Major cities that are weirdly overlooked and nobody seems to care about

[Handro]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

well one of the things i like best about chicago is how nice people are.

maybe that's the overwhelming midwestern-ness, but its a very good thing and a big selling point i think.

do we really need another loudmouth ny?

or, like an oohh wow maaan we don't do that in el lay dood kind of place?

sure there are plenty of nice people in those places too, but you know what i mean. ha.

I get it, see my response to a previous reply:

Originally Posted by Handro

No need to brag. Maybe swagger was the wrong word--boldness? audacity? Chicago is a big and relatively cheap city. No reason why it shouldn't be more of a draw than more expensive and/or smaller cities for the entrepreneurs and artists that could add some cultural cachet. I don't have an easy solution, but I do think part of the problem is the insular populace and segregated neighborhoods, which could chipped away with some more forward thinking leadership and less restrictive zoning.

If Chicago was able to worm it's way back into the zeitgeist the some smaller cities have over the past 20 years, look out. It's already got the bones most cities can only dream about. Per the earlier discussion, it seems like Toronto is findings some success rebranding (or simply branding?)

[Crawford]

Chicago is arguably overlooked from a global perspective. I don't see how it's overlooked domestically, though. It's literally the giant of the interior, and the undisputed hegemon of the Midwest.

Also, Chicago isn't "cheap". A place isn't "cheap" just because it has relatively low housing prices. Chicago has the worst housing returns of any major city tracked by the Case-Schiller index. That's "expensive", not "cheap." Like if you bought in Denver 30 years ago, you would have 4x the return, but if you bought in Chicago, you have 1.25x the return.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Chicago is arguably overlooked from a global perspective. I don't see how it's overlooked domestically, though. It's literally the giant of the interior, and the undisputed hegemon of the Midwest.

It has a metro of almost 10 million people; has relatively cheap housing and office space; arguably the best public transit in the country (NY is more expansive, but CTA is more reliable); it's clean; it's walkable and bikeable; it's architecturally beautiful; etc. etc.

By those metrics, it should be one of the cultural capitals of the country, attracting entrepreneurs, artists, and young people from all over the country--including the coasts. That sort of attention begets more attention. Outside of baby boomers, Midwesterners, and urban enthusiasts, Chicago is not really on the radar like smaller (and in some cases, more expensive) cities (Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco/Oakland).

Also, Chicago isn't "cheap". A place isn't "cheap" just because it has relatively low housing prices. Chicago has the worst housing returns of any major city tracked by the Case-Schiller index. That's "expensive", not "cheap." Like if you bought in Denver 30 years ago, you would have 4x the return, but if you bought in Chicago, you have 1.25x the return.

I said Chicago is relatively cheap. And it is. Using housing returns as the sole barometer of whether or not a city has a high COL is very stupid.

A $50,000/year salary will go farther in Chicago than it will in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, San Francisco, or Boston.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Handro

I said Chicago is relatively cheap. And it is. Using housing returns as the sole barometer of whether or not a city has a high COL is very stupid.

Given that housing costs are, for most households, the largest costs, housing returns are absolutely critical for determining whether a locale is a good value.

Originally Posted by Handro

A $50,000/year salary will go farther in Chicago than it will in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, San Francisco, or Boston.

It won't, though. The typical household doesn't save any money by moving to an area with lower housing costs.

I know we've had a billion threads on this, but a salary doesn't go further because housing costs are lower, it just means that housing space will be larger. People don't adjust their budgets, they adjust their living space requirements.

And Chicago isn't a cheap city by most metrics. It has high property taxes, high sales taxes, high user taxes. Yes, the entry costs to housing ownership are lower, but that's largely because returns are worse.

And, excepting LA, Chicago is the comparison city where you are most likely to own a vehicle. Boston, DC and Washington have higher transit share than Chicago, and NY isn't even worth comparing; it's the only city where most households own no vehicles. A nonpoor family household in Chicago will almost certainly have a car.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Given that housing costs are, for most households, the largest costs, housing returns are absolutely critical for determining whether a locale is a good value.


It won't, though. The typical household doesn't save any money by moving to an area with lower housing costs.

