sorry. Mr. "I Wonder if" is back with another crazy question.

Obviously there is no question about this city's global status. the urban qualities we have in Chicago in areas of the arts, entertainment, business, museums, educational institutions, architecture, density, etc., speak for themselves.

Yet I wonder if one piece is still lacking: do we have the "draw power" to make us a destination not just for vacation and business, but for relocation? Of course we have a tremendous pull on students straight out of college from across the Midwest. We get the a piece of the same draw nationally as we end up being in that grouping with NY, SF, Bos, etc., that give students straight out of college what they want in a place to settle.

And certainly we continue to be the draw for immigrant groups from around the world...the same function we've served for a century and a half.

But other than that: are we drawing folks outside our region to come live in Chicago because of the urban experience it offers. My guess is: not nearly as much as we should. In other words: it just ain't happening.

Perceptions on this one from the rest of you: are we, in any way, exercising the drawing power of places like NY, London, etc.? As I said, in my mind and as of now: NO WAY.

I think yes, especially from smaller midwestern towns. People do relocate to Chicago. However, if some guy named P.J. Hayseed from Kansas wants to live in a real urban environment, I would say they would think of NYC first then Chicago. Overall we are attracting newcomers, especially for job opportunity. I see so many people driving cars with liscense plates from Michigan, Missourri, Ohio... all over the city. It's safe to assume they are not all just visitors. Recently the census came out with figures showing the est. pop. growth of states. The southern states are growing fast, as are the desert states. Illinois is holding it's own.

Recently the census came out with figures showing the est. pop. growth of states. The southern states are growing fast, as are the desert states. Illinois is holding it's own.

interesting you mention that. Illinois is gaining more gross population than any other northern state in the country, so id say we are holding our own quite well :)

We are 5th in terms of total population, and 10th in terms of raw population gains for 2004. BTW, I think many of the larger states including Illinois are grossly undercounted. I'l bet that by the time the 2010 census comes around, Illinois will have over 13.5 million people, and Chicago will have gained around 100,000 or more residents pushing it over the 3 million mark (even though they estimated that chicago has lost 22,000 since the 2000 census), especially with all the revitalization projects going on in the city.. All through out the 90's, the census was estimating population losses for Chicago and in the end it had gained over 120,000 people. In fact I had read recently that the hispanic population is growing faster that it was in the 90's so that may boost the city's (and metro area) even further.

We are 5th in terms of total population, and 10th in terms of raw population gains for 2004. BTW, I think many of the larger states including Illinois are grossly undercounted. I'l bet that by the time the 2010 census comes around, Illinois will have over 13.5 million people, and Chicago will have gained around 100,000 or more residents pushing it over the 3 million mark (even though they estimated that chicago has lost 22,000 since the 2000 census), especially with all the revitalization projects going on in the city.. All through out the 90's, the census was estimating population losses for Chicago and in the end it had gained over 120,000 people. In fact I had read recently that the hispanic population is growing faster that it was in the 90's so that may boost the city's (and metro area) even further.

Come 2010 Metropolitan Chicago will have at least 10.5 million people with slightly over 3 million living inside the city limits. Mark my words.

^
Word.

guys...i'm in total agreement. but more than anything else, you are mentioning (and rightfully so) the MIDDLE WEST.

that was never the issue.

but if Chicago is truly gloabl, as we have every reason to believe, than why doesn't it attract more of the brightest and best from beyond the region (discounting immigration, the nature of which differs from the type of movement I've described).

*******************

I'm going to also take a little side bar to my original thought, but still keep it related.

Chicago may very well be the most event oriente city in the world (Taste, Blues Fest, Jazz Fest, Mac Race, Marathon, Venitian Night, Air and Water....the list goes on and on.)

Events put you up there in front of the nation. Some like the Marathon are highly visible internationally.

At one time, Chicago led the way in high profile sporting events. We invented MLB's All Star game and had the NFL champ vs. the best of college football in a yearly classic at Soldier Field.

Yet today, we have put our visiblity at zero.

I realize that we made a conscious decision to keep the new Soldier Field outdoors (even though the trend has been to convertible roofed stadiums). I also realize the UC, for however large, still has size limitations.

But I still have to wonder: are we missing out on something that may not be that big financialy for the city but would bring the city enormous positive exposure....I'm talking about Super Bowl, Final Four, etc. We've shunned those and, unlike other major American cities, promotional conscious Chicago has also shunned any attempt for an Olympic bid.

