How (if at all) will a changing and growing downtown Chicago, an area acquiring more and more critical mass and 24/7 hours play out nationally...and even internationally?

I know we have an enormous overlap in what we discuss here; I hope I’m clear enough on this thread to differentiate this from previous topics.

The exciting type of growth and development in downtown Chicago is probably unmatched (IMHO) anywhere in America but in Manhattan. We have a central city that is establishing itself as a place with precious few peers. The number of people who have moved to the downtown area is mind boggling. Their migration has brought with it increased retail, dining, culture, streetlife....and has added to an already incredible and magnificent setting.

But a lot of the growth we see in Chicago plays out largely locally and regionally and only to a degree nationally.

The question here is: Will the changes in our downtown area and its ability to be inviting to anyone seeking a comprehensive urban environment make Chicago more inviting as a place of business and culture for those across the nation - and among the influential elements in the international community?

Chicago to me may be unique in the US. Among global cities, it seems to play a middle role between playing out regionally and nationally than any other. Personally I think that New York, Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even Miami feel more comfortable (or are more capable?) in their national and even international roles.

Are we creating something here on the ground that will change this? Will we see new cultural institutions attracted to the setting we have? Will we see more of the street vibrancy of New York or San Francisco? More of the reaching abroad like Miami or LA?

Have we done our homework downtown and in its environs to make Chicago less provenical and more of a magnet nationally and internationally? Is this alpha world class city really ready to play on an international (or even national) stage?

*******

Note: I wrote this in respect to all cities mentioned (and ones that were not). I’m not talking about competiton with them. I am talking about creating an environment that propells a city into a more national and international environment.

Dude, you bring up great points. I think that is what the team's (Boosters for the city including the mayor and others who have investment in the city) goal is. I believe the central area's growth is a reflection of the role the city will wants to have in the future. The central area is evolving into a new type of urban playground. I have to be honest, I don't have a clue what the end results will be. There is still work to be done. Will this new environment make Chicago more inviting for business and cultural nationally and internationally? It's already happening with the success of the theater district, its become a magnet for shoppers in this region of the country and there are other positive things that are happening slowly. I think the success of Chicago carving it's niche in the cultural and business world will depend on the willingness and openess of the city's political, cultural and business elites to take chances or even gamble on industries and culture (new and old)that have been veiwed as out of our league. An example of this is the fashion industry. The city leaders and even average citizens of this great city believed that it was a waste to appoint a fashion czar with a salary. Most believe that fashion belongs in NYC. It is realistic to believe that the fashion industry will always be in NYC but, who knows where this new venture will take us. My point is that our future will be shaped by the chances we take as a city. We can't afford to be safe anymore. There is no room for safe, conservative thinking anymore.

good point, urbanpln. as for " have to be honest, I don't have a clue what the end results will be.": it doesn't. it basically sets in place a form of prepetual motion. if you put enough things together, they take a life on of their own and you have created an environment that will be taken seriously nationally and internationally.....and will precede to grow exponentially.

perhaps the downside: when it happens, in essence, you've turned your city over to the world and you have lost the local control and nurturing it once had.

look at san francisco: easily under 20% of its population was born there.but heck, i guess there are no Mayberry's out there...even mid-size, large, and humongous Mayberry's. I suppose some of that disconnect is inevitable everywhere.

What downtown Chicago still lacks, despite the enormous draw of N Michigan Avenue, is more boutique shops--these are ultimately what attract a national and international audience.

Boutique shops need to sprout up in more areas, and they need to be the kinds of shops you won't see anywhere else in the region. It's a good precedent being set with Block 37, and with Metramarket (to a lesser degree). It will be interesting to see what happens with the south loop's retail scene over the years.

Downtown Chicago needs to be a place that is so loaded with stuff to do, see, eat, and experience that nobody living there feels any reason to leave for weeks/months at a time.

Oh, and street vendors would help ;)

What downtown Chicago still lacks, despite the enormous draw of N Michigan Avenue, is more boutique shops--these are ultimately what attract a national and international audience.

Boutique shops need to sprout up in more areas, and they need to be the kinds of shops you won't see anywhere else in the region. It's a good precedent being set with Block 37, and with Metramarket (to a lesser degree). It will be interesting to see what happens with the south loop's retail scene over the years.

Downtown Chicago needs to be a place that is so loaded with stuff to do, see, eat, and experience that nobody living there feels any reason to leave for weeks/months at a time.

Oh, and street vendors would help ;)

I totally agree. There are tons (hundreds) of boutiques in the city. New City, an alternative newspaper, does a special identifying high end boutiques throughout the city. Most of them are located outside of the central area. They are located in Wicker Park/Bucktown, Old Town, Lakeview, Southport West Town. These stores should be in the central area.

Allow me to sharpen the focus of this thread. Assuming I'm a wealthy European or Asian or oil-rich Sheik with a global venue at my beck and call, why would Chicago ever come to mind?

Allow me to sharpen the focus of this thread. Assuming I'm a wealthy European or Asian or oil-rich Sheik with a global venue at my beck and call, why would Chicago ever come to mind?

I think that is a very fair question to ask.

Thats a difficult one. One of the selling points of Chicago to me at least is its relative affordability when compared to the coastal cities. However, when it comes to these jetsetting elites, many dont care about the bargain. Maybe this is an explanation of how projects like Chicago Spire could help Chicagos reputation. Charge prices that make even these people take notice. Clearly, Chicago is already a world class city. Unfortunately, the rest of the world still lacks that view. Good news is that can be overcome, just need to target certain venues that expose Chicago to the trendsetters, jetsetters, etc. Make them pay attention to you!!

Thats a difficult one. One of the selling points of Chicago to me at least is its relative affordability when compared to the coastal cities. However, when it comes to these jetsetting elites, many dont care about the bargain. Maybe this is an explanation of how projects like Chicago Spire could help Chicagos reputation. Charge prices that make even these people take notice. Clearly, Chicago is already a world class city. Unfortunately, the rest of the world still lacks that view. Good news is that can be overcome, just need to target certain venues that expose Chicago to the trendsetters, jetsetters, etc. Make them pay attention to you!!

Nolausa, this is certainly one of those places where a successful Olympic bid could do wonders on putting the city at the forefront.

Couldnt agree more about the Olympics. Thats why Daley wants it so bad. Its not just about the two weeks. Its all the resulting press one gets, etcetera. There are plenty of other events the city should go after. MTV VMAs could be something the city should try and host. There has to be a continual flow of events, not just one offs like a Superbowl. I also think it would be cool if Chicago would dredge an island(think Dubai) in Lake Michigan and put a casino/summer beach resort there. I always thought that would be a great way to get a casino allowed and create a unique attraction at the same time.

Cheers,
Derek

I've always believed that Chicago needed to change its marketing stradegy. It has been marketed wrong for decades. We have been trying to make it family friendly which is fine but, you have to attract the young affuent beautiful people also. The commercials that ran on television during the summer months were "Come Discover Illinois, Mile after Magnificent Mile". In the background there's some yolk whistling. When I saw that commercial, I thought of the prarie. I don't think you want your city veiwed like this in todays world. Most of our competitors are viewed as sexy, gritty, hip and vibrant. Let's face it that's what many people in this country and around world want. They want to visit an exotic place, either a beautiful beach destination or a sexy, gritty urban destination. Even cleanliness does't seem to be an issue with this crowd. Barcelona and Paris were not the cleanest city's I've visited but people seem to love these places because they attract young and trendy people along with the other amenities they have to offer. TUP said that what Chicago lacked, dispite the enormous draw of North Michigan Avenue was more boutique shops. I agreed with him because in most of the world cities that I've visited, thats the one thing that takes the shopping experience and street life in those districts to another level. People just look (dress better) and act different. It's probably because the crowd is younger and more affuent (jetsetters). Those people already exist in Chicago IMO. They just shop on Oak Street, Damen/North Avenue, Old Town (Clark & North)Clark/Broadway/Diversity, Southport and Armitage Avenue. The city needs to do what ever's possible to encourage those types of establishment to located near the center, and if possible concentrate in close proximity to each other. I know there are those who will say Chicago does not need the pretentousness but, if we are going to compete with other cities around the world we will have to cater to this population. It spends more money that families who are on a budget and will create thousands of additional jobs.

We also need to liven the street experience. As I walked down State Street near Macy's yesterday there were large crowds near the ABC television station. People seem to be drawn to this frontage. I think we need to take a closer look at this type of street presentation. Many people in my profession (urban planning and archtecture) see bright neon lights as tacky but I think they're re-assessing this. I think it can be done tastefully.

