CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Tom In Chicago]

Yes. . . River North is ugly. . . and is getting uglier by the minute. . . this is not a newsflash, but sheesh it's a big ole' mess!

. . .

[ardecila]

^ Ha, I said very very good or groundbreaking. I don't claim to be an expert on ramen, though where I could tell what is innovative vs traditional. IIRC my food at Ramen-san was nearly as good as what I had at High Five, and way better than what I had at Furious Spoon. I'd put Ramen-san and Strings on a similar level. I've had some mediocre ramen as well at random sushi or poke places, so I think I've had the gamut and I really like Ramen-san.

It's not like Chicago has some authentically Japanese neighborhood (well, in city limits anyway) where you can go and get ramen the way your baba used to make it. All ramen places are gonna serve food that's filtered through the lens of American expectations.

[left of center]

Haven't tried Ramen-san, but I can attest that High Five Ramen is indeed phenomenal.

If only Chicago had an ethnic Japanese enclave or neighborhood... I think I'd live there

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by left of center

Haven't tried Ramen-san, but I can attest that High Five Ramen is indeed phenomenal.

If only Chicago had an ethnic Japanese enclave or neighborhood... I think I'd live there

According to Curious City on WBEZ, Chicago's Japan town was at Clark and Belmont-Addison and had over 150 Japanese owned businesses.. Chicago took in 20,000 relocated Japanese from the west coast internment camps. The Lakeview Japanese neighborhood was vibrant through the 60's and 70's. The population has been assimilated across our region.

[left of center]

Wow, interesting info. I had absolutely no idea that something like that ever existed in city limits. Would have been nice if the community remained centralized in order to have kept the neighborhood viable.

[maru2501]

Originally Posted by left of center

Wow, interesting info. I had absolutely no idea that something like that ever existed in city limits. Would have been nice if the community remained centralized in order to have kept the neighborhood viable.

this is where the Nisei Lounge got its name. Never changed it

[marothisu]

I realized that a few months ago the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released their personal income data for 2016 by MSA (also state, metropolitan division, etc). They have Real Personal Income and Real Personal Income Per Capita. Personal Income measures more than just the job wages. It measures pretty much all income - whether from say investing in a stock and cashing out or rental income or just straight up wages from a job (salary or hourly). It also accounts for RPPs or Regional Price Parities. These measure costs of all items in that area as a percentage of the national average. In essence, it kind of normalizes everything to cost of living in a sense.

Chicago MSA between 2010 and 2016 made some pretty big progress. In 2010, the Real Personal Income Per Capita was ranked 35th highest but in 2016 it was 21st highest, jumping up 14 places - out of 62 total metropolitan statistical areas I looked at. Interestingly, the Chicago MSA figure and NYC MSA figure are nearly identical with the NYC MSA above the Chicago MSA by only $367. Denver is also only $102 above Chicago in this regard. Interestingly, the Chicago MSA is over $5500 more than the San Diego MSA, over $4500 more than the Los Angeles MSA, over $4000 more than Atlanta MSA, nearly $2500 more than Dallas and Houston both, nearly $2000 above Austin, etc.

In total dollar amount change from 2010 to 2016, Chicago was the 5th highest out of 62 MSAs. Only San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and Detroit (by only $33) had a larger change. Chicago MSA's change was over 3X that of Houston MSA's. In total percent change from 2010 to 2016, Chicago MSA ranked 4th highest only behind San Jose, San Francisco, and Detroit.

