CHICAGO | General Discussions

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

It turns out that Chicago, Philly and Raleigh were the top three choices for Amazon's HQ2 and that Bezos just made a decision with his gut.

Ignoring the specific details, the fundamentals as judged by Amazon exist and are real. These three locations are among the best choices for growth like this in the future, regardless of what happened in the Amazon situation. I believe Raleigh is getting a large new Apple R&D facility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/b...rad-stone.html

Not subscribed, so couldn't read the article, but based on your post, I feel like the Chicagoland area may be in an "awkward phase" where it's too big a player to be perceived as fresh, but not "sexy" enough to warrant indiscriminate investment like NYC or LA.

The smaller fish may have to catch up a bit before we can put the petal to the metal. Further erode any cost of living advantage. More traffic and other big city problems elsewhere could be necessary to accelerate the growth engine at home.

[marothisu]

I think Chicago already has a plan for this and there's no reason it can't be on or near the same level as LA. It shpuld absolutely not wait for smaller cities to play catch up. If that happens then Chicago is already behind. It's a good thing some leaders understand that while they might be ahead of some areas, it's still behind others and there is ground to make up ASAP.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I think Chicago already has a plan for this and there's no reason it can't be on or near the same level as LA. It shpuld absolutely not wait for smaller cities to play catch up. If that happens then Chicago is already behind. It's a good thing some leaders understand that while they might be ahead of some areas, it's still behind others and there is ground to make up ASAP.

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it until I'm blue in the face: Chicago's biggest liability is that it doesn't have the mammoth media presence that both NYC and LA have. Ever since the 60s, multi-hyphenate media conglomerates (in their various iterations, both past and present), helped push the narrative that only in bi-coastal America, could you be classy, formal, sophisticated, worldly AND achieve the highest high of the 'American Dream'. And people have always bought into that narrative, because we are now and have always been a highly consumerist society, placing preference on optics over substance, whether or not there was actually any truth to what was being sold. A big part of the fault lies in Chicago leadership through the 50s-70s, that focused wealth and influence in a small, insular closed circle of elitism that awarded cronyism and personal connections, where outsiders were not welcome....compared to the attitude of 'if you can make it here (NYC/LA), you can make it anywhere', and also where outside (European, Asian, African, South American) cultural influence were elevated and more easily accessible.
The same mass-market media conglomerates still also push the false narrative that Chicago now has Somalia-levels of violence and crime, while totally ignoring the fact that nearly all of the violence is gang & drug related in very specific blighted communities, AND that even bi-coastal metros have very similar crime rates, even pre-pandemic.
Chicago does have A LOT of catching up to do, especially in how to position itself in a post-pandemic world for success, growth and the ability to thrive organically. But it's not helped by maintaining that parochial, closed-circle mentality (hell, even Crains had an in-depth article about that a couple of years back). People, families, companies, feel they HAVE to be here for a myriad number of reasons, instead of wanting to be here. Chicago is not 'sexy', and sex sells, whether you like it or not. Sexiness also brings collateral benefits, but sexy ostentation is too much for the parochial masses here...just look at the insular, bedroom-community attitude of the whole of DuPage county, one of the most populated counties of the country. There is nothing desirable about a place like DuPage county..hell, even a big chunk of Cook County too.
Don't EVEN get me started on how decades of political corruption has forever tainted Chicago's desirability..that's a whole other major chapter in the story..

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it until I'm blue in the face: Chicago's biggest liability is that it doesn't have the mammoth media presence that both NYC and LA have. Ever since the 60s, multi-hyphenate media conglomerates (in their various iterations, both past and present), helped push the narrative that only in bi-coastal America, could you be classy, formal, sophisticated, worldly AND achieve the highest high of the 'American Dream'. And people have always bought into that narrative, because we are now and have always been a highly consumerist society, placing preference on optics over substance, whether or not there was actually any truth to what was being sold.

What makes you think it was just a 50s-70s problem instead of an “entire U.S. history” problem? Wishing for Chicago to be populated by different people with a different culture and mentality ...doesn’t lead to anything. Chicago is Chicago, and the city will change organically according to whoever decides to make it their home.

For example, a huge plot point of ‘The Great Gatsby’ if you read carefully is that it’s about people from Chicago going to New York for NYC’s sophisticated and glamorous lifestyle and ruining everything. Because even back then Chicago was a negative buzzword with most of the same criticisms as today.

—“I see now that this has been a story of the West, after all--Tom and Gatsby, Daisy and Jordan and I, were all Westerners, and perhaps we possessed some deficiency in common which made us subtly unadaptable to Eastern life.”