I've always believed that Chicago needed to change its marketing stradegy. It has been marketed wrong for decades. We have been trying to make it family friendly which is fine but, you have to attract the young affuent beautiful people also. The commercials that ran on television during the summer months were "Come Discover Illinois, Mile after Magnificent Mile". In the background there's some yolk whistling. When I saw that commercial, I thought of the prarie. I don't think you want your city veiwed like this in todays world. Most of our competitors are viewed as sexy, gritty, hip and vibrant. Let's face it that's what many people in this country and around world want. They want to visit an exotic place, either a beautiful beach destination or a sexy, gritty urban destination. Even cleanliness does't seem to be an issue with this crowd. Barcelona and Paris were not the cleanest city's I've visited but people seem to love these places because they attract young and trendy people along with the other amenities they have to offer. TUP said that what Chicago lacked, dispite the enormous draw of North Michigan Avenue was more boutique shops. I agreed with him because in most of the world cities that I've visited, thats the one thing that takes the shopping experience and street life in those districts to another level. People just look (dress better) and act different. It's probably because the crowd is younger and more affuent (jetsetters). Those people already exist in Chicago IMO. They just shop on Oak Street, Damen/North Avenue, Old Town (Clark & North)Clark/Broadway/Diversity, Southport and Armitage Avenue. The city needs to do what ever's possible to encourage those types of establishment to located near the center, and if possible concentrate in close proximity to each other. I know there are those who will say Chicago does not need the pretentousness but, if we are going to compete with other cities around the world we will have to cater to this population. It spends more money that families who are on a budget and will create thousands of additional jobs.

We also need to liven the street experience. As I walked down State Street near Macy's yesterday there were large crowds near the ABC television station. People seem to be drawn to this frontage. I think we need to take a closer look at this type of street presentation. Many people in my profession (urban planning and archtecture) see bright neon lights as tacky but I think they're re-assessing this. I think it can be done tastefully.

Urban, wasn't there a campaign a number of years back that was built around the touting the city as "CHICago!" It should be revived. No other city starts with "chic" and it's a great well to sell the city that well goes along with your observations here.

Yeah, I think all ad campaigns for cities should follow the Vegas model unless your Orlando. Remember, for years how Vegas was trying to attract the whole family, then did a 180 and just went for it with the "risque shows, tore down theme parks, and the "what happens in vegas stays in vegas" campaign. Now, they are wildly successful. Its all about an experience that can be summed up in a few words: " what is Chicagos".

I know this might be going off topic a bit, but since Chicago is tearing so much down there is an element of sterility that you feel in certain areas of downtown Chicago. Maybe a place like Fulton Street is the asnwer to that. Either way, there is no question Chicagos image needs more work.

Of course, we know how the image doesnt fit ,but I dont think its just image. I often hear ,even from people in New Orleans, when I mention Chicago. They say I never thought about going there. So maybe it isnt what they think about Chicago, its that they don't think about Chicago at all!!

Let me put it this way, Chicago still suffers from being the "second city". Let me preface by saying I grew up in Chicago and have always been a fan of the city. I believe it to be the best laid out metropolis in the country, with wonderful neighborhoods, good food, probably the best public architecture in the country, and nice people. The problems in attracting foreign tourists is that as good as Chicago shopping is, it will never match the diversity of New York, or the hipness and trendyness of the California metropoli. Chicago is just not that kind of a place. It is sensible, managerial, prudent, well put together, but just a little dull compared to the towns on the coasts.

Also, and this is probably even more of a problem, Chicago lies far from the geographical wonders of the country that foreign visitors know about. And is also far from other cities that a visitor from far away might combine into a longer trip.

LA, SD, and SF are easily combined in a single trip, plus they are close to Vegas, the desert, the California coast, the wine country, Yosemite, the redwoods, Death Valley, and the Sequoias. A trip to the Grand Canyon, from California is pretty easy as well. On the east coast a trip to NYC can be combined with Washington or Boston, and Niagra falls is not far.

Chicago has Lake Michigan which is a pretty lake but really not unique. The average European, (and I have traveled pretty widely and have family currently living in France, England, Portugal, Israel, Spain, and Germany) so I know what I am talking about may have heard of Chicago, usually in the Al Capone model, or know about the tall buildings, but it is amazing how many Europeans do not realize that Chicago has taller buildings than New York.

At any rate, these are the things I would emphasize to get more tourists from far away.

1. Emphasize Chicago's edge, Chicago is the home of the electric blues, sell the town as "blues city", increase the already prominent blues and jazz venues and festivals and let the Europeans know that they can come to the clubs anytime and hear some of the best blues, jazz and gospel in the country. Don't let New Orleans get ALL the credit.

2. Don't fight the gangsters of the roaring twenties, its time to put up some monuments to Al Capone and Bugs Moran, and even Eliot Ness. The last time I looked, the Saint Valentine's day Masssacre wall was hidden away near the water tower. Erect it in public on a city square and rent dummy tommyguns to the tourists.

3. You have the best public architecture in the country and the tallest buildings, call yourself "the BIG city", "the City of Broad SHoulders", "the Tall city". No one wants to come to the "second city". Try slogans like "See America from way up High!". Then take them to the Frank Lloyd Wrights, and the Adler and Sullivans, and "Let us show you where America's architecture was born. Its true, you might as well let the world know about it.

4. Although it is not as good as NYC's or LA's, the theater in Chicago is really pretty good. Unfortunately the individual theaters tend to be separated all over the city. See if there is a way to gather all the theater companies in one area of the city to create a real theater district. (LA has this problem, even worse). A lot of actors got their start in Chicago, Second city alone has produced more talent for SNL than anyplace else except maybe the Groundlings in LA, (I would have to count). So why should all these folks get credited to NYC? Chicago's theater is much better than Toronto's but you would never know it from the press.

5. Again, get over the second city complex. I think most of the Chicago forumers think Chicago is the best city in the US, so make that you slogan! "America's best city!"

6. Publisize potential Chicago walk's; the combination of flat ground and great architecture, good stores, trees for shade, and good neighborhoods, make Chicago a terrific walking city. Publisize the great walks of Chicago like New Zealand does the Milford Trail, along the lake, through the parks, from downtown to the miracle mile, into the neighborhoods.

7. Now this one I think will be hard for most Chicagoans who generally don't seem to have a lot of respect for their smaller Midwestern neighbors, but if you really want to get tourists, you have to push the midwest as a whole.

That means pushing St Louis with its arch and riverboats as well as towns in between like Springfield with the new Lincoln Library, New Salem, Galena, the state parks, Indianapolis, Wisconsin, the Dells, Spring Green, the house on the rock, and Minneapolis, the Apostle Islands, Mackinac, Detroit, the Hoover and Ford Presidential Libraries, Door County, Greenfield village, Cleveland, the rock and roll Hall of Fame, the Football hall of fame, Columbus Indiana, Sandusky's roller coasters, etc. etc. etc. You have never sold the midwest as a place to visit but there is lots of interest if you think about it.

A little bribery to the Travel channel and the travel magazines and you have a great product to sell. Drop the "second city" crap! Out here in LA where we really are the second city, we don't mention it! neither should you. You guys believe you have the best city in the US. Go and sell it!

Yes, I agree that the Midwest must change its image a little bit to be competitive on the tourist scene. However, I think projects like the high-speed rail corridor would really help to tie us together. The interstices between Midwestern cities contain agriculture on an scale unmatched within this country. As a result, a trip through central IL, MO, IN, etc tends to be a lot more monotonous than a trip though any other region of the country (save Oklahoma/TX Panhandle).

Feedback please on these promotionally oriented slogans:

Chicago, The Heart of America

-or-

Chicago, The Heart(Beat) of America

Feedback please on these promotionally oriented slogans:

Chicago, The Heart of America

-or-

Chicago, The Heart(Beat) of America

Sounds like a car ad.

NO WAY. not cool.

Chicago doesnt need slogans that are artificial
we have enough natural ones.

Nothing wrong with the second city moniker btw.

As far as gangster history goes,
Chicago shot itself in the foot by
razing the site of the st. valentines massacre, and razing the old whorehouses, and many of capones hangouts,
now we are just left with the greenmill, not a major hangout,
atleast we still have the biograph.

i like svs'es post though it is silly,
second city is an old moniker and it is something to be proud of,
as it relates to the comedy place that launced many careers,
I dont think however many people go around using it that much,
its just a part of chicagos history,

I dont think Chicago needs to booster itself
and push itself, people will come of their own accord
especially as we get more highrises.