Source: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm


2016 Real GDP Per Capita (RPPs factored in) in 2009 dollars
1. Bridgeport, CT MSA: $80,609
2. San Jose MSA: $62,590
3. San Francisco MSA: $61,639
4. Boston MSA: $57,317
5. Hartford, CT MSA: $53,048
6. Seattle MSA: $53,003
7. Omaha MSA: $52,066
8. Washington DC MSA: $50,861
9. Nashville MSA: $50,425
10. Minneapolis MSA: $50,311
11. Philadelphia MSA: $50,209
12. Tulsa MSA: $50,151
13. St. Louis MSA: $49,480
14. Cleveland MSA: $49,292
15. Cincinnati MSA: $49,278
16. Pittsburgh MSA: $49,264
17. New York City MSA: $48,992
18. Milwaukee MSA: $48,831
19. Richmond MSA: $48,800
20. Denver MSA: $48,728
21. Chicago MSA: $48,625
22. Indianapolis MSA: $48,602
23. Baltimore MSA: $48,393
24. Raleigh MSA: $47,759
25. Wichita MSA: $47,694
26. Kansas City MSA: $47,011
27. Austin MSA: $46,820
28. Birmingham, AL MSA: $46,790
29. Columbus, OH MSA: $46,550
30. Houston MSA: $46,378
31. Dallas MSA: $46,270
32. Detroit MSA: $46,061
33. Harrisburg, PA MSA: $45,859
34. Sacramento MSA: $45,693
35. Providence MSA: $45,448
36. Louisville MSA: $45,423
37. Charlotte MSA: $45,297
38. Grand Rapids MSA: $45,144
39. Portland MSA: $45,034
40. New Orleans MSA: $44,979
41. Buffalo MSA: $44,730
42. Atlanta MSA: $44,598
43. Oklahoma City MSA: $44,218
44. Los Angeles MSA: $44,087
45. Miami MSA: $44,037
46. Virginia Beach MSA: $43,574
47. Memphis MSA: $43,378
48. Jacksonville MSA: $43,091
49. San Diego MSA: $43,063
50. Rochester, NY MSA: $42,986
51. New Haven, CT MSA: $42,855
52. Little Rock MSA: $42,717
53. San Antonio MSA: $42,595
54. Salt Lake City MSA: $42,030
55. Tampa MSA: $39,843
56. Honolulu MSA: $39,555
57. Phoenix MSA: $39,455
58. Las Vegas MSA: $39,247
59. Albuquerque MSA: $37,369
60. Orlando MSA: $37,210
61. El Paso MSA: $33,731
62. Riverside, CA MSA: $31,088

Real GDP Per Capita (RPPs factored in) in 2009 dollars, Change from 2010 to 2016
1. San Jose MSA: +$13,386
2. San Francisco MSA: +$12,031
3. Seattle MSA: +$8668
4. Detroit MSA: +$8100
5. Chicago MSA: +$8067
6. Denver MSA: +$7974
7. Tulsa MSA: +$7293
8. Salt Lake City MSA: +$6727
9. Nashville MSA: +$6716
10. Grand Rapids MSA: +$6716
11. Los Angeles MSA: +$6639
12. Austin MSA: +$6596
13. Sacramento MSA: +$6592
14. Dallas MSA: +$6451
15. Philadelphia MSA: +$6333
16. Minneapolis MSA: +$6305
17. San Diego MSA: +$6302
18. Wichita MSA: +$6175
19. Portland MSA: +$6045
20. Columbus, OH MSA: +$5953
21. Cincinnati MSA: +$5911
22. New York City MSA: +$5821
23. Boston MSA: +$5750
24. Cleveland MSA: +$5661
25. Indianapolis MSA: +$5579
26. Omaha MSA: +$5478
27. Phoenix MSA: +$5262
28. Richmond MSA: +$5261
29. Atlanta MSA: +$5014
30. San Antonio MSA: +$5010
31. Charlotte MSA: +$4945
32. Louisville MSA: +$4736
33. Las Vegas MSA: +$4646
34. Baltimore MSA: +$4306
35. New Haven, CT MSA: +$4291
36. Harrisburg, PA MSA: +$4194
37. Birmingham, AL MSA: +$4169
38. Milwaukee MSA: +$4091
39. Orlando MSA: +$4059
40. Hartford, CT MSA: +$3871
41. Pittsburgh MSA: +$3856
42. Providence MSA: +$3829
43. Buffalo MSA: +$3750
44. Memphis MSA: +$3716
45. Riverside, CA MSA: +$3691
46. Miami MSA: +$3591
47. Jacksonville MSA: +$3561
48. Raleigh MSA: +$3550
49. Kansas City MSA: +$3517
50. Little Rock MSA: +$3260
51. Washington DC MSA: +$3233
52. Virginia Beach MSA: +$3096
53. Honolulu MSA: +$2911
54. Rochester, NY MSA: +$2849
55. El Paso MSA: +$2690
56. Houston MSA: +$2663
57. Albuquerque MSA: +$2628
58. St. Louis MSA: +$2550
59. Oklahoma City MSA: +$2477
60. New Orleans MSA: +$2447
61. Tampa MSA: +$1638
62. Bridgeport, CT MSA: -$5103