I know we've had a billion threads on this, but a salary doesn't go further because housing costs are lower, it just means that housing space will be larger. People don't adjust their budgets, they adjust their living space requirements.

And Chicago isn't a cheap city by most metrics. It has high property taxes, high sales taxes, high user taxes. Yes, the entry costs to housing ownership are lower, but that's largely because returns are worse.

And, excepting LA, Chicago is the comparison city where you are most likely to own a vehicle. Boston, DC and Washington have higher transit share than Chicago, and NY isn't even worth comparing; it's the only city where most households own no vehicles. A nonpoor family household in Chicago will almost certainly have a car.

Someone making $50k in any big city is more than likely going to rent and your dollar is going to go a lot further in Chicago than in other comparable cities.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by JManc

Someone making $50k in any big city is more than likely going to rent and your dollar is going to go a lot further in Chicago than in other comparable cities.

Meh Crawford feels like arguing so he's going to conflate a bunch of points and move the goal posts until he gets bored and moves on.

[Segun]

Chicago's biggest selling point (ironically something that's hard to sell) is the homerism. There's a sense here that things created in Chicago are made in a special way that only Chicago can do. There is some intense civic pride here, which you see in sides of the city, down to the neighborhood level.
It doesn't have much of a transient culture like NYC, nor does it do much in offering large exclusive areas like LA or SF. In terms of immigration, only NYC and Toronto feel more cosmopolitan in the US and Canada IMO.

Why NYC and Toronto only? Those two are the only cities where you'll see people from every part of the World ALL over the city.

Most everything sellable about Chicago has the word "Chicago" attached to it. Music, Art, history, local political culture (both grassroots and government level). Selling cities to the masses is kind of a generic process.

If there was to scientifically measure the percentage of residents staying in a city to make their mark on the city you might see it at #1 for big cities. Taking stake in the happenings of Chicago is built into the culture of this city.

The simple "Midwestern" practicality that defines our culture, and art, is a put off to some, because our tendency to break things down to the bare bones can remove the mysticism of anything. We're friendly, but not easily impressed. "Meh, just has more buildings. Meh, just has hills" - We could be talking about Tokyo, Berlin, San Francisco, NYC, or Madison, WI. You'll never know.

It's a strange dynamic of people making (or trying to make), a big deal while shrugging our shoulders like "what's the big deal"

[edale]

Originally Posted by Segun

It doesn't have much of a transient culture like NYC, nor does it do much in offering large exclusive areas like LA or SF. In terms of immigration, only NYC and Toronto feel more cosmopolitan in the US and Canada IMO.

Why NYC and Toronto only? Those two are the only cities where you'll see people from every part of the World ALL over the city.

Disagree. Chicago does have a transient culture, I think. Lots of kids from Big 10 schools move to Chicago for a few years after college. Some stay, some move to the burbs, but a lot move on-- either off to one of the coasts, or back to their home states. I think that's a pretty common thing in places like Lincoln Park and those north side neighborhoods.

Also, NYC and Toronto are the only cities where you'll see people from every part of the world all over the city? Huh? How about Los Angeles? When I'd visit my sister in Chicago, I never got the sense that it was all that diverse. The Hispanic community is large but not very visible (at least where I've been-- never made it to Pilsen regretably). Hell, even Black people weren't all that common a sight in Lincoln Park. I always got the sense that Chicago was very segregated. I know Chicago is diverse for a US city, but your claim seems overstated at the very least.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by edale

I never got the sense that it was all that diverse. The Hispanic community is large but not very visible (at least where I've been-- never made it to Pilsen regretably). Hell, even Black people weren't all that common a sight in Lincoln Park. I always got the sense that Chicago was very segregated. I know Chicago is diverse for a US city, but your claim seems overstated at the very least.

^ If you spend all of your time in Lincoln Park or thereabouts, you will definitely not see Chicago's diversity.

And much of the diversity is in the suburbs as well, which most visitors never veer out to

[Segun]

Originally Posted by edale

Disagree. Chicago does have a transient culture, I think. Lots of kids from Big 10 schools move to Chicago for a few years after college. Some stay, some move to the burbs, but a lot move on-- either off to one of the coasts, or back to their home states. I think that's a pretty common thing in places like Lincoln Park and those north side neighborhoods.