Feedback please on these promotionally oriented slogans:

Chicago, The Heart of America

-or-

Chicago, The Heart(Beat) of America

^ No offense, but YUCK!

"Heart" and "America" in one sentence makes me think of country music

LA, SD, and SF are easily combined in a single trip, plus they are close to Vegas, the desert, the California coast, the wine country, Yosemite, the redwoods, Death Valley, and the Sequoias. A trip to the Grand Canyon, from California is pretty easy as well. On the east coast a trip to NYC can be combined with Washington or Boston, and Niagra falls is not far.

svs, I've been saying something similiar about Chicago for years: we are the least clustered and best example of a single destination in the US.

Let's piggy back on what you have observed and look at clusters:

NYC, Bos, Phil, DC, colonial VA, Cape Cod, Niagara, etc.

LA, SF, SD, Carmel, Yos, Tahoe, Vegas, Palm Sp, OC, etc.

Miami, Orl, Cape Can, Tampa, Everglades, Keys, etc.

Nobody can negate that places like New York, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Orlando, etc., can be visited on their own without throwing in respectively Boston, LA, Hoover Dam, or Miami. Still each is enriched by the options its hinterland offers.

Chicago has no such examples (no put down to the Midwest...we have fine places to see, most of which are well off the national radar). What Chicago has for the huge number of national and international visitors we get is they are coming here to see Chicago, not incorporate it into a regional visit. I believe in that sense, it would be hard for other cities to compare to ours.

Chicago - the real deal. "Inwardness" is its own powerful charm. Image retrofitting for marketing purposes might come at a loss of focus, even a clear sense of purpose. Chicago knows how to take care of ITS business (see the testimony of mayors across America on this point). Chicago, enjoying strong singleminded leadership, continues to maintain its own developing financial, commercial, and convention strengths. Keeping pace are its always evolving parks, museums, entertainment and restaurant venues. Chicago is everywhere the acknowledged leader in its "greening" projects. The city appears to be heading in the right direction for the 21st century without any loss of genuine character. All of today's "Chicago" energy and vision strives for "a city that works" at nearly all levels and whose "inward looking" lends it its own unique charm setting it apart from all other American cities. Chicago's focus on cultivating its own garden, will, I believe, over time achieve a wider cache, but that should come only as a bonus.

^ No offense, but YUCK!

"Heart" and "America" in one sentence makes me think of country music

you better be thanking your lucky stars that I didn't offer up:

Chicago, the Heart and Soul of America!

(replace the U of C with Vandy, the Lyric Opera for the Grand Ol Opry, and the Bears for the Titans and we'd have it made).

Sounds like a car ad.

As far as gangster history goes,
Chicago shot itself in the foot by
razing the site of the st. valentines massacre, and razing the old whorehouses, and many of capones hangouts,
now we are just left with the greenmill, not a major hangout,
atleast we still have the biograph.


we should have been more vigilant and thought about Dodge, Deadwood, and Tombstone, etc. So much of a violent past that appears negative, when enough years have passed, turns into local color and something positive.

Meet you at the Biograph.

[QUOTE=Frumie;11079776 Chicago's focus on cultivating its own garden, will, I believe, over time achieve a wider cache, but that should come only as a bonus.[/QUOTE]

The ultimate irony. When you get more national, more global, you lose control of many of the unique things that made you what you are. There may be a degree of Murphy's Law at play here.

Look as San Francisco: fairly well under 30% of its residents were born there. The history still sticks on the grond, but often it is lost to the people who are presently there.

The ultimate irony. When you get more national, more global, you lose control of many of the unique things that made you what you are. There may be a degree of Murphy's Law at play here.

Look as San Francisco: fairly well under 30% of its residents were born there. The history still sticks on the grond, but often it is lost to the people who are presently there.
Rootless in SF; it reminds me of the conclusion of the Hobbit and after the great adventure on the heights, Merry and Pippen remark that they are glad to have seen the heights, but now it's back to the Shire where the roots run deep. Chicago, even though a metropolitan city, still has deep roots.

Let me put it this way, Chicago still suffers from being the "second city". Let me preface by saying I grew up in Chicago and have always been a fan of the city. I believe it to be the best laid out metropolis in the country, with wonderful neighborhoods, good food, probably the best public architecture in the country, and nice people. The problems in attracting foreign tourists is that as good as Chicago shopping is, it will never match the diversity of New York, or the hipness and trendyness of the California metropoli. Chicago is just not that kind of a place. It is sensible, managerial, prudent, well put together, but just a little dull compared to the towns on the coasts.!

SVS I agree with most of what you had to say but, I don't think people find it just a little boring once they get here. Once most people get into the city they are blown away. But overall I agree with your assessment. I've always felt that things were a little to orderly. I think the most exciting thing about street life in most great European cities and in NYC, even Montreal is the feeling that the unexpected could appear in certain districts. Somtimes North Michigan just appears to tamed and comfortable. It lacks a certian edgyness. One reason we have this type of environment is that the mayor and his advisors tried to bring families back to the city from the suburbs in the 80's and part of it is the suburbanites moving into the city want their new city neighborhoods to be semi-urban (Clybourn Corridor, Roosevelt Road). A new resident of the Near Westside once told me that he loved living in the UIC area because everything was convient. He told me that he drove everywhere in the neighborhood, park his car just like he did when living in the suburbs. I lost a little hope about all of the redevelopment efforts happening in the city after that statement. On that same day I walked over to the new eastside (Lake Shore East). Although it is a great addition to the central area, I felt as if it where an urban Naperville. It just seem to be self contained, not truly intergrated into the fabric of the downtown.

This all goes back to my first comments about Chicago becoming more inviting as a place for business and culture. It all depends on how open our leaders and residents are about embracing change and being open to new ways and opportunities. Perhaps a little creativity in urban design (a little more excitement). I know the new residents want certain things in there new environs but, perhaps its the developers that are pushing their visions onto the buyers. It's possible when you consider the pattern of developments in Chicago suburbs. And lastly an upgraded and expanded public transportation system would also be a good start. The more people you get out of their cars and onto the streets the more excitement you have. (Did anyone see the commentary in yesterdays Suntimes. A woman wrote a article asking the mayor to step up and take the lead in fixing and expanding the CTA)

In the category of "be careful what you wish for"....

is there a possiblity that if Chicago became more national, more global, and less under local control that the the restraints, the restrictions, the high expectations for architecture will be compromised? In New York, there is more of a sense of "anything goes architecturally", although that city can definitely hit the mark. New York is so market driven that development (IMHO) doesn't always take in consideration city planning and aesthetics as it does in Chicago. Could that be our future?

SVS I agree with most of what you had to say but, I don't think people find it just a little boring once they get here. Once most people get into the city they are blown away.


I think there is some truth here. I often give advice to folks coming from the west coast to Chicago (usually on business or for a convention) on what to do and see in the city, and most are quite impressed with what they find in Chi. A lot is perception vs. reality. Like I said, A.J. Liebling did Chicago no favor when he came up with the "second city" moniker. You have a great city.

My opinion is actually summed up really well by what a few people have already said:

The Urban Politician: "Boutique shops need to sprout up in more areas, and they need to be the kinds of shops you won't see anywhere else in the region... Downtown Chicago needs to be a place that is so loaded with stuff to do, see, eat, and experience that nobody living there feels any reason to leave for weeks/months at a time."

urbanpln: "We also need to liven the street experience. As I walked down State Street near Macy's yesterday there were large crowds near the ABC television station. People seem to be drawn to this frontage. I think we need to take a closer look at this type of street presentation. Many people in my profession (urban planning and archtecture) see bright neon lights as tacky but I think they're re-assessing this. I think it can be done tastefully."

svs: "Don't fight the gangsters of the roaring twenties, its time to put up some monuments to Al Capone and Bugs Moran, and even Eliot Ness."

If these things can be done among others, than yeah, Chicago would be more inviting

In the Chicago Development thread today, there was an announcement that MetraMarket will be partially open next year.

I don't know the degree of food services that a finished MetraMarket will have (and admittedly it is indoors, so no street present), but would you guys consider this (admittedly sight unseen) to be the type of urban amenities that will enhance the city along the lines of our convesations here?

In the Chicago Development thread today, there was an announcement that MetraMarket will be partially open next year.

I don't know the degree of food services that a finished MetraMarket will have (and admittedly it is indoors, so no street present), but would you guys consider this (admittedly sight unseen) to be the type of urban amenities that will enhance the city along the lines of our convesations here?

Its a step in the right direction, and I like steps in the right direction.

