CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[PopulusRomanus]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Outside of New York, there is no city on the Western Hemisphere that has the whole sum of things to offer as Chicago does.

Buenos Aires?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by PopulusRomanus

Buenos Aires?

Toronto would probably be closer, but I’ve always thought those two cities are very similar to Chicago.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Outside of New York, there is no city on the Western Hemisphere that has the whole sum of things to offer as Chicago does. It's absolutely ridiculous that tourists from outside the US are coming to the US, renting cars, and driving around LA. For what, exactly? To see Hollywood and the houses of the stars? What do you see after that? I bet you anything that these foreigners go home thinking that they've seen the best that America has to offer.

Now, LA has a lot to do, but apart from true ocean beaches (which IMO pale in comparison to the ones in Florida/Caribbean), it doesn't offer really much more than what Chicago offers minus the difference in culture IMO (I say this with a father from LA and tons of family there too - I like the city, but just being realistic here).

The funny thing about the whole stars thing is it's really true. Again anecdotal, but I have so many co-workers from outside of the US as well as my fiance's parents who all literally thought that they'd see a bunch of movie stars walking around places like Hollywood which is why they went. Once they realized it's not true most of them said they didn't have much of a reason to visit.

[rgolch]

Why are we still talking about this international tourist BS?

Enough guys. Grow a pair, and lets talk about real economic news.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Outside of New York, there is no city on the Western Hemisphere that has the whole sum of things to offer as Chicago does. It's absolutely ridiculous that tourists from outside the US are coming to the US, renting cars, and driving around LA. For what, exactly? To see Hollywood and the houses of the stars? What do you see after that? I bet you anything that these foreigners go home thinking that they've seen the best that America has to offer.

Statements like this are hard to take seriously. . .

. . .

[maru2501]

every third TV show is set here now. Maybe that'll help

[the urban politician]

^ From the standpoint of a tourist visiting a city, I think one can make a strong case for it. I'm not talking about visiting wine country, or skiing, or the like.

But if we're talking about a packaged, urban experience: architecture, water tours, dining, nightlife, culture, museums, theatre--all within a small geographic area and without requiring one to rent a car, why not?

[Tom In Chicago]

^Because in the U.S. Los Angeles and San Francisco offer just as much as Chicago does using those criteria. . . have you been to these cities??? In the Western Hemisphere you've got Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenos Aires, the list goes on. . . and most of these cities can be visited with minimal effort all year long because the weather is not unbearable. . .

. . .

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^Because in the U.S. Los Angeles and San Francisco offer just as much as Chicago does using those criteria. . . have you been to these cities???.

^ Numerous times.

From the standpoint of a tourist, I'd take visiting Chicago during the warmer months (which I said in my earlier post--hence your incessant whining about the local weather shouldn't apply here) over visiting those places.

We don't have to agree on this, but once upon a time shameless boosterism was common in this town.....must have been a more exciting time than today

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Numerous times.

From the standpoint of a tourist, I'd take visiting Chicago during the warmer months (which I said in my earlier post--hence your incessant whining about the local weather shouldn't apply here) over visiting those places.

We don't have to agree on this, but once upon a time shameless boosterism was common in this town.....must have been a more exciting time than today

It's not whining when I'm simply stating the facts as to why people go to retire or on vacation. . . your shameless boosterism has been noted, but wanting something to be greater than it is doesn't make it so. . .

. . .

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^Because in the U.S. Los Angeles and San Francisco offer just as much as Chicago does using those criteria. . . have you been to these cities??? In the Western Hemisphere you've got Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenos Aires, the list goes on. . . and most of these cities can be visited with minimal effort all year long because the weather is not unbearable. . .

. . .

Boston, too.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Handro

Boston, too.

See, now we might as well name them all--which is fine, they are wonderful cities:

Seattle, SF, Washington DC, Philadelphia, there we go.

