northwestern Campus. When I made my little (and probably uncalled for) quip about the north shore, I was mostly thinking of places like Winnetka and Barrington. The main point of my post was not necessarily to go into the racial history of Chicago's suburbs (although that is an interesting an rather depressing topic) but to simply make a comment that the notion of 'suburb' is quite different depending on the suburb so to make a blanket statement about suburbanites might be a bit much.

"However, the one thing that refutes your point is the simple fact that a large number of buyers of condos/homes/townhomes all over the city (not just downtown) are suburban empty nesters and singles. So what you're saying doesn't seem to equate. Not only that, but whenever I went to clubs in Chicago, I would always meet a lot of suburbanites who came into the city to party/dine/see a show, etc (I always found them annoying, BTW). "

No, there are plenty of suburbanites who would like to move to the city--although a lot of them, I'm guessing, grew up there. And I would also guess that most suburbanites who move to a condo tower in the Gold Coast don't often leave the Gold Coast, except to visit their friends back in the suburbs.

And yeah, sure, people here will spend an evening at a club or on North Michigan Avenue--but that's it. They would never spend a Saturday afternoon in Rogers Park, or eat lunch with their friends in Uptown.

It is truly surprising how insulated these people are--and this is *Evanston*. It's supposed to be the good guy.

One more anecdote:

I went with my Spanish class to see a play in Pilsen. Afterwards, I went with two girls to eat at a taquería. They seemed excited and were looking around wide-eyed--I said something like, "Have you never been to a taquería before?" And they said, "Well, jeez, we don't live in Pilsen, okay?"

And I tried to explain to them that taquerías existed outside Pilsen, but I don't think they ever completely believed me.

"You may be in touch with different folks than I am, but what you have described as for suburban attitudes on the city is a far cry from mine."

Well, I'm glad to hear it. I wonder what accounts for the difference.

"yet places like Evanston and Oak Pk have grappled with racial issues for years."

I read today that 90% of white students at Evanston Township High School meet or exceed state testing standards. Seventy percent of black students there don't.

That's so ridiculous I don't know who to slap, the black kid who doesn't want to be in an Honors class because he thinks it's "white" or the counselors and teachers who let him.

And I would also guess that most suburbanites who move to a condo tower in the Gold Coast don't often leave the Gold Coast, except to visit their friends back in the suburbs.

^I am not clear on what basis you assume that.

Also, like I said before, the condo boom is occurring all over the city, not just in the central area. Look at new homes/townhomes/condos being constructed in Kenwood, Woodlawn, Bridgeport, Pilsen, near West side, Irving Park, Uptown, Edgewater, Albany Park, Logan Square, etc etc. Thousands upon thousands. Of the buyers who are transplanted suburbanites, you're telling me that they don't plan to spend time around the city? Not sure what makes you think that..

Okay, then, let me tell you about this suburbanite's experiences. My first apartment was in Edgewater in 1992. I have since lived in Rogers Park, Albany Park, Ravenswood, Evanston, Old Town (an amazingly cheap sublet), Roscoe Village (in 1994), and am currently in East Village. I ate at Heartland Cafe for the first time when I was 16 years old, my mother took me there. I took the 'el' from 95th street to the Metro when I was a teenager because my friend had a car problem and we knew it wouldn't make it all the way to the northside and back and didn't think it was all that big of a deal (there was a group of us) and I once got a tour of Pill Hill by a kid who had a crush on me in high school and wanted to make sure that I knew that the entire south side wasn't a ghetto (we didn't end up dating).

So c'mon folks, lets not sit here and generalize what suburbanites do when they move to chicago. Oh, and this suburbanite also spent a 1 1/2 years attending Truman college (in uptown) to get transfer credit for when she decided to finish up her degree at a state school ... and finally, this suburbanite would go over to Devon street and eat Indian food and buy those fake nose ring clip thingies at the jewelry stores when she was 16....

That taquería story was funny, and a bit weird, you mean they didn't know what a taquería was and they lived in Evanston? I know that I was well aware of them as a kid (then again my parents have always loved Mexican food and used to drag us to East Chicago to get some whenever they wanted their fix).

Since I've moved here, I have met many people with the suburban attitude that has been described, to me it doesn't make sense, as that attitude seems more akin to someone who grew up in a small town. Perhaps I should give my parents some credit though, they loved the city and spent lots of time in it with us when we were kids... and still do, my mom and I have the 'eat division street between ashland and western project' going , they just couldn't afford to live there.