But I dont think its flashy enough; that is, not enough people will notice it for it to be appealing (We're trying to impress NONlocals here, not just hardcore Chicagoans remember)

Its not really extraordinarily unique or noticeable.

I mean, it's great, and I truly hope I'm underestimating it, but we need to be more daring (ie. take the freshmarkets outside) to be noticed.

By the way, I heard somewhere on these forums that Chicago has an elderly and conservative board of aldermen that kinda um, in my opinion, "hold the city back." Any truth to this?

Its a step in the right direction, and I like steps in the right direction.

But I dont think its flashy enough; that is, not enough people will notice it for it to be appealing (We're trying to impress NONlocals here, not just hardcore Chicagoans remember)

Its not really extraordinarily unique or noticeable.

I mean, it's great, and I truly hope I'm underestimating it, but we need to be more daring (ie. take the freshmarkets outside) to be noticed.

By the way, I heard somewhere on these forums that Chicago has an elderly and conservative board of aldermen that kinda um, in my opinion, "hold the city back." Any truth to this?

I knew it was an impossibility, but I would have loved something similiar to LA's Farmers Market.

the real question about the Chicago we envision is less of a question of "if" than of "when".

"If" actually is not even an issue. What we have here in the present prevents it from being so. Without being a municipal cheerleader, the fact is Chicago has way too much in place aleady to prevent it from becoming the truly global city with envision. It's a matter of how long it takes to incubate. I suspect not long.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that less than 100 years ago, a blip in history, New York was not included in anybody's list of greatest cities on earth. Look at it today. Chicago is younger than New York. My sense is that "our day will come", even if it comes a little after the Big Apple's.

SVS I agree with most of what you had to say but, I don't think people find it just a little boring once they get here. Once most people get into the city they are blown away. But overall I agree with your assessment. I've always felt that things were a little to orderly. I think the most exciting thing about street life in most great European cities and in NYC, even Montreal is the feeling that the unexpected could appear in certain districts. Somtimes North Michigan just appears to tamed and comfortable. It lacks a certian edgyness. One reason we have this type of environment is that the mayor and his advisors tried to bring families back to the city from the suburbs in the 80's and part of it is the suburbanites moving into the city want their new city neighborhoods to be semi-urban (Clybourn Corridor, Roosevelt Road). A new resident of the Near Westside once told me that he loved living in the UIC area because everything was convient. He told me that he drove everywhere in the neighborhood, park his car just like he did when living in the suburbs. I lost a little hope about all of the redevelopment efforts happening in the city after that statement. On that same day I walked over to the new eastside (Lake Shore East). Although it is a great addition to the central area, I felt as if it where an urban Naperville. It just seem to be self contained, not truly intergrated into the fabric of the downtown.

This all goes back to my first comments about Chicago becoming more inviting as a place for business and culture. It all depends on how open our leaders and residents are about embracing change and being open to new ways and opportunities. Perhaps a little creativity in urban design (a little more excitement). I know the new residents want certain things in there new environs but, perhaps its the developers that are pushing their visions onto the buyers. It's possible when you consider the pattern of developments in Chicago suburbs. And lastly an upgraded and expanded public transportation system would also be a good start. The more people you get out of their cars and onto the streets the more excitement you have. (Did anyone see the commentary in yesterdays Suntimes. A woman wrote a article asking the mayor to step up and take the lead in fixing and expanding the CTA)

^ Yeah, I'm beginning to rethink my support for Daley as a mayor for this reason. His total lack of vision in regards to transit is starting to get annoying. Chicago's decisions on transit and land-use planning over the next few years will influence whether I decide to ever live there or not. I love the midwest, but I'm not going to move back if I can't live comfortably without having to use a car. If Chicago can't offer it, then screw 'um

Just when I was hoping for a larger DT concentration of jazz and blues venues this pops up:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-12-30T173016Z_01_N29273386_RTRUKOC_0_US-JAZZ-CHICAGO.xml&src=rss

Do you find the following surprising????

Sunset, sunrise
S.F.'s future looks sunny as development, political muscle suggest good old days are back
Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, December 31, 2006


Joseph Gyourko and his colleagues at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania say San Francisco is one of five "superstar cities" in the United States -- a city where the price of housing increased by 271 percent between 1970 and 2000. The others are New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle, where a scarcity of housing and strong demand also have created huge price escalations.

*****

Is the "superstar city" skewed against Chicago because of midwest property values and an openess of land that kept real estate prices lower than in the coastal cities mentioned?

the article above (which I also posted in the national forum in an SF discussion) I have decided to copy here, too:

if you read the article, do you think that the things described happening in San Francisco are also happening in Chicago? Are the cities alike in this respect, or does SF appear to be doing more than Chgo?

Sunset, sunrise
S.F.'s future looks sunny as development, political muscle suggest good old days are back
Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, December 31, 2006


Printable Version
Email This Article
For many San Franciscans, the best day is always yesterday, when houses were cheaper, the skies were bluer, and the city was a better place to live.

"There's an old saying," says James Chappell, head of an urban think tank, "San Francisco was perfect the day I moved here."

Those with long memories talk about the glorious 1915 World's Fair, or the day in 1937 when the Golden Gate Bridge opened, or the '60s and '70s, years of the Summer of Love, long hair, free love, the birth of a rock scene and a gay mecca. "It was a nonesuch city then," says Gray Brechin, a historian. "No other city was like it, then. It was like Oz."

But forget the past. Right now, San Francisco may be in a kind of golden age. These may be the good old days.

"That's a good thesis, a good theory," says Anne Halsted, who has been an activist on Telegraph Hill for years. Halsted is the quintessential old-line civic leader, a member of the Port Commission, and vice chair of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. "The quality of life is pretty high here."

This winter, San Francisco seems to sparkle with light, the downtown streets crowded with shoppers, the arts in full flower, new buildings rising everywhere like mushrooms, a city that loves to eat and drink. Just now, San Francisco looks like a small polished gem.

"I was looking out my window at the wonderful golden sunset on the bridge," says Charlotte Shultz, the city's chief of protocol. "And I thought, there is no better place for opportunities than California and no better place to find them than in San Francisco."

San Francisco, once a blue-collar town, has changed in recent years as the port and manufacturing faded away. Now it's a city of service industries, with old neighborhoods next to new high-rises.

"A big city for people who don't like big cities," says Neil Olson, a management consultant for lawyers, who moved to San Francisco 20 years ago.

Like any city, San Francisco has its downside -- it is losing its middle class and its children. The number of kids in schools has declined from 93,000 in 1968 to 54,500 now, according to Supervisor Ed Jew, who was elected from the Sunset District last fall on a platform of trying to hold on to families and small businesses.

The city's streets are full of beggars, and some of the homeless sleep in the doorways of swanky shops at night. Sometimes 21st century San Francisco looks like Charles Dickens' 19th century London.

The golden times of the past also had their dark sides. In the Bonanza days of the 1870s when the largest hotel in the country was built in San Francisco, the rich drank champagne and built gingerbread palaces on Nob Hill, the city was stained with anti-Chinese riots, and the Barbary Coast was a dark and dangerous place of drugs, prostitution and crime.

"The place was full of contradictions," Charles Caldwell Dobie wrote in "San Francisco, A Pageant."

San Francisco of the here and now has contradictions, too, many of them shaped by economic forces.

Joseph Gyourko and his colleagues at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania say San Francisco is one of five "superstar cities" in the United States -- a city where the price of housing increased by 271 percent between 1970 and 2000. The others are New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle, where a scarcity of housing and strong demand also have created huge price escalations.

"Living in markets like San Francisco has become a scarce luxury," they observe in their academic paper on superstar cities.

The result has been a $1.3 million median price for housing in Noe Valley, once a blue-collar neighborhood, and 107-year-old houses in Bernal Heights being offered for $1 million.

On the one hand, this escalation has produced a city of high incomes -- the Wharton study says that nearly a third of San Franciscans earn more than $110,000 a year -- a city of restaurants, and a city that supports publications specializing in fine wines.

The old debates about skyscrapers and Manhattanization have faded. As a result, new neighborhoods of high-rise condominiums where units sell for $1 million or more are sprouting in South of Market, around the baseball park, on Rincon Hill and the area around Mission Bay.

"Who would have believed all those Rincon Hill high-rises would have been permitted without a peep?" says Chappell, who is president of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. "They can't build them fast enough."

One sign of change is the plethora of new condos rising between the Caltrain station and Mission Creek. Only 10 years ago the area was a foul-smelling backwater. Now it is lined with upscale houseboats on the south bank and nearly completed condo developments on the north bank. It resembles not so much a creek as a canal.