I don't know about others, but I see a helluva lot of irony in this.

Come 2010 Metropolitan Chicago will have at least 10.5 million people with slightly over 3 million living inside the city limits. Mark my words.

I just don't get why the 2003 census actually showed Chicago losing 27,000 people. Sure, they screwed up their counts in the 1990's, but what makes you guys think the same thing will happen this decade?

Chicago faces a dilemma where, while it is well-known within the US... it has an image of negative stereotypes: crime, corruption, decaying hellhole, etc. It's turned itself around, but there's still work to be done. The image of Chicago many people in this country have in their minds is a stark contrast to the Chicago that other people know exists, and to be honest... the good side of Chicago is actually well known overseas. It's a case of Americans not knowing what is in their own "backyard" I guess. I think that's beginning to change though.

Come 2010 Metropolitan Chicago will have at least 10.5 million people with slightly over 3 million living inside the city limits. Mark my words.

i accept your offer, and raise you .5 million in the metro, and .1 in the city! :)

Chicago faces a dilemma where, while it is well-known within the US... it has an image of negative stereotypes: crime, corruption, decaying hellhole, etc. It's turned itself around, but there's still work to be done. The image of Chicago many people in this country have in their minds is a stark contrast to the Chicago that other people know exists, and to be honest... the good side of Chicago is actually well known overseas. It's a case of Americans not knowing what is in their own "backyard" I guess. I think that's beginning to change though.

Rail, I know you're not trying to be negative; your last comment proves this. But you are so far off base on your observation. I have no doubt that most Americans have a pretty damned favorable impression of Chicago.

This city is the #1 business destination in the country, still a powerhouse in the convention trade, and a mecca for tourists. People pour in here in droves. The impreession they have is hardly of crime, corruption, or a hellhole on any level. The only hell I hear about from out-of-towners is "how the hell can anyone afford to live here"

I'm not saying this in defense of Chicago which needs one and which I have stated many times that people are entitled to their opinions. It just comes from my experience with out-of-towners (through meeting them, through reading, etc.) and my impression of what they think is about 180 degrees removed from what you are observing.

Now I don't know what they are thinking in Birmingham, Mobile, Tuscaloua, Huntsville, etc, but from the rest of the US, the windy city is getting some pretty damned good vibes.

Other Chicagoans (or non-Chicagoans), how do you see this? Do you think my perceptions are off here?

"Now I don't know what they are thinking in Birmingham, Mobile, Tuscaloua, Huntsville, etc, but from the rest of the US, the windy city is getting some pretty damned good vibes.

Other Chicagoans (or non-Chicagoans), how do you see this? Do you think my perceptions are off here?"

I really do. I think you probably talk with a circle of intelligent people who like big cities, and intelligent people who like big cities are probably going to like Chicago. But you know what, most people don't think of big cities as a good place to live. They like suburbs, or they like rural areas. Also the intelligence, or better-put, the open-mindedness of the average person is not necessarily great. I have lived in Evanston and Madison, I have met people from all over Wisconsin, and if they are any kind of good sample, Chicago--especially outside of North Michigan Avenue--is not exactly well-thought-of. Even very liberal people were skeptical of the safety of walking around any neighborhoods in Chicago. You would be amazed at what people say. One person told me they might want to live in an apartment, but were averse to living in an apartment, because "only poor people live in apartments." And this was a person whose politics were far to the left of mainstream Democrats. I've been told by people in Madison and Evanston that New York and Los Angeles are the only "real" cities in America. I was in Lakeview once with some people from Evanston, on a very pretty street, and I said something about how it would be nice to live there; my companions sort of rolled their eyes and said, "Yeah, I guess so." I have met lots of people who complained that Madison's traffic was grueling. I think we on this message board--and most likely in who we talk to in real life--are very, very skewed. Frankly, all you have to do is look at the election results to know that.

^ "Might want to live in Chicago, but were averse to living in an apartment..." is what that should say.

^ And if I could elaborate on that.

Most people do not want to live in big cities. But they will visit places like New York or Los Angeles and say, "Well, it's great to visit but I wouldn't want to live there." Those cities still have a certain magic for them, pretty much because of what they see on TV and in movies. Chicago does not have that charm for the vast majority of Americans. That's why we truly are in the second tier--or even third or fourth--of American cities in the minds of the American public.