Also, NYC and Toronto are the only cities where you'll see people from every part of the world all over the city? Huh? How about Los Angeles? When I'd visit my sister in Chicago, I never got the sense that it was all that diverse. The Hispanic community is large but not very visible (at least where I've been-- never made it to Pilsen regretably). Hell, even Black people weren't all that common a sight in Lincoln Park. I always got the sense that Chicago was very segregated. I know Chicago is diverse for a US city, but your claim seems overstated at the very least.

The Hispanic population is not visible in Chicago, if you don't take the time to see them!! That doesn't negate that its there.

What about Los Angeles?

You referring to the Hispanic East LA, the Asian SGV Valley, or large areas of Whites, like from West Hollywood to Santa Monica, including Beverly Hills, Westwood, etc...It's the same thing as Lincoln Park, but even White people take the bus and train in Chicago.

[edale]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ If you spend all of your time in Lincoln Park or thereabouts, you will definitely not see Chicago's diversity.

And much of the diversity is in the suburbs as well, which most visitors never veer out to

So you agree that it's somewhat ridiculous to claim that Chicago, along with NYC and Toronto, are the only places one can find people from all over the world in every part of the city, as was claimed?

Diversity in the burbs is pretty common in the US and Canada now. The days of urban immigrant ghettos are largely gone, as immigrants increasingly go right to the suburbs. LA's San Gabriel Valley being perhaps the best example of this. Of the ~2 million people who lived in the SGV in 2010, 46% were Hispanic, and 28% were Asian. I have no doubt those numbers have risen (especially Asians) in the past decade.

source: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...n%20population.

[Segun]

I didn't say "along with", I said NYC and Toronto were a step above other US and Canada cities, including Chicago.

"only NYC and Toronto feel more cosmopolitan in the US and Canada IMO." - Meaning that in terms of experience, the only two cities that have a noticeable difference in "cosmopolitaness" from Chicago, are those two.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Segun

The Hispanic population is not visible in Chicago, if you don't take the time to see them!! That doesn't negate that its there.

What about Los Angeles?

You referring to the Hispanic East LA, the Asian SGV Valley, or large areas of Whites, like from West Hollywood to Santa Monica, including Beverly Hills, Westwood, etc...It's the same thing as Lincoln Park, but even White people take the bus and train in Chicago.

Los Angeles:


Chicago:


You were saying?

[Segun]

Originally Posted by edale

Los Angeles:


You were saying?

Look at how large that area of orange is. That's exactly what I was saying!

[Segun]

Walk down most streets in NYC or Toronto and you'll see people from everywhere around the World, as opposed to having gigantic areas where a region dominates.

That area in orange in LA isn't that much different in experience from Chicago's SW side, into the SW suburbs. It's just larger in area. What different experience would it offer me that I haven't seen?

[edale]

^ Exactly. The Hispanic influence is in every corner of Los Angeles. You don't have to go to certain neighborhoods to feel it. Same is more or less true with Asians, though not as pronounced. I would say that while you can find Black people all over LA, you really do have to go to South LA, Inglewood, etc. to find visible Black culture. I think Los Angeles belongs in the same league as NYC and Toronto in terms of this discussion, and I think Chicago is a tier down. But who really cares I suppose.

[Segun]

Where is the Hispanic influence in the West Side corridor from Weho to the beach, other than the occasional taqueria?

[Segun]

The Whitest area is also the most desirable, most visited, the most traveled in LA

[edale]

Originally Posted by Segun

Walk down most streets in NYC or Toronto and you'll see people from everywhere around the World, as opposed to having gigantic areas where a region dominates.

New York has plenty of racially homogenous areas too. I will say that a city oriented around transit like NYC is going to have more mixing of people. Transit is the great equalizer, and you can easily tell you're in a diverse environment. For all I know, the 101 freeway could be super diverse, but how would anyone be able to tell?

[SIGSEGV]

One loose metric is if stand on a busy corner (pre-pandemic, of course), how many languages do you hear spoken by passerbys?