Chappell thinks these changes -- the move south and the development of downtown as a residential area -- are part of a new urbanism in the city. It is the exact opposite of the suburban life that many expatriate San Franciscans chose when they left the city.

"High-rise downtown living is a good way to live," he says. At least for some people. "Have you noticed that people who like to live in places like Walnut Creek live in Walnut Creek, where they can have three-car garages and lawns?"

One aspect of a golden age is to use the past. San Francisco has found new identities for the once nearly derelict Ferry Building and the former Emporium department store, now the anchor of the Westfield San Francisco Centre.

Another is political leadership. The more conservative forces in the country ran a campaign last fall against what they called "San Francisco values" and were roundly defeated. Next week, the new speaker of the House will be San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi. Never in the long life of the city has a San Franciscan occupied such a high position in Congress.

Gavin Newsom, the mayor of the city, has approval ratings that match those of James Rolph Jr. -- "Sunny Jim" -- who became mayor in 1912 in another of the city's golden ages. "Our golden boy mayor," Shultz calls Newsom.

The city also is working on developing new housing on Treasure Island, once the site of a World's Fair, now fondly remembered in the haze of nostalgia.

"I think the future is quite rosy," says Claudine Cheng, president of the Treasure Island Development Authority board. "It is very exciting to be in on the birth of a new neighborhood in San Francisco."

On the other hand, Supervisor Jew is worried about the exodus of families. He says 1,000 families moved from the city to the Peninsula in the past year or two. "I see people working two and three jobs just to make house payments," he says. "I see children being forced to ride buses all over town to go to school. I see kids who can't go to school near their home."

Jew is a third-generation San Franciscan. His grandfather came to the city in 1927, and by working hard -- "eight days a week," Jew says -- made a home here.

"We are all part of the fabric," he says. "We want the city to be as good for the next generation as it was to his generation and mine."

If this is a golden age, it reflects a city in transition, a changing place.

"We are in an awkward stage just now," Chappell says. "We are ... in the process of changing from a village into a real city."

On the other hand, Olson, who moved to San Francisco from North Dakota in the 1980s, says San Francisco still has a small-town feel.

He took his two sons -- both born here -- downtown on the morning of Christmas.

The city hadn't awakened yet; the streets were still empty. They wandered around, looking at the pet animals in Macy's window, when suddenly to their wondering eyes, Macy's Santa Claus appeared, offering coloring books and posing for pictures. "It was a very small-town thing," he says, "like a little bit of the Midwest."

It was a scene out of an old Herb Caen column about the good old days, too, the part where he called San Francisco "definitely a show, with magnificent sets, a colorful cast of thousands, several good songs, and, one hopes, a happy ending."

That survey draws off of trends from 1970 to 2000. You really can't look at average price of housing before 1985 and call Chicago a "superstar city". We may have made massive strides in the last couple years, but we're nowhere near to reversing the damage wreaked by white flight and decades of neglect.

That survey draws off of trends from 1970 to 2000. You really can't look at average price of housing before 1985 and call Chicago a "superstar city". We may have made massive strides in the last couple years, but we're nowhere near to reversing the damage wreaked by white flight and decades of neglect.

I see your point. I'm also aware that our real estate prices don't match the coastal cities. They might not in the future, but I can't imagine that that needs to be a barrier for Chicago.

Do any of the following have any effect on Chicago's disperity from the other cities:

1. we're midwestern

2. our topography differs...no SF peninsula, no Seattle isthmus, no NYC with Manhattan an island and all four outer boroughs confined by water also, no Boston with its historically crowded core hemmed in between Atlantic and Charles. Flat Chicago has no such barriers to settlement and no natural way (as opposed to man made, which it has) of spiking real estate prices.

3. The three west coast cities are strongly influenced by roughed and often mountainous land in reflecting real estate prices.

4. The northeast corridor is the densest part of the United States and affects real estate prices not only in NYC and Boston but from southern NH to northern VA

*****
That said, I'm not sure how Chicago real estate compares with the other cities structurally. Chicago's true areas of exhorbitant real estate is downtown and along the lakefront (although peripheral areas may also be relatively expensive).

Contrast this with San Francisco where prices are high throughout the city, even the furthest sections of downtown. Of course, that might be the result of a small but popular city in a large metropolitan area....factors that also affect Boston. Manhattan real estate, like SF's, remains high throughout the island and the outer boroughs can be expensive, too. LA prices tend to be high throughout the city (from the north end of the valley all the way down to the harbor).

I don't know the answer and perhaps somebody does: is Chicago a different model? Is our city more based on a very expensive and highly expanded inner core or is it really like the other places....high prices all around (but higher in central portions)?

The article angers me...

It uses the last THIRTY years to determine what the greatest "golden" city of NOW is.

Seattle? BOSTON? What is this guy thinking? If this guy's methodology of determining great "current golden superstar cities" comes up with Seattle, Boston, and San Francisco instead of, say, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Miami, his methodology is at least MISLEADING.

Look, Emporis documents that Miami (and Chicago and NY for the hell of it) EACH currently have more than 180 skyscrapers proposed, approved, or under construction in the city.

it would take San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and Los Angeles put together to have an amount that surpasses 180

The article is using 30 year-old house value data to determine superstar cities, and thats not a good measure of either a city's growth or greatness, in my opinion

so back to your question, I don't find it surprising, I find it misleading

The article angers me...

It uses the last THIRTY years to determine what the greatest "golden" city of NOW is.

Seattle? BOSTON? What is this guy thinking? If this guy's methodology of determining great "current golden superstar cities" comes up with Seattle, Boston, and San Francisco instead of, say, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Miami, his methodology is at least MISLEADING.

Look, Emporis documents that Miami (and Chicago and NY for the hell of it) EACH currently have more than 180 skyscrapers proposed, approved, or under construction in the city.

it would take San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and Los Angeles put together to have an amount that surpasses 180

The article is using 30 year-old house value data to determine superstar cities, and thats not a good measure of either a city's growth or greatness, in my opinion

i see your point. besides, and with no disrespect to the great metropolis of the northwest, for all its trendy coffee shops and microchips, nobody in their right mind would place Seattle over Chicago as a major city. Certainly Boeing didn't.

ChiNight and others....ancient surveys aside, could you see the Trib or S/T getting as effusive over the new Chicago as the Chron obviously did about SF?

I wouldn't worry too much about the property costs. High property costs are only going to hold back development on the west coast and favor the cities where construction and business costs are cheaper.

I wouldn't worry too much about the property costs. High property costs are only going to hold back development on the west coast and favor the cities where construction and business costs are cheaper.

isn't the rule more along the lines that these places with high real estate costs have the incomes that comenserate with them? People with money can afford the prices.

^^ I respectfully request that Ed's subtitle be changed to "Master of the Socratic Method". Seriously. :lol:

^^ I respectfully request that Ed's subtitle be changed to "Master of the Socratic Method". Seriously. :lol:
Only if the techne of architecture is expressive of eidetic eikasia. :)

^^ I respectfully request that Ed's subtitle be changed to "Master of the Socratic Method". Seriously. :lol:
i went to school with Socrates.:) :)

i went to school with Socrates.:) :)
Aha! That accounts for all your irony. :)

Just when I was hoping for a larger DT concentration of jazz and blues venues this pops up:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-12-30T173016Z_01_N29273386_RTRUKOC_0_US-JAZZ-CHICAGO.xml&src=rss

Fark that is sad. No Jazz showcase anymore? Hopefully the owner can find someplace to stay near downtown or if not at least in a near side neighborhood.

Aha! That accounts for all your irony. :)

no, i think it explains having to stand 3 houjrs by a tiolet to be able to produce 2 drops of urine! Mel Brooks must have had the same problem hundreds of years after his caveman days.

ChiNight and others....ancient surveys aside, could you see the Trib or S/T getting as effusive over the new Chicago as the Chron obviously did about SF?

I don't think the Trib would. The Trib is kinda special because it is very critical of the city (Remember all those "ugliest buildings downtown" articles that gripe about the "troll" buildings in the loop?) I don't know about the Sun Times; I am not really familiar with it...

BUT, I see what you're getting at, and I must say there certainly are naive people (*cough radio DJ's) that are guilty of saying "Chicago is the greatest city in the world" or nonsense to that effect to the public.

I mean hey, I LOVE the city but flat out saying it is superior to New York or Tokyo, for example, without any good reasons why is something some Chicagoans are guilty of.

