Chicago tries to woo tech workers in Austin, elsewhere

[the urban politician]

^ You’re about to get pounced on by The North One in 5...4...3...

[the urban politician]

I never said Chicago doesn’t have a long and storied history of innovation. It just isn’t at the cusp of the modern economy and it constantly just playing catch up.

Of course it’s vibrant. Just by being a huge corporate and financial center it is, and it always ranks among the top few metros in the US for the number of fastest growing new companies. So the business culture is still there and going strong.

But in actual TECH innovation, today, Chicago is simply not a leader and may not shape up to be. This is different than, say, 100 years ago where Chicago truly was a world leader in the technological innovations of that time.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Or Sears, which was the largest department store chain, which combined with one of the largest discount chains, Kmart, It's been bled to oblivion by the owner.

Just nitpicking here, but it was actually KMart that bought Sears and adopted the Sears name as the branding of the newly merged company. KMart then consolidated its workforce in Chicago, and abandoned its offices in suburban Detroit (KMart was started in Detroit). But yeah, the merger was disastrous for both brands.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I never said Chicago doesn’t have a long and storied history of innovation. It just isn’t at the cusp of the modern economy and it constantly just playing catch up.

Of course it’s vibrant. Just by being a huge corporate and financial center it is, and it always ranks among the top few metros in the US for the number of fastest growing new companies. So the business culture is still there and going strong.

But in actual TECH innovation, today, Chicago is simply not a leader and may not shape up to be. This is different than, say, 100 years ago where Chicago truly was a world leader in the technological innovations of that time.

I don't disagree that that race is lost. But the US (and world) economy doesn't absolutely revolve around tech innovation. Innovation can be procured through other means. Chicago can keep its eye on the industy, but I wouldn't put hope into becoming a tech player anytime soon if ever.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But in actual TECH innovation, today, Chicago is simply not a leader and may not shape up to be. This is different than, say, 100 years ago where Chicago truly was a world leader in the technological innovations of that time.

Chicago did have several leaders not that long ago, Motorola and Zenith to name a few. US policy more than local policy killed those off. It seems most of the big tech centers in the US had and still have military and government contracts, and that brings even more companies to their tech clusters trying to get on the money train. Chicago and Illinois cannot compete against Cali, Texas and Florida for those government contracts as well as they used to.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

For sure. Chicago finds itself in very deep hole on the branding front, from impacts both external and self-inflicted. No argument from me there.

That's probably the biggest issue facing Chicago. All this blabber about housing costs and tech ecosystem probably has less to do with it than branding. Not just the bad news about crime but with Oprah and Jordan gone, the branding also took a hit.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

That's probably the biggest issue facing Chicago. All this blabber about housing costs and tech ecosystem probably has less to do with it than branding. Not just the bad news about crime but with Oprah and Jordan gone, the branding also took a hit.

Branding makes a difference. People are really that dumb.

There are definitely people who think Chicago is some dystopian warzone with blood in the streets (thanks you-know-who), despite lower-than-average overall metropolitan crime, especially nonviolent crime. I feel safer in Chicago than in many European cities, where women are routinely groped on transit and a purse or wallet will be snatched in a sec.

Also, silly pop culture references might make a difference? In the 1980's-1990's you had Jordan, Oprah, John Hughes films (really tons of films that showed Chicago as an urban wonderland). I can't think of recent, positive Chicago pop culture references. Maybe Obama?

Also, Austin and Nashville have tons of positive press, and I still don't get either city. Went to both on business relatively frequently in pre-Covid times and they both seemed relatively pleasant, bland Sunbelt cities with minimal urbanity and not much unique flavor. Raleigh seemed to be the best example of such cities, as it's greener, more educated, and closer to the ocean.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Branding makes a difference. People are really that dumb.

There are definitely people who think Chicago is some dystopian warzone with blood in the streets (thanks you-know-who), despite lower-than-average overall metropolitan crime, especially nonviolent crime. I feel safer in Chicago than in many European cities, where women are routinely groped on transit and a purse or wallet will be snatched in a sec.

Also, silly pop culture references might make a difference? In the 1980's-1990's you had Jordan, Oprah, John Hughes films (really tons of films that showed Chicago as an urban wonderland). I can't think of recent, positive Chicago pop culture references. Maybe Obama?

Also, Austin and Nashville have tons of positive press, and I still don't get either city. Went to both on business relatively frequently in pre-Covid times and they both seemed relatively pleasant, bland Sunbelt cities with minimal urbanity and not much unique flavor. Raleigh seemed to be the best example of such cities, as it's greener, more educated, and closer to the ocean.