There's that midwestern modesty that serves us so well... Don't stick your neck out, don't exaggerate just a little bit, don't stretch the truth just a little bit....

I think you guys are missing my point by a tad. No place became great by sitting there telling the cold, hard, sober truth all of the time--especially not Chicago. It wouldn't be the end of the world to bring some of that bravado back, at least if we're on the topic of marketing the city, which is what we were discussing.

It's okay to brag. Not the end of the world. Just saying....

[Handro]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

See, now we might as well name them all--which is fine, they are wonderful cities:

Seattle, SF, Washington DC, Philadelphia, there we go.

There's that midwestern modesty that serves us so well... Don't stick your neck out, don't exaggerate just a little bit, don't stretch the truth just a little bit....

I think you guys are missing my point by a tad. No place became great by sitting there telling the cold, hard, sober truth all of the time--especially not Chicago. It wouldn't be the end of the world to bring some of that bravado back, at least if we're on the topic of marketing the city, which is what we were discussing.

It's okay to brag. Not the end of the world. Just saying....

The difference between that Chicago confidence of old ("make no small plans") and simply conjuring up false bravado in 2019 ("greatest city ever!") is that in the past, Chicago was doing huge things not seen anywhere else. Birth of the skyscraper, crossroads of America, and the hub of American transportation and industry. Chicago truly was one of a kind in North America and the world. It was on par with New York, albeit smaller, in that it was a true cultural and innovation hub. There was no LA, no Atlanta, no Houston, no San Francisco. even in the same realm.

Now it's just silly, and transparently so, to claim Chicago is THE BEST IN THE WORLD (or country, as it were). It's not impossible to get back to that status, but provincial thinking over the decades allowed these other cities to catch up to, and in some areas surpass, Chicago. If the “marketing” plan is to con some small town folks with false bravado vs. actually making big gains in art, architecture, urban infrastructure, etc. to back up the confidence, count me out. Chicago has the foundation and history other cities dream about, we need to actually use it.

Rahm saw that to get the city back to being top tier urban leader, investments had to be made in public transit, public art, and urban design. My hope is that Lightfoot can continue that legacy while tackling some of the neighborhood issues that have plagued Chicago's image over the past 10+ years.

Once the neighborhoods are safe enough to match our downtown's beauty, it's time to start pushing Chicago in film, television, music, art worlds to attract people who otherwise think New York and Los Angeles are the only real cities in the US.

[the urban politician]

Here's a great marketing slogan:

"Come to Chicago. We're kinda sorta just as nice as Boston, SF, and LA, as long as you don't come in the winter"

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Here's a great marketing slogan:

"Come to Chicago. We're kinda sorta just as nice as Boston, SF, and LA, as long as you don't come in the winter"

That's just it. . . I don't think Chicago needs any "marketing slogan". . . Chicago is a great city on it's own and doesn't need this kind of help. . . boosterism on this level feels labored and smacks of desperation. . . it's embarrassing quite frankly. . .

. . .

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

That's just it. . . I don't think Chicago needs any "marketing slogan". . . Chicago is a great city on it's own and doesn't need this kind of help. . . boosterism on this level feels labored and smacks of desperation. . . it's embarrassing quite frankly. . .

. . .

That may be what you think, and I'm sure you're not alone.

But I think if there is any interest in drawing more international visitors to Chicago, we aren't going to get there by telling everyone that Chicago is "just as good" as anywhere else. You have to emphasize, boldly, where it stands out above the crowd--and even if we weren't being 100% honest, that wouldn't be the first time that happened anywhere. Talk about the architecture, the top theatre scene, the great museums, our unique lakefront, our highly regarded dining scene, or our unusually large number & variety of summer festivals. Why not?

Perhaps you don't really care, and that's fine. But don't expect everyone else to share your apathy about that matter.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That may be what you think, and I'm sure you're not alone.

But I think if there is any interest in drawing more international visitors to Chicago, we aren't going to get there by telling everyone that Chicago is "just as good" as anywhere else.