As for marketing, it’s hard to fight back against tropes dating back to the Civil War. There’s always going to be one city in the nation to be the stand-in for anti-urban sentiment and societal ills, and Chicago got that dubious honor practically since the city was founded.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

What makes you think it was just a 50s-70s problem instead of an “entire U.S. history” problem? Wishing for Chicago to be populated by different people with a different culture and mentality ...doesn’t lead to anything. Chicago is Chicago, and the city will change organically according to whoever decides to make it their home.

For example, a huge plot point of ‘The Great Gatsby’ if you read carefully is that it’s about people from Chicago going to New York for NYC’s sophisticated and glamorous lifestyle and ruining everything. Because even back then Chicago was a negative buzzword with most of the same criticisms as today.

—“I see now that this has been a story of the West, after all--Tom and Gatsby, Daisy and Jordan and I, were all Westerners, and perhaps we possessed some deficiency in common which made us subtly unadaptable to Eastern life.”

As for marketing, it’s hard to fight back against tropes dating back to the Civil War. There’s always going to be one city in the nation to be the stand-in for anti-urban sentiment and societal ills, and Chicago got that dubious honor practically since the city was founded.

Have you ever heard of a city named 'Detroit'?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Have you ever heard of a city named 'Detroit'?

Detroit fell too hard. (On top of a shorter history of being the scapegoat than Chicago)

On the marketing front, the media isn’t comfortable using Detroit as the anti-urban scapegoat without feeling like they’re punching down. So Detroit gets its fair share of ‘Well actually, Detroit has some good things too!’ publicity.

'A Love Letter to Detroit,' on Vellum and Chrome - The New York Times
Nov 26, 2020

Chicago on the other hand is considered fair game. You can be guaranteed whatever social issue is on people’s minds-Chicago will get the full scathing exposé, on top of relentless political attacks from opposition.

Other cities get this media treatment occasionally. For Chicago, it’s been almost 160 continuous years.

Black Lives Are Shorter in Chicago. My Family's History Shows Why. - The New York Times Apr 28, 2021

[marothisu]

^ I tend to agree. A lot of the people who come here to NYC for example, at least younger people (new or recent college graduates) go big time on the media vision of the city. Probably back in the 90s it was more accessible as things were more affordable overall, but it's still going strong today. I mean, lower Manhattan (SoHo, West Village, TriBeCa, etc) has really no comparable anywhere in the US but still out of reach for most to live in unless they are trust fund kids or legitimately well off. Many people live in less than ideal conditions there who have good jobs just so they can live around there (i.e. 2 bedrooms carved out of a small living room, and the ability to fit almost nothing more in it than a twin sized bed).

Chicago is definitely seen as "not sexy" to a lot, where apparently high levels of violent crime permeate every corner of the city somehow, and it's about 20 degrees colder than reality. One of our neighbors here is the head or one of the heads of a small country's embassy here. When saying we were relocating back to Chicago it was definitely a regurgitation of media sound bytes like these. I think there was a small amount of surprise when I said that the majority of where the city lives doesn't see some high levels of violent crime and it's not in the negatives year round.

My wife is a marketer (with a masters in it) and the first time she spent a weekend with me in Chicago when I was splitting time between there and NYC, she immediately pointed out that Chicago's marketing is really, really bad and it needs a new marketing campaign. The reality versus what's in the media is pretty crazy actually. There is some truth to what the media says of course, but they try and paint the entire city as if there's murder happening literally everywhere on a daily basis which is just extremely far from the truth (so far this year, 76% of the city's homicides occurred where only 25% of the city's population resides for example).

Between when I'd first moved to Chicago and now, it's definitely attracted some more diversity in some areas (whether racial, business, or in terms of personalities) but still could do a lot more. There's obviously many problems, but pretty much every city has problems. I hate to be a pessimist but there's no such thing as a perfect city.

Chicago basically needs a brand new marketing campaign - preferably not run by people in their 50s (no offense to anyone) and kind of smash the decades old stereotypes that the media loves to play up.

[the urban politician]

^ Chicago isn't adding people, it's churning its people

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Chicago isn't adding people, it's churning its people

We'll see!

Either way I don't expect it to be a meaningful change in either direction. +/- 25-30k?

[jtown,man]

1.5 years into living in Chicago review:

Holy shit. Terrible time to move here.

The best way I can describe my experience with Chicago is that its like watching a movie you go "wtf did I just watch?" You complain about it being too sad, silly, or weird. But at the end of the day, it gave got a strong emotion from you, so its a success in that manner.