Real GDP Per Capita (RPPs factored in) in 2009 dollars, Percent change from 2010 to 2016
1. San Jose MSA: +27.21%
2. San Francisco MSA: +24.25%
3. Detroit MSA: +21.34%
4. Chicago MSA: +19.89%
5. Denver MSA: +19.57%
6. Seattle MSA: +19.55%
7. Salt Lake City MSA: +19.06%
8. Los Angeles MSA: +17.73%
9. Grand Rapids MSA: +17.48%
10. San Diego MSA: +17.14%
11. Tulsa MSA: +17.02%
12. Sacramento MSA: +16.86%
13. Austin MSA: +16.4%
14. Dallas MSA: +16.2%
15. Portland MSA: +15.5%
16. Phoenix MSA: +15.39%
17. Nashville MSA: +15.37%
18. Wichita MSA: +14.87%
19. Columbus, OH MSA: +14.66%
20. Philadelphia MSA: +14.43%
21. Minneapolis MSA: +14.33%
22. Cincinnati MSA: +13.63%
23. New York City MSA: +13.48%
24. Riverside, CA MSA: +13.47%
25. Las Vegas MSA: +13.43%
26. San Antonio MSA: +13.33%
27. Cleveland MSA: +12.97%
28. Indianapolis MSA: +12.97%
29. Atlanta MSA: +12.67%
30. Charlotte MSA: +12.25%
31. Orlando MSA: +12.24%
32. Richmond MSA: +12.08%
33. Omaha MSA: +11.76%
34. Louisville MSA: +11.64%
35. Boston MSA: +11.15%
36. New Haven, CT MSA: +11.13%
37. Harrisburg, PA MSA: +10.07%
38. Birmingham, AL MSA: +9.78%
39. Baltimore MSA: +9.77%
40. Memphis MSA: +9.37%
41. Providence MSA: +9.2%
42. Buffalo MSA: +9.15%
43. Milwaukee MSA: +9.14%
44. Jacksonville MSA: +9.01%
45. Miami MSA: +8.88%
46. El Paso MSA: +8.67%
47. Pittsburgh MSA: +8.49%
48. Little Rock MSA: +8.26%
49. Kansas City MSA: +8.09%
50. Raleigh MSA: +8.03%
51. Honolulu MSA: +7.94%
52. Hartford, CT MSA: +7.87%
53. Virginia Beach MSA: +7.65%
54. Albuquerque MSA: +7.56%
55. Rochester, NY MSA: +7.1%
56. Washington DC MSA: +6.79%
57. Houston MSA: +6.09%
58. Oklahoma City MSA: +5.93%
59. New Orleans MSA: +5.75%
60. St. Louis MSA: +5.43%
61. Tampa MSA: +4.29%
62. Bridgeport, CT MSA: -5.95%

[left of center]

How is GDP per capita higher in places like Cincinnati or Cleveland? Those cities have had it much rougher than Chicago as the rust belt declined over the last 50 years.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by left of center

How is GDP per capita higher in places like Cincinnati or Cleveland? Those cities have had it much rougher than Chicago as the rust belt declined over the last 50 years.