Is the "superstar city" skewed against Chicago because of midwest property values and an openess of land that kept real estate prices lower than in the coastal cities mentioned?

^ I think the 110+ highrises constructed in Chicago in the past 7 years doesn't qualify it has having a scarcity of housing.

I wouldn't let the term "superstar city" and Chicago's lack of inclusion on that list bug you. It's simply reflecting the growth in home values, nothing more.

^ I think the 110+ highrises constructed in Chicago in the past 7 years doesn't qualify it has having a scarcity of housing.

I wouldn't let the term "superstar city" and Chicago's lack of inclusion on that list bug you. It's simply reflecting the growth in home values, nothing more.

I fully agree. The list is meaningless. Besides, we really have to ask ourselves which is of greater interest to us: how we are preceived in comparison to other US cities or how the city works for us. zI'll vote for the second opiton.

Does anyone believe the continuing sprawl in the Chicago metropolitan area will have a negative effect on the central area? Will the continuing sprawl prevent higher densities in the center therefore influencing transportation policy and decisions? I can't help but to think about all of those families moving to the fringe not having the experience of growing up in a real city neighborhood. Their kids will not value a truly urban lifestyle. If they move back to the city chances are they will want lower densities, more parking, quieter streets (no tolerance for everyday city noises), larger living units on larger lots. I've witnessed these attitudes everyday throughout this city and, this way of thinking probably exist throughout the country.

San Francisco and New York already have very dense established cores. Although Chicago has a dense core, I'm concerned about the new redeveloping areas reaching their full potential because of the fear most people in this country have about densities.

Does anyone believe the continuing sprawl in the Chicago metropolitan area will have a negative effect on the central area? Will the continuing sprawl prevent higher densities in the center therefore influencing transportation policy and decisions? I can't help but to think about all of those families moving to the fringe not having the experience of growing up in a real city neighborhood. Their kids will not value a truly urban lifestyle. If they move back to the city chances are they will want lower densities, more parking, quieter streets (no tolerance for everyday city noises), larger living units on larger lots. I've witnessed these attitudes everyday throughout this city and, this way of thinking probably exist throughout the country.

San Francisco and New York already have very dense established cores. Although Chicago has a dense core, I'm concerned about the new redeveloping areas reaching their full potential because of the fear most people in this country have about densities.

^ I'm actually not too worried about this. Both New York and SF are surrounded by tons of sprawl, but people still choose to live in the city center and accept city life. In fact the SF metro is far less centrally dominated than Chicago is, and it even has a higher car ownership rate, even while the city itself is denser than Chicago.

Does anyone believe the continuing sprawl in the Chicago metropolitan area will have a negative effect on the central area? Will the continuing sprawl prevent higher densities in the center therefore influencing transportation policy and decisions?

the previous model to your concern said "YES"; the current one said "NO".

Something interesting happened. You can date when the rise of modern, dynamic, and inviting Chicago started. Arbitarily, let's say 1990. Prior to that time, the predictions were, as you said: exterior growth, interior decline".

Part of that decline that showed how Chicago and other urban areas suffered while the edge of suburbia boomed was a prediction: the inner most ring of suburbs would start hemoraging population and go into the same sort of decline that many inner city Chicago neighborhoods did.

In reality, what happened, was quite the opposite: the inner ring of suburbs gained new prosperity (and a helluva lot of unwelcome tear downs) largely because of their proximity to Chicago. Look at what has happend just in north suburbia: Evanston completely transformed its downtown and its transit oriented Chicago Avenue corridor, cashing in on the big city next door. More amazing are the places that experienced similiar residential construction and growth (but without a university and a lakefront to sell for their desirability): Lincolnwood, Skokie, Niles, Park Ridge, Morton Grove, etc.

Meanwhile, cross into the city itself and you see areas far removed from the core and completely berift of the core's charms and attractions (i.e. Rogers Pk, WRP, North Park, Albany Park, Edgewater, etc.) and see how expensive real estate has become there....just because the pleasures of the more high profile Chicago are just steps away.

So, yes, Kenosha County can boom just like Lake did before it, but the core of Chicago looks pretty damned safe to me.

So, yes, Kenosha County can boom just like Lake did before it, but the core of Chicago looks pretty damned safe to me.

^ I agree 100%.

It's also good to see much of that prosperity finally headed to the neighborhoods south of downtown

I dont think suburban sprawl will hurt the core's density... I dont even think the two are related (anymore)

I mean, Chicago Spire, Waterview, Trump, Aqua, Legacy, Mandarin Oriental

Regardless of Suburbia, a whole other group of people are willing to cram into HUGE buildings, making the core denser

Also, since you're interested in density, check out this vid

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PWEFhBV_eYg

The vid said its from Aug 2006, its already pretty dense, and we still have the above behemoths (among many others) on the way... Chicago's "density growth" should be just fine, regardless of suburbia

isn't the rule more along the lines that these places with high real estate costs have the incomes that comenserate with them? People with money can afford the prices.

To live, yes. That's why we have so many millionaires living out here. But if you are planning on opening a factory or business headquarters, a practical businessman is going to try to keep expenses and taxes down. So they will make money in Chicago and retire to sunny California.

i went to school with Socrates.:) :)

I hope you remember what happened to him for asking too many questions.

I don't think the Trib would. The Trib is kinda special because it is very critical of the city (Remember all those "ugliest buildings downtown" articles that gripe about the "troll" buildings in the loop?) I don't know about the Sun Times; I am not really familiar with it...

BUT, I see what you're getting at, and I must say there certainly are naive people (*cough radio DJ's) that are guilty of saying "Chicago is the greatest city in the world" or nonsense to that effect to the public.

I mean hey, I LOVE the city but flat out saying it is superior to New York or Tokyo, for example, without any good reasons why is something some Chicagoans are guilty of.

Tribune is up for sale, bids are already coming in from LA which wants control of the LA Times back. In a year, things may be very different.

I don't think the Trib would. The Trib is kinda special because it is very critical of the city (Remember all those "ugliest buildings downtown" articles that gripe about the "troll" buildings in the loop?) I don't know about the Sun Times; I am not really familiar with it...

BUT, I see what you're getting at, and I must say there certainly are naive people (*cough radio DJ's) that are guilty of saying "Chicago is the greatest city in the world" or nonsense to that effect to the public.

I mean hey, I LOVE the city but flat out saying it is superior to New York or Tokyo, for example, without any good reasons why is something some Chicagoans are guilty of.

I'm originally from Chicago, but have lived in LA for Thirtyfive years. I still have a lot of family left in Chicago. From what I have seen, most middle class Chicagoans honestly believe they live in the best city in the world. And Their opinion is as good as anyone else's.

A really good case can be made that Chicago splits the difference between New York and LA while lacking the excesses of either. I honestly think Chicago is the best laid out city in the country, and has the best public architecture. With the weather getting better thanks to global warming, those Chicago chauvinists could well be right.

Unlike LA, SF, and NYC, Chicago lacks that special something that makes it instantly recognizable nationally and internationally. What defines Chicago? What makes Chicago, Chicago?

People visit NYC for its reputation of being the "Capital of the World", where one can find a little bit of everything in one of the greatest and most vibrant metropolises in the world.

People visit LA for its Hollywood culture, its beaches, and posh neighborhoods. As svs said, when visiting the LA area, many include a visit to OC, San Diego, Las Vegas, and even Grand Canyon.

People visit SF for its unique atmosphere with the hills, cable cars, bridges, Victorian homes, etc. that make for an experience quite unlike any other. One can easily visit places such as Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, Pebble Beach, Carmel, Monterey, Big Sur, etc.

Even DC and Miami have their own unique qualities that appeal to visitors. But what makes Chicago unique? What sets Chicago apart from all the others?

Unlike LA, SF, and NYC, Chicago lacks that special something that makes it instantly recognizable nationally and internationally. What defines Chicago? What makes Chicago, Chicago?

People visit NYC for its reputation of being the "Capital of the World", where one can find a little bit of everything in one of the greatest and most vibrant metropolises in the world.

People visit LA for its Hollywood culture, its beaches, and posh neighborhoods. As svs said, when visiting the LA area, many include a visit to OC, San Diego, Las Vegas, and even Grand Canyon.

People visit SF for its unique atmosphere with the hills, cable cars, bridges, Victorian homes, etc. that make for an experience quite unlike any other. One can easily visit places such as Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, Pebble Beach, Carmel, Monterey, Big Sur, etc.

Even DC and Miami have their own unique qualities that appeal to visitors. But what makes Chicago unique? What sets Chicago apart from all the others?