^That's also only natural for a city like Chicago, when you think about its history and why it was founded. Chicago is one of those cities that are well thought of in some circles that Chicago caters well to, but unlike New York or Los Angeles, or even Washington DC, Chicago's importance is not entrenched in the minds of most Americans based on what they see or hear, whether it be media, word of mouth, or just vibe in general. Chicago has always been that central Midwestern metropolis that got its importance and has maintained its importance by pulling strings off stage, being established by and thus selling itself to the right people for such a job, not Hollywood actors.

^ Yeah. I still love Chicago above all other cities, but I'm realistic about our standing with the rest of the American public. And frankly, as much as it frustrates me sometimes, it's not all bad. I've commented about this before: we are a city with only one true tourist trap (Navy Pier).

Oshkeoto, I respect your opinions and we've disagreed on some of this before, but I still gotta say:

you and I are poles apart on a lot of these issues.

Now I would dismiss (like you) folks who dislike cities since they are meaningless to the discussion. However, on other issues:

1. you know I know Evanston well and spent many, many years living there. Most of the people who live in Evanston do so because of proximity to Chicago. And Evanston, a truly neat place, went through its own stagnant malaise during the 70's, 80's and early 90's. And what drew it out of that stagnation? Chicago. Close in Evanston suddenly became the place to be. What has fueled downtown Evanston and Chgo Ave growth: Metra and CTA.

2. Most midwesterners (and particularly most Wisconsinites) who bash Chicago are really bashing suburban Chicago. That's where most of the FIP's come from that pisses off Wis.

3. NYC, of course, continues to be a magnet for Chicagoans and others. But LA? I think it barely makes the radar here. Even if you look on this board, it is the LA forumers that whine the loudest for not getting respect; something that is far less true of Chgo. I don't know about you, but I can think of very few Chicagoans nowadays who say, "Let's go on a trip; how about LA?" (unless, of course, they have relatives there. everybody does.)

4. Provenicalism can exist in the city as well as the suburbs. How many Chicagoans wouldn't be caught dead making a pleasure trip to the suburbs (unless that trip was to Ravinia)? It exists on both sides; actually all sides

5. I still have to say from personal experience and through reading that Chicago is eminently respected as a city. It is hardly unusual when you read that, for example, among MLB baseball players, it was by far their favorite city.

Again, I know you see it differently, but my experiences sure have taken me in a different direction than yours have on these perception issue.

3. NYC, of course, continues to be a magnet for Chicagoans and others. But LA? I think it barely makes the radar here. Even if you look on this board, it is the LA forumers that whine the loudest for not getting respect; something that is far less true of Chgo. I don't know about you, but I can think of very few Chicagoans nowadays who say, "Let's go on a trip; how about LA?" (unless, of course, they have relatives there. everybody does.)

^I think Oskeoto was not referring to people on this forum, but the general public. People on this forum overwhelmingly prefer Chicago over LA, but that is because of the architecture/urban-planning mindset of the population that actually visits SSC. If you take the general public, most of them would be much less likely to recognize Chicago's importance, with the exception of experts in finance & economics.

Therefore, if a poll were done in the general public, NYC and LA would be considered the top cities in this country due to the overwhelming attention they get--even though most experts know better. Chicago truly is the unsung hero--its contribution to theater, arts, finance, commerce, architecture, human rights, advertising, etc are second only to New York's, but it doesn't have Hollywood and E!, therefore nobody really cares or notices.

^I think Oskeoto was not referring to people on this forum, but the general public. People on this forum overwhelmingly prefer Chicago over LA, but that is because of the architecture/urban-planning mindset of the population that actually visits SSC. If you take the general public, most of them would be much less likely to recognize Chicago's importance, with the exception of experts in finance & economics.

Therefore, if a poll were done in the general public, NYC and LA would be considered the top cities in this country due to the overwhelming attention they get--even though most experts know better. Chicago truly is the unsung hero--its contribution to theater, arts, finance, commerce, architecture, human rights, advertising, etc are second only to New York's, but it doesn't have Hollywood and E!, therefore nobody really cares or notices.

I was also referring to off the forum. And I do agree about NY. As far as LA goes, IMHO it has lost some of its hold. Also, away from this forum, I see a lot of interest and positive thoughts about Chicago. Again,it's all opinion here, but I generally pick up good vibes from others about Chicago. I suppose there is no real answer here.