Because, as I mentioned in my post, it's adjusted using RPPs (Regional Price Parities), which is a ratio that represents the price of all goods for a particular geography versus the national average. So a higher RPP for something like rent means the rent is high in that area that you're looking at. 100 is the baseline - Chicago MSA is at 114.8 meaning the rent in the Chicago MSA is 14.8% higher than the national average for 2016. NYC area is 154.9, meaning the rent in the NYC area is 54.9% higher than the national average. Just as examples - similar to CPI.

Cleveland's 2016 per capita personal income is $6653 below that of Chicago. However, their RPP basically indicates all goods in the MSA is almost 10% under the national average, whereas Chicago is nearly 4% over the national average. So then adjust using that and the numbers become a lot closer.

It is essentially adjusting for purchasing power of goods - or things like rent - in every area. Meaning that the personal income per capita in Chicago area basically almost goes as far as the per capita personal income in the NYC area.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Because, as I mentioned in my post, it's adjusted using RPPs (Regional Price Parities), which is a ratio that represents the price of all goods for a particular geography versus the national average. So a higher RPP for something like rent means the rent is high in that area that you're looking at. 100 is the baseline - Chicago MSA is at 114.8 meaning the rent in the Chicago MSA is 14.8% higher than the national average for 2016. NYC area is 154.9, meaning the rent in the NYC area is 54.9% higher than the national average. Just as examples - similar to CPI.

It is essentially adjusting for purchasing power of goods - or things like rent - in every area. Meaning that the personal income per capita in Chicago area basically almost goes as far as the per capita personal income in the NYC area.

Thank you for the clarification, marothisu. I need to get reading glasses

[the urban politician]

Marothisu, thanks for all that data. The question is, doesn't the "RPP" factor kind of ruin this data? After all, I'm sure that can really throw a wrench into any logical discussion about rising prosperity, as the methods used to calculate "RPP" are always up for debate. I can see a Chicago-hating type like Crawford diminishing such calculations as "fake boosterism" because, after all, the cost of living in various cities isn't really all that different, blah blah blah.

[Halsted & Villagio]

I just got back from NYC. Decided to go there just to spend some time with old friends and to show my 11 year old NYC. My sister and her husband also decided to join us. Because I am so used to going there on business, staying 1 or 2 days, never really venturing out except to work, it was great to have a fresh pair of eyes on the place. Here were some things that my group observed/some things that happened:

The Bad:

1. My wife (without heels on) almost broke an ankle while walking no less than 3 times. The streets are so broken up and uneven.

2. There is a level of soot, dirt and waste caked on everything there that is on another level... much higher in concentration than in Chicago. There is a thin layer of soot and dirt just about everywhere and you can smell it. Whether it is from emissions or industrial waste, etc. I am not sure where it comes from exactly but it was palpable to the swell and touch. It can't be healthy to breath this stuff in every day.

3. At the end of our stay my sister coughed up some black flem/fur like black substance that she swears was the result of inhaling the air in NYC.

4. I made the mistake of driving because we spent one day at a friend's house upstate and I wanted the car to be handy. Huge mistake. While driving in Manhattan it literally took 1 hour to go 1 block. Realizing that this was madness, after driving the 1 block in 1 hour, I quickly turned the car in the opposite direction of where I wanted to go, somehow snaked around a few barricades and made my way to the Holland Tunnel and then to our hotel, parked the car and there the car stayed (aside from the brief trip upstate) until the day we left to return home - some 5 days later.

5. In sections, there are so many people there that they all blend in together. It was amazing while at the same time, annoying. They just became a sea. A sea of noise and humanity. My wife who considers herself a bit of a long legged fashionista, was looking forward to the fabled fashion scene of NYC, could not wear her heels because the streets were a health hazard and she pointed out that no'one there was wearing heels and that, to her surprise, it really did not matter what anyone was wearing... because it was so many people bunched together that they all blended in.

6. When crowds get that big, that thick with humanity, it really is no fun.

7. Tourists have completely taken over certain parts of Manhattan - completely. Not small parts either. Big chunks of Manhattan are dominated by tourists.