Perhaps you don't really care, and that's fine. But don't expect everyone else to share your apathy about that matter.

I think I'm not making my point clear. . . it's not so much that I feel like Chicago is "just as good" as anywhere else, it's just that it's a totally different animal altogether. . .

Chicago is a great city with a lot of history that is well suited for a slightly different brand of tourist than the average person looking to see the Statue of Liberty or the beach. . . and I'm the first person that will tout our merits to international travelers that I meet. . . I'm sure people from Manchester UK or Frankfurt Germany have these same debates. . .

At the end of the day I don't think you're going to have much luck convincing some brain dead slob to come to Chicago over some other place that has more tourist-friendly offerings. . . and I've seen my share of them - wandering aimlessly around the United Center to get a picture at the statue of the guy from Space Jam. . . good thing we have Navy Pier to siphon off those hordes. . .

. . .

[the urban politician]

I tend to have a philosophy that "greatness", in its heart, is somewhat about bullshit. You have to sell yourself to create a cluster, and as that cluster grows and snowballs, something great comes out of it. Every great place had to do it during some points in their history, even New York.

In a way I sort of disagree in that I believe Chicago has a growing problem of standing out in the crowd. We have a much more crowded field of great cities in America today as compared to 1893. I feel we need to do a bit more boasting and grandstanding to reel in more international tourism business, although I understand that this rubs some people the wrong way, particularly those of a mild-mannered midwestern persuasion.

But we also should remember that for a long time, this is how Chicago once was, and how it got the nickname "Windy City".

[marothisu]

Chicago definitely needs better marketing. I'm full of anecdotes but I've met and also shown around numerous people from outside this country and I don't remember a single person saying "Yeah that's about what I expected." The general sentiment is that basically they thought it was just some city with not much to do in the middle of the country and that they thought it wasn't nice and that it had crime everywhere. Every. Single. Person i've shown around (which is not just a few people - in the multiples of large handfuls). It's the same thing every time "Wow, I didn't know there was so much here and I wasn't expecting it to be so nice." Usually what they know about Chicago the actual city has to do with the news - and it's basically only about crime these days. The expectation is a crappy city where crime is rampant even in tourist areas and it's not nice.

The people who know about Chicago are the ones who've actually been to Chicago, or maybe they've seen features on TV/Internet about it. This even goes down to my American co-workers here in NYC who were born and raised in the NE (or moved here 20 or so years ago from another country). Clueless too. Maybe back in the day people were less clueless, but considering the media talks about places to visit nowadays in terms of the bay area, LA, Miami, etc - Chicago kind of gets lost in the fold especially for people who are under the age of 40.

Just to get it in there, my fiance does marketing for a living (with a masters in it), and the very first time I showed her around the city her statement was "The marketing for Chicago is terrible.." I tend to agree. We all know about Chicago, and there are some people who are over the age of 40 or 50 who know about it, but for someone who is under the age of 40, it's not as in the forefront anymore. People are going to visit Portland, Seattle, SF, etc sometimes now before they come to Chicago.

Internationally, you could make a case for why they shouldn't "waste their time" in Chicago, but I think you'll be surprised at how many international travelers have Chicago as their favorite city after visiting. The problem is getting them to come in the first place. As someone mentioned before, a lot of international visitors go to national parks and what not - which makes complete sense. NYC makes sense, as well as DC/Philadelphia/Boston. And I do love cities like SF and LA, but if you say "Why would you visit Chicago?" then I could make the same case for those places too technically. People go to LA for Hollywood and think that movie stars are just roaming the streets everywhere. Most people wouldn't go if it wasn't for that expectation.

[the urban politician]

^ And the problem is, we apparently have a bunch of Tom in Chicago types (no offense intended) handling the marketing around here.

"We're happy just the way were are, mind your own business, and don't send nobody nobody sent" etc etc.