The only thing Chicago needs for "draw power" is the ability to attract businesses and development, which it has been doing quite well. Then, people will follow the jobs to Chicago, realize how awesome it truly is, tell others about it, and eventually their kids will live in Chicago, too.

"2. Most midwesterners (and particularly most Wisconsinites) who bash Chicago are really bashing suburban Chicago. That's where most of the FIP's come from that pisses off Wis."

Most people who think like us are bashing suburban Chicago. But most people don't think like us, and among the general public, most people I met in Wisconsin thought suburban Chicago was the only part of Chicago that was liveable.

"I think it barely makes the radar here. Even if you look on this board, it is the LA forumers that whine the loudest for not getting respect; something that is far less true of Chgo. I don't know about you, but I can think of very few Chicagoans nowadays who say, "Let's go on a trip; how about LA?" "

Sure, no self-respecting Chicagoan would go to LA. But we have the benefit of living in Chicago and knowing what a kickass city it is. People not from a major non-LA city, though, my impression from my experiences has always been that their list of important North American cities went like this: 1. New York; 2. LA. The end.

"It is hardly unusual when you read that, for example, among MLB baseball players, it was by far their favorite city."

Sure, among well-traveled people, I'm not surprised Chicago is popular. But again...that doesn't describe most people.

But anyway. Like you said, we have different perceptions based on our experiences, and we can't really argue past that. What do other people think about this topic?

I would think that Chicago's biggest detraction, globally speaking, is the very trait which sparked Chicago's growth in the first place; it's geography.

Hey, at least we don't have to worry about earhquakes and tidal waves.

i have to agree with edsg25 on this issue of outsiders perceptions of chicago vs. LA. chicago actually has quite a high reputation amongst people that matter, aka business/leisure travelers.

i can't find the study on-line right now, but conde nast did a survay of their readership's perceptions of the 50 largest cities in the U.S. on a multitude of characteristics - shopping, nightlife, cultural attractions, natural beauty, etc. and chicago consistently ranked in the top 5, while LA rarely broke the top 10.

i think some of you are giving LA's cult of celebrity a little too much credit. a great deal of people who actually travel for their leisure activities know and love chicago. the folks who sit at home and allow all of their perceptions to be made through the TV, well of course LA might be the brighter blip on their radar screen, but why would the opinions of that group of people matter on this subject.

folks who get around are the folks who know, and they overwhelmingly love chicago.

^We are all saying that.

^ Yeah. None of us deny that among the well-travelled, Chicago should come out on top. I'm just saying that among the general population, in which the well-travelled are a minority, we don't enjoy that adulation.

^ but who cares what some couch potato in bumblefuck, USA thinks. he ain't gonna be traveling to either LA or chicago anytime soon. big cities, with their racial minorities and homosexuals, frighten him, so he'll most likely pack up the family and head to orlando before he ever even considers traveling to an actual city like LA or chicago.

the fact that he doesn't "recognize" chicago as some wonderful, magical place doesn't really hurt us. as long as the people who actually travel, business people and leisure travelers, keep coming to chicago with their wallets, we'll be fine. chicago isn't a city that needs a high genreal population profile to be successful. vegas and orlando need that shit for them to be successful, but chicago doesn't need the myth making hollywood hype machine to bolster its reputation because unlike the two aforementioned places, chicago is an actual working, living, breathing city.

this isn't disneyworld, this is chicago.

^Well put, Sharp.

I would think that Chicago's biggest detraction, globally speaking, is the very trait which sparked Chicago's growth in the first place; it's geography.

Jason, if geography is topography, than Chicago's is fantastic. Flat as a board, perfect for development, eminently walkable, one neighborhood seamlessly running into the next, the glory of a grid system that works, transportation made easy, the skyline always looming over the whole.

I love hills and in places like San Francisco, they work marevelously. But flat land is most practical for urban development. Flat land is the ideal platform for great architecture.

Disney World is a magnet for so many Americans, a place loved and longed for to visit. There were many requirements that went in to selecting its Orlando site; right up towards the top was flatness. WDW could never have been without it; flatness makes it work.

So I'm glad Chicago is pancake flat. I can't imagine our city working with the gentle hills of, say, St. Louis. Hills are great, but so much about what makes Chicago work is its very flatness.

