CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[pip]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Well a great example is Rahm built the Riverwalk into an awesome destination! But how many people in Antwerp would know about it? You have to market your strengths of your city to other countries. When I would meet people in Europe the first thing that came to their mind if they knew anything about Chicago was crime and violence, and that's it's a dangerous place to visit. I have 2 friends in Munich that are literally scared to come visit me in Chicago, they think they will get shot walking around. That's not the kind of place you want to spend thousands on for a international vacation. We really have to get the crime under control, and fix our image problem, and start marketing so people have positive ideas of Chicago!

Regarding the Art Institute, well most of those museums are in their capital cities of their countries so of course they are going to be more popular. And really you think the Art Institute is better than the Vatican museum? It's literally the epicenter of western Civilization for 2000 years!! Vs. a city that's only barley existed 200 years. No comparison. The only one I'd say that maybe doesn't equal the Art Institute is Reina Sofía in Madrid. It's a nice modern art museum that has a couple Picassos, but tickets there cost less than half the Art institute and it's in the capital of Spain. The government in Spain subsidizes the ticket price. I've wanted to visit the Art Institute many more times than I do, but the $25 ticket price is really steep. Imagine how many more people would visit if it was $10.

That's what I hear when I go home within the US. I don't even bother to explain anymore - well there are safe parts etc. Unfortunately the reality is even the safe areas the chances of being a victim of a robbery or something are higher than other top tier American cities. The crime stats while certainly not the worst in the US on a per capita basis are shocking nonetheless especially compared with other developed countries.

So what is the draw here? Other cities have museums, have river walks, have architecture, storied pasts. But how many of the top tourist destinations have crime like Chicago even in the 'safe areas'?

Chicago has an image problem but a lot of it is deserved.

[Bonsai Tree]

I know this is a bit of a tangent off this current conversation but I thought these two videos were relevant. Last year, the guys at Sorted Food (a British youtube food channel) traveled to Chicago for vacation. I highly recommend watching these videos because I think they show the genuine reactions of foreigners when they visit our city. I hope that this can dispel a lot of the "Chicago's not good enough" stuff, because I think that's just downright wrong. If you've got enough time (both videos together are about 14 minutes) it's highly worth a watch.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=015YZ0Fom7s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0kRhzDUlU&t=3s

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pip

That's what I hear when I go home within the US. I don't even bother to explain anymore - well there are safe parts etc. Unfortunately the reality is even the safe areas the chances of being a victim of a robbery or something are higher than other top tier American cities. The crime stats while certainly not the worst in the US on a per capita basis are shocking nonetheless especially compared with other developed countries.

So what is the draw here? Other cities have museums, have river walks, have architecture, storied pasts. But how many of the top tourist destinations have crime like Chicago even in the 'safe areas'?

Chicago has an image problem but a lot of it is deserved.

^ What stats do you have to back this up, namely that tourists in Chicago are victims of more crime than in other US cities? Just curious...

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by pip

That's what I hear when I go home within the US. I don't even bother to explain anymore - well there are safe parts etc. Unfortunately the reality is even the safe areas the chances of being a victim of a robbery or something are higher than other top tier American cities. The crime stats while certainly not the worst in the US on a per capita basis are shocking nonetheless especially compared with other developed countries.

So what is the draw here? Other cities have museums, have river walks, have architecture, storied pasts. But how many of the top tourist destinations have crime like Chicago even in the 'safe areas'?

Who are you hearing this from? Septuagenarians with the Drudge Report as their home page? "Shocking"? This is simply untrue and no one with a lick of sense would write it. Why would you write it if you have no idea? Shame on you.

New Orleans and Minneapolis have a higher violent crime rates than Chicago, Houston and D.C. right now--which are all about the same--to say nothing of Indianapolis, which is considerably higher. Is anyone afraid to take in a Pacers game in Indy? Are you? Is it too dangerous to take your family to the Spaghetti Warehouse in Minneapolis?

The "safe" part of Chicago has a violent crime rate similar to Toronto. The violent crime rate in Chicago today is similar to San Francisco's 10 years ago. Did San Francisco have a reputation for being a crime-ridden hell hole in 2008? And five or six years ago, D.C. had a higher murder rate than Chicago.