You feel more safe in Chicago than European cities? That's because you're staying in the safest part of Chicago. The Green Zone of Baghdad is more safe than Paris, but that doesn't mean Baghdad is safer than Paris.

Chicago's crime is unacceptably high, that's something that Chicagoans would all agree to.
3 dead and 34 wounded over Memorial Day weekend, which is a lot better than previous years, so hopefully the improvement continues.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Camelback

You feel more safe in Chicago than European cities?

Absolutely. Chicago is safer on most relevant measures than Paris or Rome.

Originally Posted by Camelback

That's because you're staying in the safest part of Chicago. The Green Zone of Baghdad is more safe than Paris, but that doesn't mean Baghdad is safer than Paris.

Yeah, 2021 Bagdad might be safer than Paris, but I doubt there's reliable data. A lot of developing world countries don't have the rampant petty thievery and — assaults you see in Western Europe.

And I'm not staying in the "safest part of Chicago"; I've stayed all over town, city and suburb, Northside and Southside. American cities, generally speaking, are safer than European cities.

Originally Posted by Camelback

Chicago's crime is unacceptably high, that's something that Chicagoans would all agree to.

Chicago's murder rate/shooting rates are unacceptably high, but this has nothing to do with relative visitor safety. And they obviously aren't too high for the people who always complain about shootings, because the same people are anti-— control, glorify violence, and want to starve cities of funds.

I'm not a gangbanger looking for a ghetto shootout, I'm worried about petty thievery and assault, which are (generally) higher in Europe. Public places in, say, Rome and Paris, have me on high alert basically 100% of the time. Never heard of a gang of gypsies surrounding a couple in the U.S., but heard it countless times in Europe, and has happened to my family three times, once each in France, Austria and Italy. Also every adult female family member has been groped on transit in Europe. In Italy it's basically expected.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Absolutely. Chicago is safer on most relevant measures than Paris or Rome.

Yeah, 2021 Bagdad might be safer than Paris, but I doubt there's reliable data. A lot of developing world countries don't have the rampant petty thievery and — assaults you see in Western Europe.

And I'm not staying in the "safest part of Chicago"; I've stayed all over town, city and suburb, Northside and Southside. American cities, generally speaking, are safer than European cities.


Chicago's murder rate/shooting rates are unacceptably high, but this has nothing to do with relative visitor safety. And they obviously aren't too high for the people who always complain about shootings, because the same people are anti-— control, glorify violence, and want to starve cities of funds.

I'm not a gangbanger looking for a ghetto shootout, I'm worried about petty thievery and assault, which are (generally) higher in Europe. Public places in, say, Rome and Paris, have me on high alert basically 100% of the time. Never heard of a gang of gypsies surrounding a couple in the U.S., but heard it countless times in Europe, and has happened to my family three times, once each in France, Austria and Italy. Also every adult female family member has been groped on transit in Europe. In Italy it's basically expected.

Can you provide some information? Or is this all anecdotal experiences from a New Yorker in Chicago?

You've stayed on the Southside and felt more safe there than "many European cities"? (not just Paris and Rome, let's not try to walk back what you first posted).

Also, I'm sorry to hear that your family has been harassed and females expect to be groped over there. That's awful.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by Camelback

Can you provide some information? Or is this all anecdotal experiences from a New Yorker in Chicago?

You've stayed on the Southside and felt more safe there than "many European cities"? (not just Paris and Rome, let's not try to walk back what you first posted).

*South Side, and I assume what Crawford means by most relevant measures is likely non-violent crime. I've happened to have experienced a fair amount of violent crime in my life from where I used to grow up in the city, so my gauge of safety is probably different than yours, but haven't really experienced much non-violent crimes. This is primarily cause a lot of violent crime in the city stems from interpersonal conflict, in addition to disinvestment and lack of opportunities. So even if a street I'm walking down is considered as one on the most violent in the city, if you're generally friendly to folks then no one is going to bother you. Here's a post I truncated from marothisu, a Chicago forumer living in NY, discussing how YTD homicides are still lower than several other cities and the major discrepancy across the city.

Also, forum discussions on Chicago have a tendency devolve into crime statistics and rants so hopefully this thread doesn't go down a several page spiral.