I love hills and in places like San Francisco, they work marevelously. But flat land is most practical for urban development. Flat land is the ideal platform for great architecture.

Flatness is what makes the greatest built environments... (read: Manhattan... Boston... Chicago...) San Francisco has a great urban environment in spite of its hills, I'll agree. But most people don't think that way. In manhattan, they don't notice the flatness because they're surrounded by amazing urban sights. But in most situations, flatness and terrible city environments mesh (since bad city environments are the norm in America), and so people have an automatic association that flatness = bad. Granted, I don't see anything wrong with the occasional hill, but after climbing up steep hills in Portland while carrying 60 pound luggage, even though the view might have been nice on the way to my hotel, I really really missed Chicago's flatness.

I never could imagine Chicago having ANY hills... it would just seem so... awkward... and un-Chicagoan. :)

Flatness is what makes the greatest built environments... (read: Manhattan... Boston... Chicago...) San Francisco has a great urban environment in spite of its hills, I'll agree. But most people don't think that way. In manhattan, they don't notice the flatness because they're surrounded by amazing urban sights. But in most situations, flatness and terrible city environments mesh (since bad city environments are the norm in America), and so people have an automatic association that flatness = bad. Granted, I don't see anything wrong with the occasional hill, but after climbing up steep hills in Portland while carrying 60 pound luggage, even though the view might have been nice on the way to my hotel, I really really missed Chicago's flatness.

simulcra, SF has the most unique of hilly locations. Since it is coastal, it rises from sea level on all three sides (ocean, bay, golden gate). Unlike river cities like Pgh or Cincy, SF is not made up of bluffs, but hills that march up and down. The fact that it was a tightly packed peninsula made it respond well to a grid system; this unusual melding of grid and hill created a far more urban environment than what would have been there with streets that curved to match the contours of the hills. With the huge bay in the background, serving as an amphitheatre, SF, desite the hills, has an unusual visual unity; you can see downtown and the bay from so many neighborhoods.

I never could imagine Chicago having ANY hills... it would just seem so... awkward... and un-Chicagoan. :)

Rail, I can't think of anything that would ruin Chicago's front yard (Grant Park), in all its formalized glory, than the imposition of a slope, let alone a it. It works because it is flat.

Now I truly like our neighbor to the north. I think Milwaukee is a great place and doesn't always get its proper respect. I think Milw, like Chgo, has done a great job of developing its lakefront. And I think that Milw's lakefront, along its north side beaches, offers a "world apart" from the city unheard of in Chicago.

That said, I'd take Chicago's flat lakeshore to the hillier, bluff lined one in Milwaukee. Chicago is so damned connected to the lakefront. You're THERE. In Milwaukee, the land slopes down to the shore; it is not built for walking as much as driving and physically the city and the shore are not interconected.

Again...no knock on Milw, whose done a great job, as I said. Or a knock on the North Shore, which affords a spectacular high up view of Lk Michigan from parkland in Winnetka, Glencoe, Highland Park, Lake Forest. But for a city, a huge city like Chicago, the seamless joining of city and lake across flat land is priceless.

Flatness is what makes the greatest built environments... (read: Manhattan... Boston... Chicago...)

Further evidence: both Manhattan and Boston flattened hills. Much of Back Bay was fill from a lowered Beacon Hill. Manhattan's grid system required the leveling of landscape before it could be built. Pre-grid areas from north of downtown, through midtown and on the the east side and west side neighborhoods adjacent to Central Park once had a much more rolling terrain.

Granted, I don't see anything wrong with the occasional hill, but after climbing up steep hills in Portland while carrying 60 pound luggage, even though the view might have been nice on the way to my hotel, I really really missed Chicago's flatness.

Or try being in SF, in Union Square, and thinking adjacent Nob Hill looks damned inviting...but it would cause a heart attack to climb California or Powell to get there. Telegraph Hill's eastern slope (blasted for rock over a century past) offers steps to go upward from the Embarcadero in a place where streets and sidewalks could not be built. The view going up is marvelous; the view going down might be taking you to the morgue.

SF is a walkable city, of course, but you're going to have to do a lot of parking and walking in small circles. You won't walk for long becaue the landscape just isn't that friendly for it.