8. The trash bags piled up on some streets was truly epic. My wife could not believe it and actually snapped pictures. So along with our wonderful pictures of Lady Liberty, Central Park (which was nice, btw), Times Square, the Brooklyn Bridge... we have pictures of trash bags piled up on the street as high as 7/8 feet.

9. To my surprise, my wife, sister and brother-in-law all said that NYC did not feel as tall as Chicago while walking around the city. I don't know why they felt that way... maybe it is because low rise Mid-Town divides Manhattan into sections, maybe the lack of setbacks, etc. But for whatever reason they said it did not feel it as tall or as imposing as Chicago.

10.The city is too confined, super loud - always loud noise, people move about like hamsters in a cage with a feverish pace that is cool to see and experience for a day or a week but it is not a place any sane person would want to live in -- UNLESS you have big BIG money. Big money can go a long ways towards eliminating the inconveniences average, every day NYC citizens have to deal with.


The Good:

1. Mixed in with the junk, NYC has some masterpieces of architecture.

2. A lot of the new construction leaves a lot to be desired, some completely miss the mark but some of the new buildings going up are going to be pretty amazing. A mixed bag. Many (not all) of the amazing new buildings going up get lost though for whatever reason... whether lost behind other buildings or lost due to lack of height or the setting obscures them, etc.

3. Some of the old buildings and towers there are amazing (which I am sure everyone already knows) but the "setting" of those buildings and towers was a pleasant surprise. For instance in lower Manhattan, as you walk up a slight incline while leaving the 911 Memorial, there is a street there that angles off at a diagonal... on that street lies 2 old towers with copper tops and there is new, taller new build directly behind it to the left of it... Wow!... is all I can say... I was stunned... plain and simple, I loved it. My wife, sister and brother-in-law didn't really notice it - they were looking more at the new World Trade Transportation Hub - which was nice, but really not anything special to me. But that angled street and that setting... while walking on a incline... it just felt like those buildings (probably no taller than 400/500 feet or so) would go right up into the heavens.

4. Pound for pound, there are more top tier, high quality buildings in NYC than Chicago. Most probably already know this. But arguably there are also more crap buildings in NYC than Chicago. NYC definitely has its fair share of junk buildings. And regarding those spectacular towers, on the negative side, you walk out of those buildings to dirty, soot filled streets, trash bags and various strewn pieces of garbage all around and you walk out of those buildings into a virtual rat race. I imagine it kind of kills the joy of being in an ultra lux building.

5. I think NYC probably beats Chicago as far as skyline shots - there is just more of it. But as for walk around feel of the height of the place, our consensus was that Chicago beats NY. Not sure why that is exactly but Chicago just feels taller. Maybe it is because Manhattan is divided in half with low rise Mid-town separating the two skyscraper areas? Maybe it has something to do with setbacks? Just not sure but (at least according to the people with me on this vacation) Chicago just feels taller for some reason.

6. NYC is the attraction king... they hype up their attractions through the roof. And they build a lot of attractions and tourists lap it up in huge helpings. Chicago is doing well in this area as well... just not sure if we are getting the word out there as well as NYC.

7. Oddly enough, the old cemeteries in Manhattan were pretty cool. They kind of provide of rest spot from all the madness and the look of them provides an interesting juxtaposition.

8. Times Square is all they say it is in terms of set-up and wow factor. However, one thing I easily noticed was the unhappy, angry look on the faces of people as they were leaving Times Square. It is such a sea of mess and humanity that it is not a happy experience. Once is all anyone needs to see of that place and once may be too many... you will miss nothing and save yourself some aggravation by skipping it.