And if you look at property crimes--by far the most common crimes visitors experience--many more cities have a worse rate than Chicago, even Orlando and Miami.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

I know this is a bit of a tangent off this current conversation but I thought these two videos were relevant. Last year, the guys at Sorted Food (a British youtube food channel) traveled to Chicago for vacation. I highly recommend watching these videos because I think they show the genuine reactions of foreigners when they visit our city. I hope that this can dispel a lot of the "Chicago's not good enough" stuff, because I think that's just downright wrong. If you've got enough time (both videos together are about 14 minutes) it's highly worth a watch.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=015YZ0Fom7s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0kRhzDUlU&t=3s

Absolutely nobody in here stated that Chicago is "not good enough." It's that the marketing for the city sucks - the city is a good place for a tourist, but most haven't an idea because the marketing (and this goes beyond official marketing - it covers what's talked about in the news too) sucks.

Originally Posted by pip

That's what I hear when I go home within the US. I don't even bother to explain anymore - well there are safe parts etc. Unfortunately the reality is even the safe areas the chances of being a victim of a robbery or something are higher than other top tier American cities. The crime stats while certainly not the worst in the US on a per capita basis are shocking nonetheless especially compared with other developed countries.

So what is the draw here? Other cities have museums, have river walks, have architecture, storied pasts. But how many of the top tourist destinations have crime like Chicago even in the 'safe areas'?

Chicago has an image problem but a lot of it is deserved.

While crime can happen to anybody at any time anywhere, the actual data shows that downtown Chicago is fairly safe. It's not the safest part of town, but it is not dangerous at all. Considering the majority of the 57 million visitors stay downtown, per capita that is a very low crime rate not even taking into account the over 200,000 residents of greater downtown and the hundreds of thousands of office workers, as well as people who live in the area who are just downtown for drinks, meetings, etc. Furthermore, to think that no crime happens in other cities where tourists hang out is just plain ignorant and shows a bias for believing that Chicago is the only place this happens.

Just for the record, there was a shooting a few years ago at a McDonald's near Penn Station during the middle of a weekday in Manhattan, just a few blocks south of Times Square. This is a 5 minute walk from my office and an extremely crowded area not only with office workers but also with tons of tourists with numerous hotels around (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...icle-1.2427909).

Another one from last year just a few blocks south of the Empire State Building in the middle of the day:
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...icle-1.3776166

Tourists getting robbed in Midtown Manhattan at their hotels this year:
https://patch.com/new-york/midtown-n...sts-police-say

More tourists getting robbed in Manhattan in tourist areas:
https://nypost.com/2018/11/27/crooks...opping-in-nyc/

Here's a few tourists being shot and killed in San Francisco this decade in tourist areas:
https://abc7news.com/politics/bullet...cheted/958526/
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...san-francisco/

Tourist from Thailand getting robbed and shot for his camera in San Francisco:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/tourist-rob...property-crime

Miami:
https://www.local10.com/news/local/m...downtown-miami
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ami/328110002/

Tourist in Los Angeles getting stalked and attacked this year:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019...rfax-district/

Hell, even Seattle is in it:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...tacked-robbed/

I actually don't know when the last time a tourist was shot and killed in Chicago downtown. The last event I remember is a Japanese tourist in town for the oncology conference in 2012 getting mugged by one of those "flash mobs." But yeah, let's go on thinking Chicago is the only place where tourists could be hurt or that it's even normal. You can start digging and find all sorts of events from a variety of cities - but the national media rarely decides to report on these things and then you go on thinking that tourists never get hurt anywhere else.

Yes the perception is crime - I'm well aware as I've posted before, but in the end the tourist areas in Chicago are not dangerous for tourists. This thought that somehow downtown Chicago is any less safe for a tourist than in other cities is a bit ignorant.

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

And five or six years ago, D.C. had a higher murder rate than Chicago.