This city (and its leadership) pisses me off so often, like really bad. But then I also have those days when I'm like "holy shit, I live in this freaking awesome place, no way!" I just wish they could get crime under control, if that were to happen (even reaching 2004 levels), I could see myself living here forever.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

1.5 years into living in Chicago review:

Holy shit. Terrible time to move here.

The best way I can describe my experience with Chicago is that its like watching a movie you go "wtf did I just watch?" You complain about it being too sad, silly, or weird. But at the end of the day, it gave got a strong emotion from you, so its a success in that manner.

This city (and its leadership) pisses me off so often, like really bad. But then I also have those days when I'm like "holy shit, I live in this freaking awesome place, no way!" I just wish they could get crime under control, if that were to happen (even reaching 2004 levels), I could see myself living here forever.

Interesting review. But the pandemic is obviously a 800 lb gorilla in the room. Spend a couple more years in Chicago, post-pandemic, and then we can see how you feel about “normal” Chicago which is a total blast.

I do wonder how it is that a non-business owner or a non-property owner can get so pissed at the city’s leaders, though. Most of the “fucking over” and “shaking down” by the leaders occurs at the detriment of those folks, not at regular people.

[bnk]

Things like this make Chicago an easy target nationally.


https://www.newsbug.info/news/nation...7b007487a.html


Chicago mayor chooses only reporters of color to interview her as she marks 2 years in office

Alice Yin, Chicago Tribune

May 19, 2021 Updated 13 hrs ago




CHICAGO — Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Wednesday defended her decision to grant interviews on her two-year anniversary in office only to journalists of color, saying it was intended as an effort to confront the issue of what she described as a mostly white and male City Hall press corps.


But the move, revealed Tuesday by her office, was greeted skeptically by some in the Chicago media and beyond, with questions about whether excluding white reporters is a discriminatory act from a mayor who has had an often contentious relationship with reporters


...

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by bnk

Things like this make Chicago an easy target nationally.


https://www.newsbug.info/news/nation...7b007487a.html


...

If the people of Chicago don't like it, they can vote her out. If it's generating national press it's because... that's why she did it.

I often find that F-150 driving schlubs in Indiana or people who live the suburbs and watch Fox News don't like stories coming out of Chicago. That's usually a good sign. If we were making them happy, we'd be failing.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I often find that F-150 driving schlubs in Indiana or people who live the suburbs and watch Fox News don't like stories coming out of Chicago. That's usually a good sign. If we were making them happy, we'd be failing.

That's an excellent way of looking at it. Thanks for the new perspective!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by left of center

For us to "screw" up in this way would be a nearly impossible stroke of luck, lol. The city could start turning the tides on population loss and its reputation, but for hundreds of thousands of people to start moving in to the point where we lose all the "grit" on the south and west sides would literally take many decades, if ever.

Pretty much. NYC added a lot of people since 2010, overall and so much construction yet the majority of the grit still remains whether it's in Brooklyn, Queens, or The Bronx. It would literally take some epic China-level growth in some cities that was previously seen to get to the level of all that being erased. Fat chance of that happening in the US right now anywhere.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Holy shit. Terrible time to move here.

I don't think this is a "Chicago thing" and more of a "terrible time to move anywhere right before a pandemic" for a good 90% of the country to be frank.

I just wish they could get crime under control, if that were to happen (even reaching 2004 levels), I could see myself living here forever.

I think you mean 2014, which was the lowest level in crime totals in Chicago since 1965. In any case, I think what most people need to realize is that violent crime in much of the US has been on the rise for the last 8-10 months. Chicago has work to do, and so do so many other places right now, as you'll see below.

Here's what I predict will happen: Chicago will actually end up with fewer homicides than last year. Why? Most years, violent crime spikes in the summer for a variety of reasons but one of the reasons is because school is out. Some of the biggest victims in Chicago of shooting deaths are under 18 - and in normal years this had kind of "delayed" some of this and then spike in the summer. During the pandemic, schools are essentially closed in person. I hope I am right in this, but I think everyone will get to the end of the year and say "wait a minute...but it was trending upward." My guess is that it will just continue at some steady streak. Maybe in the fall it will decline if in person class is back on.