Summary:

Chicago has great pace and can be fast moving as well, but you get a break in Chicago... and there is more natural balance in Chicago. You see people walking down the street, you see what they are wearing (my wife likes that one ), and you connect with more people in Chicago. You can breathe, breathe the air, and hear yourself think more in Chicago. All in all, it was a good trip... NYC is a great city and is good for a visit... it is nothing like in the movies... a tourist haven, super loud, too thick with wall to wall people, much dirtier, less landscaping, much more trash than you will ever see in any tv show or movie... definitely not all it is cracked up to be... but I still recommend it for a weekend if you are looking for something different. Going there helped us all to appreciate more what a true jewel we have in Chicago - a place we would much rather live in... and a place that has pretty much everything NYC has except for the negatives.

[the urban politician]

^ In other words, nothing's changed

[Halsted & Villagio]

^ Lol. True. Except maybe the part about "perception" and media hype not equating to reality. On tv we see a cleaned up version of NYC. My views expressed are mainly those of the group I went there with. I already pretty much knew what it was like from my business trips... although I saw more of the place this time around. But back to my group... they had a view of NYC being somewhat clean and definitely at least landscaped... and they had no idea about the broken sidewalks, broken up streets, wall to wall tourists, the level of the noise and layers of dirt and soot. Those are things rarely talked about today and you definitely don't see it today on tv or in the movies.

And the part about Chicago feeling taller is an interesting take that my group had... and it is something rarely discussed as well.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

^ Lol. True. Except maybe the part about "perception" and media hype not equating to reality. On tv we see a cleaned up version of NYC. My views expressed are mainly those of the group I went there with. I already pretty much knew what it was like from my business trips... although I saw more of the place this time around. But back to my group... they had a view of NYC being somewhat clean and definitely at least landscaped... and they had no idea about the broken sidewalks, broken up streets, wall to wall tourists, the level of the noise and layers of dirt and soot. Those are things rarely talked about today and you definitely don't see it today on tv or in the movies.

And the part about Chicago feeling taller is an interesting take that my group had... and it is something rarely discussed as well.

Hmm, I went for 5 days to NYC about this time last year. I don't remember seeing everything covered in soot and dirt. I'm not sure what you mean. I mean the subway stations and parks aren't scrubbed with bleach everyday like some uber-clean German Train station, but it seemed fairly normal amount of dust for a big city when I was there. And they don't have alleys so trash is going to be on the sidewalk, they can't get around that. That's the benefit of Chicago alley system.

Otherwise, being crowded with tourists and noisy is pretty much the cliche of Manhattan to me. Did you go to Williamsburg? I enjoyed it there alot. Or Greenwich Village? That area seemed really quiet, and similar to Lincoln Park. But I agree the intensity of the city was enough for 5 days, but I couldn't image living there with the crush of people everyday. Only if I had nice brick condo a block from Central Park and rich would I enjoy living in NYC lol.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Hmm, I went for 5 days to NYC about this time last year. I don't remember seeing everything covered in soot and dirt. I'm not sure what you mean. I mean the subway stations and parks aren't scrubbed with bleach everyday like some uber-clean German Train station, but it seemed fairly normal amount of dust for a big city when I was there. And they don't have alleys so trash is going to be on the sidewalk, they can't get around that. That's the benefit of Chicago alley system.

Otherwise, being crowded with tourists and noisy is pretty much the cliche of Manhattan to me. Did you go to Williamsburg? I enjoyed it there alot. Or Greenwich Village? That area seemed really quiet, and similar to Lincoln Park. But I agree the intensity of the city was enough for 5 days, but I couldn't image living there with the crush of people everyday. Only if I had nice brick condo a block from Central Park and rich would I enjoy living in NYC lol.

I was probably overbroad in my statement that EVERYTHING was covered in soot and dirt. Put it this way, the area largely considered to be the HEART of Manhattan, imo, is coverd in soot and dirt. My hotel overlooked Times Square - we stayed at the Renaissance. We walked from the Renaissance TS, Broadway, all the way over to Central Park. Then we took a cab back to the hotel then took the subway to the 911 Memorial then walked over to Wall Street. That whole area - from TS up and to Central Park and back to Wall Street was most definitely covered in soot and dirt. A thin layer but a layer nonetheless.