DC currently has a higher homicide rate than Chicago, so far this year:

Baltimore: 18.64 per 100K (https://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com)
St. Louis: 16.85 per 100K (https://www.slmpd.org/images/Homicid...or_Website.pdf)
Kansas City: 10.43 per 100K (http://kcpd.org/crime/crime-statistics/)
DC: 8.50 per 100K (https://mpdc.dc.gov/node/197622)
Detroit: 8.17 per 100K (https://data.detroitmi.gov/Public-Sa...6gdg-y3kf/data) <-- Not including May
Philadelphia: 7.91 per 100K (https://www.phillypolice.com/crime-maps-stats/)
Atlanta: 7.40 per 100K (http://www.atlantapd.org/i-want-to/crime-data-downloads)
Oakland: 7.29 per 100K (https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/...p-and-details/)
Newark: 6.31 per 100K (http://npd.newarkpublicsafety.org/statistics/crimestats)
Anchorage, Alaska: 6.12 per 100K (https://communitycrimemap.com)
Charlotte: 6.05 per 100K
Chicago: 5.96 per 100K (https://home.chicagopolice.org/onlin...me-statistics/)
Jacksonville: 5.38 per 100K (http://transparency.jaxsheriff.org/HOTS/Murder)
Indianapolis: 5.21 per 100K (https://databases.usatodaynetwork.co...cide-list-2019)
Milwaukee: 4.87 per 100K (http://archive.jsonline.com/news/cri...366709981.html)
Columbus, OH: 4.32 per 100K (https://communitycrimemap.com)
Dallas: 4.18 per 100K (http://www.dallaspolice.net/resource...at%20Daily.pdf)
Denver: 2.27 per 100K (https://crime.denverpost.com/crime/homicide/)
Los Angeles: 2.15 per 100K (https://data.lacity.org/A-Safe-City/...y8tr-7khq/data)
Las Vegas Metropolitan Area: 1.97 per 100K (https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/Statistics.aspx)
NYC: 1.14 per 100K (https://compstat.nypdonline.org/2e5c...e7c75c/view/89)

Chicago's had a kind of spurt the last month but Dallas is not even that far below Chicago right now. Houston I think is near Chicago in rate, but the numbers aren't easy to get and I have to count by hand basically and don't want to right now. Obviously not going to sit here and claim it's in the realm of a NYC, LA, etc and part of Chicago's reputation is deserved, but not all of it.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Sorry Sir, but I beg to differ. Chicago only exists because of the 2000+ years of western civilization that came before it. Otherwise it would still be an Indian trading post. Chicago is the current pinnacle of all that came before it. Greco-Roman civilization built the foundations and walls of society and culture that allow Chicago to even exist. Your saying that a roof is more important than the structure and foundation of a building? How would a roof stand up if it weren't for the walls and structure?

I don't know where to even begin to explain all of western civilization that came from Greece and Rome!!

You need to get out of the quadrant of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Chicago and explore the world a bit.


The Vatican museum, has gifts from all around the world that the Popes got for 2000 years! The place is enormous! Plus, lots of great Roman works of art. The popes were the king makers of Europe from 500 to 1700 or so. They were the center of the global age of exploration and global empires. You should watch the show the Borgias with Jeremy Irons to get a sense of how powerful the Popes were.

yikes^ watch out for this one

[SIGSEGV]

DC somehow has shedded its high crime perception (even though the reality is that it has a similar or higher homicide rate than Chicago). How did that happen?

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

DC somehow has shedded its high crime perception (even though the reality is that it has a similar or higher homicide rate than Chicago). How did that happen?

Easy. Media organizations are based in D.C. They see the crimes stats and it doesn't jibe with their lived experience and they say, "oh, it's just that part of town." I literally said this face-to-face with David Plotz, former editor of Slate. He said something like, "It's just horrible, what's happening there with crime." and I was like, "D.C. has a higher murder rate than Chicago!" and he just sort of heard it, but I could tell he was internally doing some sort of "yeah but" hand-waving to justify it in his mind so that Chicago was still worse.