Maybe I'm too harsh. My experiences here have not been positive, though. Where are you meeting these people and can I come?

Perhaps some people in Chicago are transplanted suburbanites with a suburban attitude. Hell, I don't know. We have those types here in DC, too.

It's called yuppies. Very rarely did they actually grow up in cities--they grew up in American suburbia and are now buying city condos. Not a big deal--in fact, perhaps its a good thing that they're actually getting a dose of culture.

It's the same in NYC. Half those people in Manhattan lived sheltered lives. Look at the girls in Sex and the City. They're a bunch of suburban girls who are obsessed with sex--nothing urban or particularly cultured about them.

Chicago is too hard on itself

Urban -- you know that is why I never moved to lincoln park or wrigleyville (other than it is more expensive than it is worth), I've meet people over there who have lived in the city longer than I have whose attitudes are similar to what oshkeoto has described (i've also met great people who live over there, I'm not slaming everyone in the neighborhood), and I thought I was supposed to be the suburbanite.... I suppose it is the same everywhere.

The main point of my post was not necessarily to go into the racial history of Chicago's suburbs (although that is an interesting an rather depressing topic) but to simply make a comment that the notion of 'suburb' is quite different depending on the suburb so to make a blanket statement about suburbanites might be a bit much.

actually the need for that discussion is important and necessary. it is still shameful in this day and age that race should even be an issue on residence patterns.

when I was growing up years ago, I went to ETHS (Evanston High). We had the only significant African-American enrollment in the north suburban area (I'm clearly not counting places like Waukegan or N. Chgo as suburban).

We were constantly under the looking glass becaise we were racially integrated. I do remember one great article though in a major national magazine (forgot the one) that put ETHS on top of the nation as the country's best high school. Why? ETHS had New Trier academics but with the added benefit of diversity. and that diversity was no little part of the school's excellence.

Okay, sorry to rehash old shit, but, I was absent yesterday, so I still have to get my .02 in.

"I said nothing specifically against Chicago, I was defending some other cities that were deemed "unurban" by another delusional Chicago forumer."

Jive - I clearly stated time and again that my comments regarding Boston and SF were NOT negative... nor did I claim them to be based on empirical evidence. They were merely an opinion. MY opinion. And lastly - how dare you call me delusional? Who the fuck do you think you are? If you want to have a pissing match with another forumer, that is your right, but I'll be goddamned if you're going to drag my name into the fray. Unless you are addressing me, keep my name out of your posts.

for the record, i find philly, boston, DC, and SF to be no more or less urban than chicago in general, chicago just has more because it's a bigger city.

new york is certainly on another level, both in quality and quantity of urbanism. chicago, SF, boston, DC, and philly all exist on that next level, and while some might enjoy the process of splitting hairs to rank them in some meaingful way, i'd rather leave them all unranked as they are all so damn wonderful in their own ways, and they're all so damn urban (at least by american standards).

"Why? ETHS had New Trier academics but with the added benefit of diversity. and that diversity was no little part of the school's excellence."

I won't pretend to know what the situation was when you attended ETHS, but I have to say that I have spent one and a half years at that school and its diversity may not be a total sham, but it sure has many shamlike qualities. About 40% of ETHS is black; yet my AP English class has two blacks, my AP Euro class has one, my AP Spanish class has none, my honors Middle Eastern History class has one, and my Hebrew class has none. That means throughout my day, with the exception of my gym class, I learn with a grand total of four black people out of a total of approximately 105 students. That's pathetic. Like I posted before: 90% of whites at ETHS pass state standards; 70% of blacks there don't.

If you go to the cafeteria, there are the all-black tables on one side and the 95% white tables on the other.

If you looked at the people who walked in the door at ETHS, you would call it a diverse school. If you went class by class, you would never know.