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
- Birmingham, AL: 20.06 per 100K
- Shreveport, LA: 17.1 per 100K
- Memphis: 16.9 per 100K
- Columbus, GA: 15.97 per 100K
- Detroit: 14.18 per 100K
- New Orleans: 14.1 per 100K
- Baton Rouge, LA: 14.08 per 100K (as of 3/5)
- Philadelphia: 12.5 per 100K
- Buffalo: 11.75 per 100K
- Oakland: 11.55 per 100K
- Kansas City: 11.51 per 100K
- Little Rock, AR: 11.15 per 100K
- Indianapolis: 10.84 per 100K
- Cleveland: 10.76 per 100K (* As of April 10 - probably a bit higher now)
- Akron, OH: 10.61 per 100K
- Milwaukee: 10.51 per 100K
- Richmond, VA: 10.42 per 100K
- Washington DC: 10.34 per 100K
- Atlanta: 10.26 per 100K
- Louisville: 9.88 per 100K
- Hartford, CT: 9.83 per 100K
- Bakersfield, CA: 9.11 per 100K
- Albuquerque: 8.56 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
- Norfolk, VA: 7.42 per 100K
- Toledo, OH: 6.91 per 100K
- Knoxville, TN: 6.4 per 100K
- Houston: 6.28 per 100K
- Minneapolis: 6.28 per 100K
- Greensboro, NC: 6.07 per 100K
- Nashville: 5.97 per 100K
- St. Petersburg, FL: 5.74 per 100K
- Dallas: 5.73 per 100K
- Fresno, CA: 5.66 per 100K
- Ft. Wayne, IN: 5.55 per 100K
- Durham, NC: 5.1 per 100K
- Lexington, KY: 4.95 per 100K
- Portland: 4.75 per 100K
- Wichita: 4.62 per 100K
- Newark, NJ: 4.61 per 100K
- Jacksonville: 4.5 per 100K
- Oklahoma City: 4.47 per 100K
- Providence, RI: 4.45 per 100K
- Charlotte: 4.06 per 100K
- Denver: 3.99 per 100K
- St. Paul, MN: 3.9 per 100K
- Stockton, CA: 3.86 per 100K
- Winston-Salem, NC: 3.65 per 100K
- Ft. Worth, TX: 3.52 per 100K
- The Bronx, NYC*: 3.24 per 100K
- Los Angeles: 3.24 per 100K
- Colorado Springs: 3.17 per 100K
- Sacramento: 3.15 per 100K
- Austin: 3.06 per 100K
- Las Vegas: 2.52 per 100K
- Anchorage: 2.43 per 100K
- Boston: 1.88 per 100K
- NYC: 1.88 per 100K
- Brooklyn, NYC*: 1.84 per 100K
- San Jose: 1.76 per 100K
- Omaha: 1.71 per 100K
- San Francisco: 1.7 per 100K
- Manhattan, NYC*: 1.66 per 100K
- Seattle: 1.48 per 100K
- Queens, NYC*: 1.29 per 100K
- Staten Island, NYC*: 1.26 per 100K
- Virginia Beach: 0.89 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.



Just imagine if just one of those 2 very high areas got a major reduction in violent crime.

[SIGSEGV]

Those are MSA values?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Those are MSA values?

City proper values. MSA values for almost all of these would be much lower. For example, the 2016 rate for Chicago city according to the FBI was 28.07 per 100K. For the entire MSA it was 10.2 per 100K. The rate outside of the city in 2016 was 2.97 per 100K and that's including Gary, IN with a rate of over 60 per 100K. If you exclude Gary too then it was 2.32 per 100K.

In fact, in 2016 at the height of everything before the pandemic, those 2 major areas in the city accounted for 64% of the total city homicides - right now it's 75%. I'd have to compare against through 5/11/2016 and 5/11/2021 but I'd bet things are more concentrated this year vs in 2016. I had done data analysis on this about 1.5 months ago and 2016 vs. 2021 concentration was essentially the same, with 2021 being a little more concentrated by community area. In any case, if you omitted those areas then the entire metro area would have a homicide rate (counting still much of the city) of 4.75 per 100K. Just to put that into perspective in 2016, that's lower than the entire Los Angeles metro area (suburbs + city).

This is how crazy concentrated these things are.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by marothisu

City proper values. MSA values for almost all of these would be much lower. For example, the 2016 rate for Chicago city according to the FBI was 28.07 per 100K. For the entire MSA it was 10.2 per 100K. The rate outside of the city in 2016 was 2.97 per 100K and that's including Gary, IN with a rate of over 60 per 100K. If you exclude Gary too then it was 2.32 per 100K.

ah ok but you didn't scale to the year. I was just confused why they seemed off by a factor of ~3. just me being dumb.

[pip]

marothisu - love your number crunching. In all aspects over the years

[SIGSEGV]

It's for one day to send a message. Don't see what the big deal is. It's not like pols don't normally carefully curate who interviews them.