[SIGSEGV]

I guess it doesn't help that our biggest newspaper is disdainful of the city

[Baronvonellis]

Well yea, you can go over all the crime stats. But the Perception from lots of people via the media is that Chicago is very dangerous. Of course, we know that it's not going to be a problem for the average tourist visiting downtown. But that's what the media is always saying about Chicago. So the average tourist thinks that will be the case. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Well yea, you can go over all the crime stats. But the Perception from lots of people via the media is that Chicago is very dangerous. Of course, we know that it's not going to be a problem for the average tourist visiting downtown. But that's what the media is always saying about Chicago. So the average tourist thinks that will be the case. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Somehow blatantly inaccurate negative portrayals about Chicago are allowed to spread without a peep of protest, yet some people here seem to get more bothered when anybody proposes (arguably accurate) positive portrayals of our city.

We either reinvent Chicago's narrative, even if it involves just a tad bit of boasting, or we let the (equally inaccurate) negative headlines cast us in such a poor light.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Easy. Media organizations are based in D.C. They see the crimes stats and it doesn't jibe with their lived experience and they say, "oh, it's just that part of town." I literally said this face-to-face with David Plotz, former editor of Slate. He said something like, "It's just horrible, what's happening there with crime." and I was like, "D.C. has a higher murder rate than Chicago!" and he just sort of heard it, but I could tell he was internally doing some sort of "yeah but" hand-waving to justify it in his mind so that Chicago was still worse.

That is maddening.

[Vlajos]

From Crains nothing surprising and not much that can be done about it. The vast majority of capital is private. You can't make people invest somewhere they don't want to.


For one, investments from public agencies and “mission-driven sources” disproportionately go far more to high-poverty black neighborhoods than elsewhere, 10 times more so per household. And with private capital, the disproportionate capital flow is particularly focused among single-family homes rather than other types of real estate.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...-capital-flows

[moorhosj]

Bay Area techies plan to ditch San Francisco for these 5 cities: Survey

That’s what Wealthfront, an investment management firm that provides robo-advisor services, found when it surveyed nearly 2,700 of its clients who work in the Bay Area at tech companies.

The survey is based on a data analysis of clients through the first five months of 2019.

But nearly a quarter of clients think they’ll part ways with the Bay Area altogether, opting for other comparatively cheaper cities such as Chicago and Austin, Texas.

Indeed, the median home goal price in the Bay Area is more than $1 million for a two-bedroom dwelling, Wealthfront found.

In comparison, investors planning to relocate to Austin and Chicago have a median home goal price of less than $400,000 for a three-bedroom house.

Full list: NYC, Austin, Seattle, LA and Chicago. I have been saying this for a while, but part of the rise in tech offices we have seen the past couple of years is a result of San Fran becoming more and more inhospitable.

[the urban politician]

^ Nice read, although kinda reads like a fluff piece.

But it's already happening with all of the growth and Google, SF, FB, Uber and other tech companies outside of the Bay Area.

One can't help but wonder when that tipping point will come when, eventually, you may even see a HQ move? Right now it's unthinkable, but once the founder generation dies off and the demands of shareholders/Board of Trustees take precedence, these companies will be less about rebellious techie nerds taking over the world and more traditional businesses full of middle aged men who want tax shelters, good golf courses, and perhaps even evolve into more conservative politics.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Somehow blatantly inaccurate negative portrayals about Chicago are allowed to spread without a peep of protest, yet some people here seem to get more bothered when anybody proposes (arguably accurate) positive portrayals of our city.

We either reinvent Chicago's narrative, even if it involves just a tad bit of boasting, or we let the (equally inaccurate) negative headlines cast us in such a poor light.

Even if crime and corruption dropped to negligible levels in Chicago, the world would not be inclined to give up on the city's infamous reputation. For over 150 years, Chicago has been America's and even the entire Western world's primary vessel to pour all their societal fears in.

The young city stumbled headlong into a powerful biblical myth regarding deviant cities during a time of extreme anti-urban attitudes, and it didn't have the cultural capital to resist that narrative. Chicago was the unrepentant City of the Plain that was burned down and had the gall to rebuild even bigger than before with no remorse for its lawless and radical behavior.

As a European immigrant, I have to say that this debate about whether Chicago generates culture or not is misguided. People don't try to vehemently defame cities that aren't producing culture. But Chicago expends a great deal of its cultural potential trying to enact societal change vs. the aesthetic arts compared to other cities. (San Francisco by comparison is practically paralyzed. That city cannot get anything accomplished if business isn't doing it for them.)