Originally Posted by marothisu

Current or semi current homicide rates among various US cities right now
- Juarez, Mexico: 34.22 per 100K (just for fun here...which is barely higher than Jackson, MS)

- Jackson, MS: 32.37 per 100K people
- St. Louis: 24.29 per 100K
- Baltimore: 20.22 per 100K
- Detroit: 14.18 per 100K
- New Orleans: 14.1 per 100K
- Philadelphia: 12.5 per 100K
- Oakland: 11.55 per 100K
- Indianapolis: 10.84 per 100K
- Cleveland: 10.76 per 100K
- Milwaukee: 10.51 per 100K
- Washington DC: 10.34 per 100K
- Atlanta: 10.26 per 100K
.
.
- Pittsburgh: 8.33 per 100K
- Columbus, OH: 8.24 per 100K
- Rochester, NY: 8.24 per 100K
- Chicago: 7.61 per 100K (as of 5/11)
- Cincinnati: 7.57 per 100K
- Houston: 6.28 per 100K
- Minneapolis: 6.28 per 100K
.
.
- Los Angeles: 3.24 per 100K
- Austin: 3.06 per 100K
- Las Vegas: 2.52 per 100K
- Boston: 1.88 per 100K
- NYC: 1.88 per 100K
- San Francisco: 1.7 per 100K
- Seattle: 1.48 per 100K
- Toronto: 0.84 per 100K
- Oahu (i.e. all of Honolulu and more): 0.40 per 100K

I don't have a good reading on numbers from places like San Antonio, Phoenix, San Diego, Vancouver, etc.


Now onto various geographic chunks of the city..


Area 1: Downtown area (Near South, North, West, and the Loop), Lincoln Park, Lakeview, North Center, Lincoln Square, Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, West Ridge, Edison Park, Norwood Park, Jefferson Park, Forest Glen, North Park, Albany Park, Portage Park, Irving Park, Dunning, Montclare, Belmont Cragin, Hermosa, Avondale, Logan Square, West Town, Lower West Side, O'Hare

Total population (2019) = 1,416,845 ==> Nearly the same size as San Diego, and larger than Dallas.
Total homicides thru 5/11 = 17

Homicide rate = 1.2 per 100K ==> Lower than Seattle, Boston, NYC, San Jose, etc. Also lower than every borough in NYC including Manhattan at not a ton lower population.

Area 2: Austin, Humboldt Park, West Garfield Park, East Garfield Park, South Lawndale, North Lawndale
Total population (2019) = 288,676 ==> About the same size as Orlando or Pittsburgh
Total homicides thru 5/11 = 66

Homicide rate = 22.86 per 100K ==> Very high, but still lower than St. Louis and Jackson, MS. Slightly higher than all of Baltimore.

Area 3: Englewood, West Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, Chatham, Auburn Gresham, South Shore, Roseland, West Pullman, Washington Heights, Chicago Lawn, Avalon Park, Burnside, Calumet Heights
Total Population (2019) = 378,367 ==> About the same as Cleveland, OH
Total homicides thru 5/11 = 87

Homicide rate = 22.99 per 100K ==> Very high, but still lower than St. Louis and Jackson, MS. Slightly higher than all of Baltimore.


Area 4: Bridgeport, McKinley Park, Brighton Park, New City, Gage Park, West Elsdon, Clearing, West Lawn, Ashburn, Archer Heights, Garfield Ridge, Armour Square
Total population (2019) = 354,674 ==> About the same as Honolulu city.
Total homicides thru 5/11 = 11

Homicide rate = 3.1 per 100K ==> Almost the same as Austin, and a little lower than Los Angeles.

This is how crazy skewed things are. You have 2 geographic areas of the city with a combined population of 667,043 people, where 153 homicides have occurred. That's 75% of all of the city's homicides occurring in 2 geographic areas where only 25% of the entire city lives. It had a combined rate of 22.94 per 100K which is still lower than St. Louis and Jackson, MS in rate this year and just slightly higher than Baltimore, with almost the same population as Detroit. Literally the 2 "worst" homicide areas of Chicago combined has almost the same rate as Baltimore (including its lower crime areas) and yet still lower than St. Louis and Jackson, MS. The homicide rate where the other 75% of the city lives? 2.52 per 100K. That is lower than Austin and the same as Las Vegas.

And then on the other side of the city, you have a big area of over 1.4 million people, which is larger than Dallas and nearly the same population as San Diego, with one of the lowest homicide rates of any area in the US so far this year. Lower than Boston, NYC, San Francisco, San Jose, etc. and lower than Manhattan.

Then along the I-55 corridor basically you have another geographic area about equal in population to Honolulu, with a lower homicide rate than Austin and Los Angeles so far this year.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

*South Side, and I assume what Crawford means by most relevant measures is likely non-violent crime. I've happened to have experienced a fair amount of violent crime in my life from where I used to grow up in the city, so my gauge of safety is probably different than yours, but haven't really experienced much non-violent crimes. This is primarily cause a lot of violent crime in the city stems from interpersonal conflict, in addition to disinvestment and lack of opportunities. So even if a street I'm walking down is considered as one on the most violent in the city, if you're generally friendly to folks then no one is going to bother you. Here's a post I truncated from marothisu, a Chicago forumer living in NY, discussing how YTD homicides are still lower than several other cities and the major discrepancy across the city.