Having lived in Seattle for the better part of 13 years, I admire cities on hills as much as cities on flat lands. Seattle is nearly as hilly as SF, many, many buildings downtown have you enter on the first floor only to exit to the next block on the fourth floor. This makes for some very interesting design challenges, as well as interesting architecture.
The one thing I miss most about Seattle is that around nearly every corner is an amazing view of the city, and also that because of the proliferation of hillside housing, one can attain a view without as high a premuim as one would pay in a flat city.
I also miss walking around the city. One gets used to the hills, it's a good cardio workout. A couple of years back, here in Chicago, I overheard a woman complaining that she didn't like to cross the river, west of Wacker, because she had to climb uphill. Mind you the total climb is about six feet in elevation. I laughed my ass off over that one. Hell, the biggest hill in Chicago is the curb.

????

Who said anything about hills?

I think Chicago's biggest problem is its location, even though that is what made Chicago so great, so fast.

Chicago is basically embedded deep inside a large country, in the middle of a continent. So, while it has inherently great access to the nation and continent around it, Chicago inevitably has less attractive access to the outside world. And though Chicago techinically has ocean access via the St Lawrence Seaway, it isn't exactly a compelling port for global shipping.

I've never been a big fan of chicago's location, love the city, but wish I could pick it up and move it.

????

Who said anything about hills?

I think Chicago's biggest problem is its location, even though that is what made Chicago so great, so fast.

Chicago is basically embedded deep inside a large country, in the middle of a continent. So, while it has inherently great access to the nation and continent around it, Chicago inevitably has less attractive access to the outside world. And though Chicago techinically has ocean access via the St Lawrence Seaway, it isn't exactly a compelling port for global shipping.

We have a huge port, one of the world's biggest and busiest. It is called O'Hare. This is the 21st century. There is no interior of any continent. We are coastal. Meanwhile, Europeans never worried about how inland or landlocked their great cities are. Vienna sits in a country that is landlocked. Meanwhile, even though close by, the great cities of London, Paris, and Rome are not on the sea.

Most people are not entering New York or LA by ship. I'm not too concerned about being in the middle of a continent, especially in such a large and important country like the US, where Chicago's central location is actually an advantage.

Besides....and I'm not alone in this...I think the Midwest is a great region. I, for one, am not the least defensive about it.

Chicago just would not be the same if it wasn't surrounded by the Midwest. And salt water would screw with people's heads.

Chicago just would not be the same if it wasn't surrounded by the Midwest. And salt water would screw with people's heads.

Hehe, salt water screws with people's heads? Well, then, that explains my parents (ex-east coasters) but that certainly doesn't explain the rest of us. However, I will admit that I am actually not the hugest fan of the region of the midwest and do prefer the costal bits of the country.

I think the missing piece in Chicago's global position is that it is America's 3rd city. New York is without a doubt the premier city. LA has grown into another premier city just because it's so different and so far away (culturally, geographically, etc.) from NY. Chicago, seen from abroad is very much seen as cut in the same vein as New York, and that is what it lacks, although I still argue it is a global city.

I think the missing piece in Chicago's global position is that it is America's 3rd city. New York is without a doubt the premier city. LA has grown into another premier city just because it's so different and so far away (culturally, geographically, etc.) from NY. Chicago, seen from abroad is very much seen as cut in the same vein as New York, and that is what it lacks, although I still argue it is a global city.

Population aside, I see no reason why Chicago is less than LA

And as a city, if we're talking about world-class cities, it easily outclasses LA and then some. As a metro, we have a different story, obviously

We have a huge port, one of the world's biggest and busiest. It is called O'Hare. This is the 21st century. There is no interior of any continent. We are coastal. Meanwhile, Europeans never worried about how inland or landlocked their great cities are. Vienna sits in a country that is landlocked. Meanwhile, even though close by, the great cities of London, Paris, and Rome are not on the sea.

Freight shipping is still far far more effective than air shipping; but nevertheless, go O'Hare! And also, London, Paris, and Rome all sit on great rivers. Modern city history for them is just critical mass and momentum from those great starts.

Well, most people do think of the metro when they think of a city. All I'm saying is that Chicago is seen as a smaller, gentler version of New York. LA has a bigger worldwide cultural impact, and is known for things that NY/Chicago aren't: beaches, sunny weather, the Californian dream, etc.

I cannot believe after 3 pages, no one has mentioned the

MEDIA

That's the only thing that is missing that can be changed, these day dreams of moving chicago to a different location aren't going to happen, we need to get TV and film studios here bad, otherwise the only cool places are on the coasts, period.