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Right now it's unthinkable, but once the founder generation dies off and the demands of shareholders/Board of Trustees take precedence, these companies will be less about rebellious techie nerds taking over the world and more traditional businesses full of middle aged men who want tax shelters, good golf courses, and perhaps even evolve into more conservative politics.

It's an interesting question. One thing it's important to understand about these "tech" companies (Salesforce, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon) is that a large part of their value is based on IP, which in their case is the talent/skills of their workers. This is why you see crazy benefit packages and high compensation for the tech workers at these companies. Recently, Google employees have actually dictated business decisions to management through walkouts on how they manage sexual harassment claims, working conditions for contractors and an artificial intelligence project for the DoD.

I guess what I'm saying is that for "knowledge economy" companies where corporate value is tied more closely to employee skills it will be interesting to see how these types of decisions are made in the long term and how workers react. Maybe it will lead us towards a second labor movement in the US, which is much-needed in my opinion.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Somehow blatantly inaccurate negative portrayals about Chicago are allowed to spread without a peep of protest, yet some people here seem to get more bothered when anybody proposes (arguably accurate) positive portrayals of our city.

We either reinvent Chicago's narrative, even if it involves just a tad bit of boasting, or we let the (equally inaccurate) negative headlines cast us in such a poor light.

We don't have a bigger soapbox than the President of the United States or the legions of Republican politicians that follow him. And, unfortunately, the President has a bone to pick with our city more than any other.

I don't see how Chicago can "out-message" Trump, the few players with the clout to do that are too busy fending off all the other crazy stuff coming out of that man's mouth and Twitter account.

I agree with some of the other posters here, we should tend our own garden and keep working to improve the city which, yes, includes reducing crime rates as well as investing in all of our neighborhoods. If we have job growth, people will come here from both domestically and abroad.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

But Chicago expends a great deal of its cultural potential trying to enact societal change vs. the aesthetic arts compared to other cities. (San Francisco by comparison is practically paralyzed. That city cannot get anything accomplished if business isn't doing it for them.)

Not sure if this is exactly what you were getting at, but basic beautification should be a priority of City Hall. It's too easy for coastal to write off Chicago as a dismal, grey hinterland because for much of the year, huge swaths of the city ARE that way. We are flat and cold.

More colorful murals, architecture and infrastructure that play up our prairie land roots could do a lot to make the city appealing to urbanites from other cities. Northern European cities have a lot of characteristics to look to.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

It's an interesting question. One thing it's important to understand about these "tech" companies (Salesforce, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon) is that a large part of their value is based on IP, which in their case is the talent/skills of their workers. This is why you see crazy benefit packages and high compensation for the tech workers at these companies. Recently, Google employees have actually dictated business decisions to management through walkouts on how they manage sexual harassment claims, working conditions for contractors and an artificial intelligence project for the DoD.

I guess what I'm saying is that for "knowledge economy" companies where corporate value is tied more closely to employee skills it will be interesting to see how these types of decisions are made in the long term and how workers react. Maybe it will lead us towards a second labor movement in the US, which is much-needed in my opinion.

I think what you're saying about IP is true of companies like Facebook and maybe ones like Snapchat - that it's more about that. I'd like to think that companies like Salesforce and Apple, who have actual products that make money that don't rely on advertising, is a bit more varied and they have more than just worker skills. These companies have actual products that have gone through an actual legit product process and actually directly make money from these. Facebook for example might have the worker skills, but even that's debatable if you are going for an absolute skills assessment.


The whole shift away from Silicon Valley as far as offices go has already started. There is a reason why NYC has increased so much the last handful of years with tech - not only big companies opening big offices, but also a big boost in VC. What NYC has going for it over SF is actual infrastructure though so it can afford this. I have some friends in Sunnyvale,CA (near San Jose) who are paying more for their 1 bedroom apartment (not luxury) than I was paying in Upper West Side in Manhattan for a similar sized place.

Another issue I've heard in the Bay is that a lot of people are kind of full of themselves, think they are the best, and believe they don't deserve anything less than a Google, Apple, or Facebook. For the companies just starting out or who are smaller, this presents an issue of trying to find talent. This type of issue is not even close to as much of an issue in Chicago or even NYC.