Also, forum discussions on Chicago have a tendency devolve into crime statistics and rants so hopefully this thread doesn't go down a several page spiral.

I appreciate the response with actual information (not anecdotal stuff, like I went there and didn't get robbed or shot). I also hope this doesn't spiral, like you say it might. That's not what I want.

It's true that a 7.61 homicide rate for the entirety of Chicago isn't nearly as bad as other cities that don't have a large population base to offset ridiculous crime rates. I don't understand how Crawford feels safer on the Southside (he said he stays there), over European cities though, that's what I replied to.

This is coming from somebody that understands most of our violent crime is concentrated in small geographical areas and doesn't like the nation to nation comparisons when we have so much more going on here.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Camelback

I appreciate the response with actual information (not anecdotal stuff, like I went there and didn't get robbed or shot). I also hope this doesn't spiral, like you say it might. That's not what I want.

It's true that a 7.61 homicide rate for the entirety of Chicago isn't nearly as bad as other cities that don't have a large population base to offset ridiculous crime rates. I don't understand how Crawford feels safer on the Southside (he said he stays there), over European cities though, that's what I replied to.

This is coming from somebody that understands most of our violent crime is concentrated in small geographical areas and doesn't like the nation to nation comparisons when we have so much more going on here.

Eh, you're probably far more likely to be pickpocketed, or be otherwise targeted by thieves, as a tourist in Paris than you are as a tourist in Chicago. And, while you are more likely to be shot as a tourist in Chicago than in Paris, it's because of the prevalence of — in the U.S., and not because of crime rates in Chicago.

Americans use crime stats to attack each other, and to criticize certain ethnic groups. But these discussions about urban crime almost always misinterpret who is affected by what types of crime. Discussion of urban crime rates in America is basically a — measuring contest.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Camelback

I don't understand how Crawford feels safer on the Southside (he said he stays there), over European cities though, that's what I replied to.

I don't stay in a Southside ghetto, obviously, but I wouldn't do that in Rome either. Do you know many business or leisure travelers who demand AirBnB or hotels in the most violent possible blocks?

But the last time I stayed in Chicago, I stayed near McCormick Place, close to some of the more violent Chicagoland areas, with a toddler, and never had any safety concerns. We were on playgrounds after dark, and walking on empty streets well south of Roosevelt Rd.

In contrast, I have tons of issues as a tourist in Western Europe. Blatant pickpocketing, scams, groping, etc. Never experienced this in the U.S. Of course the U.S. has insane gunplay, esp. in low-income AA communities, but that isn't my concern, given the odds.

[JManc]

The pickpocketing, scams, groping, etc are largely due to tourism; easy targets.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JManc

The pickpocketing, scams, groping, etc are largely due to tourism; easy targets.

not entirely. They're common in Bucharest too which has much fewer tourists.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't stay in a Southside ghetto, obviously, but I wouldn't do that in Rome either.

That sounds racist. You said you stay on the Southside, but not a "Southside ghetto"?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But the last time I stayed in Chicago, I stayed near McCormick Place, close to some of the more violent Chicagoland areas, with a toddler, and never had any safety concerns. We were on playgrounds after dark, and walking on empty streets well south of Roosevelt Rd.

^ Uhhh.... that’s not even remotely one of Chicago’s “violent” areas. You were in the South Loop, where 7 figure townhomes are selling.

Try staying at a hotel (not there are any) in Englewood or Roseland for some authentic Chicago gangland experiences

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Camelback

That sounds racist. You said you stay on the Southside, but not a "Southside ghetto"?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Uhhh.... that’s not even remotely one of Chicago’s “violent” areas. You were in the South Loop, where 7 figure townhomes are selling.

Try staying at a hotel (not there are any) in Englewood or Roseland for some authentic Chicago gangland experiences

Jesus Christ, you two. Seriously? Seriously you're going there? Maybe I should just write off tripe like this as snark, sarcasm or simple trolling, but it's not helping the situation in the least bit.

Any chance of getting back to the topic at hand? Whatever that actually was?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Uhhh.... that’s not even remotely one of Chicago’s “violent” areas. You were in the South Loop, where 7 figure townhomes are selling.

Try staying at a hotel (not there are any) in Englewood or Roseland for some authentic Chicago gangland experiences

I'm not sure of your point. I never claimed that I stayed in a high crime area. I was on the South Side of Chicago, though, and not in a particularly fancy or touristy area.

Who, when they're traveling, makes a point of staying in a high crime area?