Chicago is the ultimate success story of the American city, writ large. It has been referred to as the last great American city. Not founded by Europeans as our coastal counterpoints, and without any colonial history, more than any US city its growth and development parallels the growth and devlopment of America.

What Chicago offers, too, is the ability to enjoy a truly huge major city inf the most comfortable and inviting of settings. No huge US city has managed to put together a world class array of attractions in such a user friendly setting.

All of which translates into an incredible amount of domestic and international travelers visitng this city for pleasure and despite your doubts, absolutely loving the place.

BTW, the last thing in the world I'd want is to have what you describe as the "Capital of the World" (or the World's Greatest City) tag. New York is predicated on beng the capital of the world, the world's greatest city. NYC, though it would never admit, constantly has to look over its shoulder to see what cities are nipping at its ass because its whole being really is centered around that dominating concept. Things don't stay the same. New York, like all cities, faces competiton. When those perceptions of NYC as being a place apart, the one on top, fade (and they will), the city's ego will take a blow and reason for being will be challenged.

that may not have answered your question. As far as setting apart, I'd say the unique architetural hertiage and concern for how the aesthetics of buildings fit the setting, the world's most people oriented waterfront, restaurants that have made the city vie for the #1 postion in the nation, what many consider the best bar scene in the US, the most concentrated city core in America, the unique and unparraleled role of the public sector to contribute to the fabric of the city's core (Millennium Park, Navy Pier, Museum Campus, etc....no US city has pulled these off during the last 20 years).

Of course, I'm partisan. Maybe it's good to ask an outsider the question you asked. Ask the mayor of the hills, cable cars, bridges, Victorian homes you mentioned as to why the City by the Bay sees the City by the Lake as its ultimate role model. Gavin Newsome is entrhalled by Chicago and wishes to see San Francisco learn from and be more like it.

Unlike LA, SF, and NYC, Chicago lacks that special something that makes it instantly recognizable nationally and internationally. What defines Chicago? What makes Chicago, Chicago?

People visit NYC for its reputation of being the "Capital of the World", where one can find a little bit of everything in one of the greatest and most vibrant metropolises in the world.

People visit LA for its Hollywood culture, its beaches, and posh neighborhoods. As svs said, when visiting the LA area, many include a visit to OC, San Diego, Las Vegas, and even Grand Canyon.

People visit SF for its unique atmosphere with the hills, cable cars, bridges, Victorian homes, etc. that make for an experience quite unlike any other. One can easily visit places such as Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, Pebble Beach, Carmel, Monterey, Big Sur, etc.

Even DC and Miami have their own unique qualities that appeal to visitors. But what makes Chicago unique? What sets Chicago apart from all the others?

^ This is so true. From the get-go, Chicago has functioned as a city to "get business done", and that continues to be the case. It serves the midwest/nation (and now world) economically, and now with the Merc/CBOT merger its role as a trade center will be further cemented. However, I don't think Chicago is really viewed beyond its economic role (perhaps history of mobster crime?) elsewhere.

However, I have experienced firsthand how much more depth there is to Chicago than that. I consider myself lucky for having grown up near Chicago, and unlike people on the coasts, I can tally Chicago as one of America's greatest urban environments that I know very well.

What defines Chicago? What makes Chicago, Chicago?

^ So to answer this question, I would say Chicago is that city that works. I know people think that moniker is outdated with the loss of industrial jobs, but I think this moniker applies now more than ever. Whether it's a service-based economy, a stabilizer of world markets, or a place where things are judged or regulated, I think Chicago most defines itself by its economic contribution to the nation/world than anything else.

And that's why loss or gain of a HQ or major convention always gets the biggest headlines in CHicago.

I'm a big Chicago fan. Taken as a whole, it's my favorite American city. (San Francisco would win that honor if it were cheaper though, and a bit less monolithically extreme left). The development in Chicago since I first moved here in 1992 (when people looked at you strange if you even lived someplace like Southport Ave. in Lincoln Park) is astonishing.

Still, Chicago's glory days are behind it. There was a day when Chicago legitimately believed it would pass New York to become America's premier urban center. But that day was long ago.

If you want to know what the great cities of tomorrow are, you need to look to the real growth boomtown's like Shanghai. Chicago may be outclassing the rest of the midwest by a mile and outperforming its past trend significantly, but the fact is it is still a slow growth, midwestern city. Chicago will continue to hoover up the best and brightest from the midwest, robbing other smaller cities of their top talent, but I don't see Chicago somehow luring the world's elite away from London, New York, Tokyo, etc.

The real next world city in America is probably something we don't expect. Someplace like Atlanta, which is growing faster than any other large metro area in the developed world, is a possible candidate. Atlanta might make some of us recoil in horror and is certainly not the traditional model of urbanization, but the future of what it means to be a great world city doesn't necessarily have to be the same as the past. No doubt east coasters looked down on Chicago as a cow town when its growth first took off. If Chicago's growth trajectory were like Atlanta, we might have something to talk about. We are growing and it is exciting, but there is no sense that we are at ground zero for where it's happening in the world.

(when people looked at you strange if you even lived someplace like Southport Ave. in Lincoln Park)


what people? by "people", do you mean white upper crust snobs?

my friend grew up at southport & wrightwood and i've never looked at her strange for it.

[QUOTE=arenn;11138903]Still, Chicago's glory days are behind it. There was a day when Chicago legitimately believed it would pass New York to become America's premier urban center. But that day was long ago.

I disagree...I think Chicago's best days are ahead of it. Chicago will never pass New York in Population, but population does not equal greatness. Chicago is seeing growth in its core like it never has.

Atlanta may one day pass Chicago in population (along with Houston, Phoenix), but Atlanta will not see this extreme growth forever, it probably top out in the next 30 years or so...Even though Atlanta's growth is bigger than Chicago's, I cant see it ever being on the same level as Chicago.

The real next world city in America is probably something we don't expect. Someplace like Atlanta, which is growing faster than any other large metro area in the developed world, is a possible candidate. Atlanta might make some of us recoil in horror and is certainly not the traditional model of urbanization, but the future of what it means to be a great world city doesn't necessarily have to be the same as the past.

this is strictly what i think and it really has no basis in fact, but I firmly believe that the metropolitan areas that get attention for rapid rate of growth (and the sheer size of that growth) like Houston, DFW, Atlanta will have difficulty competing with the likes of New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, etc. since I don't see the city experience there really coalessing around the core the way it did in older cities mentioned.

that's just my guess....so to Atlantans, Houstonians, Dallasites, your guess is as good as mine.

I sense that the power and greatness of Chicago plays out greater in the real world than it does on the SkyscraperCity forum in cyberspace.

In the so called "reality based world", Chicago is viewed as a far mightier andimportant place than it often comes across here.

[QUOTE=arenn;11138903]Still, Chicago's glory days are behind it. There was a day when Chicago legitimately believed it would pass New York to become America's premier urban center. But that day was long ago.

I disagree...I think Chicago's best days are ahead of it. Chicago will never pass New York in Population, but population does not equal greatness. Chicago is seeing growth in its core like it never has.

Atlanta may one day pass Chicago in population (along with Houston, Phoenix), but Atlanta will not see this extreme growth forever, it probably top out in the next 30 years or so...Even though Atlanta's growth is bigger than Chicago's, I cant see it ever being on the same level as Chicago.

I would never count out chicago with population...chicago is a city that when they put there mind to a certain task they can get it done like no other city in america. Who knows what the future holds..chicago could get a massive amount of headquarters moving to the city and the pop can start growing like never before. I will never give up hope that chicago could pass NYC in pop but that is far down the line..But I honestly think people really underestimate how powerfull and unique chicago is in the world.

If Chicago's growth trajectory were like Atlanta, we might have something to talk about.

^ Nothing could be further from the truth to people who know their history.

Chicago's great growth spurt was in the late 19th, early 20th centuries--one of the fastest urban growth spurts in modern history.

Atlanta just now is entering a steep part of the growth curve.

But Chicago exploded in an earlier time in the American economy--there weren't nearly as many established American urban centers. That gave Chicago the opportunity to acquire a lot of importance in the fledgling nation rather quickly. Atlanta is popping up pretty late in the game, and such prominence doesn't come easily any more--it has to share its "laurels", if you will, with a lot of other urban centers.

Example, there was once a time (quite recently, in fact) Chicago had over 50 Fortune 500 Headquarters. I don't see Atlanta (or any American city, for that matter, outside of NYC) solely seizing such a chunk of prominence in modern times.

would I be nuts to suggest that if you want proof that population of an incorported city (as opposed to metro population) is relatively meaningingless, it could be proven with two Spanish words: San Francisco.