"Why? ETHS had New Trier academics but with the added benefit of diversity. and that diversity was no little part of the school's excellence."
.

thanks for making me feel like a dinosaur. i am (class of 64). and, oshkeoto, of course, you are right. ETHS changed dramatically since I was there (BTW: the last year before the huge additon that also set up four schools in the building instead of 4 "halls"). As black enrollment rose, all the wrong things happened. ETHS had always tracted, but once those tracks were stictly for academic reasons. There is no doubt that the school was more interested in keeping white familes pleased with the school's academic performance than it was in leveling the playing field for minority students. Sadly as part of this pathetic scenerio, black students often played down the improtance of education as being a sign of "whiteness" (an issue I think has pretty well passed today).

so this is a pretty miserable situation all around. on the other hand, why was ETHS dealing with these issues when New Trier, Niles W, Niles N, GBS, GBN, Highland Park, Deefield, Stevenson, etc., didn't have to?

Evanston High, in this respect, was more the victim of a terribly segregatged society than a contributer to it.

on the other hand, oshkeoto, there are probably very few (if any) white Wildkit forwards or half backs.

oshkeoto, i wanted to thank you for the insight into the current ETHS.

i wonder if you could address the following:

I know that Evanston has drawn up plans for the the Dodge/Church intersection. They would like to give west Evanston the type of retail core that Main and Central give north and south Evanston.

We are also aware of how much construction has gone on in Evanston. I personally would not call this gentrification because Evanston has obviously always had its fair share of "gentry".

The fact does remain that Evanston is in transition. While I don't see it losing its special, distinctive feel (this college town will always be a place apart), i do see Evanston becoming more similiar to north side lakefront neighborhoods. If you look at downtown development or along the Chicago Ave corridor, you see city type of density occurring.

oshkeoto,In light of this construction, in light of Evanston's enviable location (lakefront, close in/north of city, North Shore, NU, etc.) and the pressure it puts on real estate values, do you see lower income groups and minorities squeezed out of the "New Evanston"?

I have a fear this could happen, much to the detriment of the type of community that Evanston should be.

How do you see this?

"Evanston High, in this respect, was more the victim of a terribly segregatged society than a contributer to it."

Sure. It was certainly not the only community dealing with these issues. And in some ways, Evanston made some progressive decisions--the conscious decision not to split ETHS into two or more high schools, which would have created very segregated schools, being at least one. I don't really know the history of the tracking situation, although there is a steady stream of opposition to it from inside the school.

" Sadly as part of this pathetic scenerio, black students often played down the improtance of education as being a sign of "whiteness" (an issue I think has pretty well passed today)."

Do you mean passed as in, it's still here, or passed as in it's gone? Because it's certainly still here. I have black friends who have been called white for their interest in academics.

"oshkeoto,In light of this construction, in light of Evanston's enviable location (lakefront, close in/north of city, North Shore, NU, etc.) and the pressure it puts on real estate values, do you see lower income groups and minorities squeezed out of the "New Evanston"? "

I haven't actually heard about the Church and Dodge development--what kind of thing are they talking about?

About gentrification--I'm not sure if I have a more expert opinion on this than anyone else here, since I've only lived here for 18 months. My first reaction is that I don't see why it wouldn't affect Evanston in the same ways it's affecting the rest of the city. On the other hand, there's been very little new construction that I can tell in many of the more middle-class and lower-middle-class areas. Evanston residents are very conservative in the kind of new development they allow, and I do think that will stem the tide somewhat. The other thing is that large parts of Evanston simply do not offer the kind of charming urbanism that's making people move to Chicago neighborhoods--I don't know if that'll be enough to keep them from becoming hot real estate areas.

better stores (as if they could be anything but) on the three corners that ETHS doesn't occupy (although I think the s.e. is now a parking lot...right?)

Keep in mind that if the issue had ever come up about spliting ETHS in two, it would have been a civil war to put the one we had back in the 1860's to shame.

This might surprise you, but when New Trier originally built New Trier West back in the late 60's, the community nearly came to blows as to which of the two high schools the majority of the Jewish kids would go to.

"better stores (as if they could be anything but) on the three corners that ETHS doesn't occupy (although I think the s.e. is now a parking lot...right?)"

Both the southeast and northeast corners are parking lots, although the northeast lot is rather small and the brick wall behind it has a nice, brand-new mural on it.

And better shops? Better shops? The northeast corner has a hot dog place (at least, used to be a hot dog place; it's under a transition in management) and a corner grocery. I don't think much needs to be done about that corner. Although I'm always for tearing up parking lots and forcing these Evanston kids to take the bus.

Geoff Diamond ....you must have never been to Philadelphia