We spent time in Greenwich Village - it was better... and Williamsburg... better... East Village... better... Tribeca - mixed... Hells Kitchen - mixed up and leaning rough... Little Italy - rough and decaying to my surprise.... we spent time in pretty much all the neighborhoods in and around Manhattan including the boroughs... we were there 7 days (minus the one day trip upstate)... but, imo, I felt that the cleaner areas were more on the periphery... not the heart of Manhattan if you will.

Look, I think New York is great. I could live there if I had to no doubt about it. But I would do so only if my job required it. I mean, I fit right in. If you are from Chicago you can pretty much handle any big city in the world. But is it something I want to handle year in and year out? No. Is it a place that it is cracked up to be by the media, on tv and in movies? No. Is it far dirtier, grittier and grimy, smelly and trash filled than what it is portrayed to be? Yes.

Great city. Had a good time on our trip. Would recommend in short doses. Just relaying my experiences.

I totally agree with this quote Baronvonellis... "only if I had nice brick condo a block from Central Park and rich would I enjoy living in NYC lol."

We have a jewel in Chicago people

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

I was probably overbroad in my statement that EVERYTHING was covered in soot and dirt. Put it this way, the area largely considered to be the HEART of Manhattan, imo, is coverd in soot and dirt. My hotel overlooked Times Square - we stayed at the Renaissance. We walked from the Renaissance TS, Broadway, all the way over to Central Park. Then we took a cab back to the hotel then took the subway to the 911 Memorial then walked over to Wall Street. That whole area - from TS up and to Central Park and back to Wall Street was most definitely covered in soot and dirt. A thin layer but a layer nonetheless.
...
We have a jewel in Chicago people

The touristy and/or heavily commercial parts of Manhattan are grimy - anyone claiming otherwise is wearing some seriously rose-colored glasses. And the trash bag issue - understanding why it exists still doesn't explain why the richest big city in the richest country in the world can't come up with a better system for waste disposal than simply piling it up on sidewalks. It's disgusting. Some of the side streets a little away from the busiest commercial areas aren't so bad as to be called grimy, but they still feel less clean than Chicago which I think is mainly a function of just the raw density of humanity in Manhattan. The few parts of Chicago that feel anywhere near as grimy as New York are also areas with heavy concentrations of humanity.

I like visiting New York, and if I was earning $300k+/yr I'd probably consider living there because I could then afford to mitigate at least the worst of the downsides. Part of the reason I live in a vintage walk-up in River North is because it is at least somewhat reminiscent of some of the side streets in parts of Manhattan like Chelsea or Hell's Kitchen or Murray Hill - relatively quiet areas that aren't filled with skyscrapers but are still walking distance to all the offices and tourist attractions in Midtown. In many ways the part of River North I live in (the officially-designated "River North Gallery District" roughly bounded by Orleans, Huron, Lasalle, and Chicago Ave) is functionally similar to Hells Kitchen or Murray Hill.

Anyway, I live in Chicago because it is a big, important city, and offers many of the amenities that only big, important cities offer, yet is less crazy and less dirty feeling than Manhattan or San Francisco. Give me Boystown over the Castro any day of the week. Give me Michigan Avenue over 5th Avenue or Union Square. Give me Pilsen over Bushwick or the Haight. In short, give me Chicago.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Here's an interesting in depth discussion of Chicago's ongoing "Black Flight" issue:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...opulation-loss

[Arm&Kedzie]

Source - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026

Impressed by Chicago's trend line

[left of center]

Wow, yeah same here.

Approaching NYC in annual median earnings (obviously if this was mean, then NYC would skyrocket past us, as those Wall Street salaries at the very top would skew the average skyward).

Surprising that Dallas is beating LA, be it mean or median or otherwise. The cost of living in CA is so much higher than TX, you would think salaries would be much higher in LA. The higher minimum wage would also bring up the bottom wage earners as well, as compared to TX which I believe only has the federal minimum wage in effect.