Boston comes to mind, too.

Atlanta and DFW, Houston, etc. cannot currently surpass Chicago in population, because their growth patterns are unsustainable and far too resource-consuming. Right now, they are quite seriously pushing the limits of autocentric patterns. Flying into Atlanta is scary - MILES of forest being taken down for endless acres of homes with no retail or workplaces in sight (from the air!) When freeway congestion becomes unbearable, perhaps they will change their tune.

Not that Chicagoland's growth patterns are any better or more sustainable - but the difference is that we have a HUGE urban core which is slowly repopulating and refilling the existing organized, sustainable patterns which are there (city neighborhoods). Also, our suburban areas have relatively high percentages of mass transit commuters (Metra) as supposed to Atlanta, which only has two MARTA lines that serve a small percentage of land area.

Atlanta and DFW, Houston, etc. cannot currently surpass Chicago in population, because their growth patterns are unsustainable and far too resource-consuming. Right now, they are quite seriously pushing the limits of autocentric patterns. Flying into Atlanta is scary - MILES of forest being taken down for endless acres of homes with no retail or workplaces in sight (from the air!) When freeway congestion becomes unbearable, perhaps they will change their tune.

Not that Chicagoland's growth patterns are any better or more sustainable - but the difference is that we have a HUGE urban core which is slowly repopulating and refilling the existing organized, sustainable patterns which are there (city neighborhoods). Also, our suburban areas have relatively high percentages of mass transit commuters (Metra) as supposed to Atlanta, which only has two MARTA lines that serve a small percentage of land area.


We can never underestimate the power of all those Metra lines running from downtown to virtually all suburban areas, can we, ardecila? You'll never see them in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, or any of a precious few cities have today....and none to the degree of New York or Chicago. That's all cash in our bank for the future.

How about CTA? MARTA may move people in and out of Atlanta, but it in way blankets the city in Atlanta the way that all those CTA lines do in Chicago. At least MARTA is rapid transit. Other boom towns (Dallas, Houston) only have light rail. Again, CTA like Metra is designed to keep the fuure bright in Chicgo.

Well, MARTA faced extreme ridicule when it was first built. Also, it had low ridership, at least initially.

A big problem is that the North-South line and East-West line intersect in the Five Points area, which at the time of construction had a lot of African-Americans, which frightened some of the white suburbians.

Unlike LA, SF, and NYC, Chicago lacks that special something that makes it instantly recognizable nationally and internationally. What defines Chicago? What makes Chicago, Chicago?

People visit NYC for its reputation of being the "Capital of the World", where one can find a little bit of everything in one of the greatest and most vibrant metropolises in the world.

People visit LA for its Hollywood culture, its beaches, and posh neighborhoods. As svs said, when visiting the LA area, many include a visit to OC, San Diego, Las Vegas, and even Grand Canyon.

People visit SF for its unique atmosphere with the hills, cable cars, bridges, Victorian homes, etc. that make for an experience quite unlike any other. One can easily visit places such as Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, Pebble Beach, Carmel, Monterey, Big Sur, etc.

Even DC and Miami have their own unique qualities that appeal to visitors. But what makes Chicago unique? What sets Chicago apart from all the others?


Obviously it does have tremendous appeal to millions of people. Booming tourism is evidence. International visitors are really starting to discover Chicago's greatness in a hurry. I live next to Mag Mile, and Im seeing more and more international tourists than ever.

my sense here is that too many forumers on throughout the skyscraper board have this ridiculous notion that the interior of the nation cannot match the coasts in power, trend setting, leadership, etc.

this feeling goes far beyond feeling this way about the northeast corridor and California. For many, it automatically expends to Miami, Seattle, Vegas, and other locations on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf.

That's my impression; and I think in an age of air travel, it is absolutely nuts.

I think it has something to do with our natural instincts of wanting to be next to major waterways. Its been that way through most of civilized history. But your right these days it isnt so important, just more psychological. Chicago has much more water than Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Phoenix, Denver, Las Vegas, Dallas, San Antonio, Kansas City, Austin etcetera. One day the fresh water that Chicago has will be extremely valuable. Wish we could buy water futures!!!

[QUOTE=arenn;11138903]Still,

Atlanta may one day pass Chicago in population (along with Houston, Phoenix), but Atlanta will not see this extreme growth forever, it probably top out in the next 30 years or so...Even though Atlanta's growth is bigger than Chicago's, I cant see it ever being on the same level as Chicago.

I do not think so. Here are some reasons why, and there are more.

Atlanta and DFW, Houston, etc. cannot currently surpass Chicago in population, because their growth patterns are unsustainable and far too resource-consuming. Right now, they are quite seriously pushing the limits of autocentric patterns. Flying into Atlanta is scary - MILES of forest being taken down for endless acres of homes with no retail or workplaces in sight (from the air!) When freeway congestion becomes unbearable, perhaps they will change their tune.

Not that Chicagoland's growth patterns are any better or more sustainable - but the difference is that we have a HUGE urban core which is slowly repopulating and refilling the existing organized, sustainable patterns which are there (city neighborhoods). Also, our suburban areas have relatively high percentages of mass transit commuters (Metra) as supposed to Atlanta, which only has two MARTA lines that serve a small percentage of land area.

We can never underestimate the power of all those Metra lines running from downtown to virtually all suburban areas, can we, ardecila? You'll never see them in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, or any of a precious few cities have today....and none to the degree of New York or Chicago. That's all cash in our bank for the future.

How about CTA? MARTA may move people in and out of Atlanta, but it in way blankets the city in Atlanta the way that all those CTA lines do in Chicago. At least MARTA is rapid transit. Other boom towns (Dallas, Houston) only have light rail. Again, CTA like Metra is designed to keep the fuure bright in Chicgo.

Chicago has much more water than Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Phoenix, Denver, Las Vegas, Dallas, San Antonio, Kansas City, Austin etcetera. One day the fresh water that Chicago has will be extremely valuable. Wish we could buy water futures!!!

Obviously it does have tremendous appeal to millions of people. Booming tourism is evidence. International visitors are really starting to discover Chicago's greatness in a hurry. I live next to Mag Mile, and Im seeing more and more international tourists than ever.

And to add to this, although Chicago does not attract as many foreign visitors as NYC, LA or SF, I do believe this year it finished in the top ten, ahead of many coastal and interior cities. And when it comes to domestic visitors it probably performed better, near the top. This place attracts people from more than just the midwest. To try and say Chicago is not on the radar for most travelers is total bullshit and most people on this forum know it.

And to add to this, although Chicago does not attract as many foreign visitors as NYC, LA or SF, I do believe this year it finished in the top ten, ahead of many coastal and interior cities. And when it comes to domestic visitors it probably performed better, near the top. This place attracts people from more than just the midwest. To try and say Chicago is not on the radar for most travelers is total bullshit and most people on this forum know it.

urban, if Chicago were to be picked up and dropped half way between New York and DC (hopefully not crushing the liberty bell) or stick it on the Pacific half way between LA and SF, the number of visitors here would equal any of those cities. Point is, as I said before, we aren't part of any cluster of places people will visit for vacations. The amazing thing about the foreign visitors to Chicago is that they have made Chicago a [BDESTINATION[/B], not a side trip. They have actually said to themselves, "I'm in America. I want to take the time and trouble to see Chicago. I know I cant do it in a day trip or an overnight from New York. I actually have to make a plan to see it."

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but that distinction, that sense of chicago-as-destination is no small issue and speaks volumes of the type of city we are. I can incorporate Philly vey nicely into a trip to see NYC and DC....I've got to work to get Chicago to be a part of my itinarary.

urban, if Chicago were to be picked up and dropped half way between New York and DC (hopefully not crushing the liberty bell) or stick it on the Pacific half way between LA and SF, the number of visitors here would equal any of those cities. Point is, as I said before, we aren't part of any cluster of places people will visit for vacations. The amazing thing about the foreign visitors to Chicago is that they have made Chicago a [BDESTINATION[/B], not a side trip. They have actually said to themselves, "I'm in America. I want to take the time and trouble to see Chicago. I know I cant do it in a day trip or an overnight from New York. I actually have to make a plan to see it."

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but that distinction, that sense of chicago-as-destination is no small issue and speaks volumes of the type of city we are. I can incorporate Philly vey nicely into a trip to see NYC and DC....I've got to work to get Chicago to be a part of my itinarary.

^ That's actually a very, very good point. I never thought about that.