Which suburbs are really "own little world" (Chicago: buy, public schools)

[Sodium]

Kenilworth -- Yes, it does include elements of the snobbery, closed politics and Lakefront Liberal political correctness of the rest of the North Shore. But it is also a small town, in both tight community feel as well as in population (2,700). You are guaranteed that every schoolmate your kid plays with will be from a family that either you know, or is known by someone else you know. All the kids know the cops by name, and like them. Annual community events such as the Memorial Day celebration and the school Halloween costume parade are charming and wonderful, and make you feel like you're in a rural town in Iowa somewhere. Houses are frequently referred to by the name of whomever lived there years ago. As long as you don't rock the boat or raise embarrassing questions about the school curriculum or the village expenses, this is truly a town that is its "own little world".

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Partially true.

There were residents and subdivisions far before 1910 and they were white at first. (20-30 years before 1910.)

Dig deeper.

==============================

I do not deny the importance of Robbins to the black community however. I learned some things about the town I did not know until you mentioned the town and I went looking for information.

Before 1910, I believe the area was named Bremen and yes you're correct they were a lot of white people. To make things clearer, since the area been named Robbins(became a offical town in 1917), its been majority black. Henry Robbins geared the town for Blacks. It was designed to be gateway for black people to enter the suburbs with little to no hostitlity and also own a home. Other than being the oldest black majority suburb around here, it was home to the first black owned airport.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Once again, though, older part of Naperville is its own town.

And Schaumburg I don't agree with either, but you have to admit, it is not so dependent on Chicago for employment (obviously it is spurred by Chicago, specifically O'Hare. If there were no O'Hare, there would be no Schaumburg as it is) so in some ways its like a child of Chicago, who has gone off and become independent.

That could be said about several other towns as well, like Glen Ellyn and Arlington Heights. Guess it depends on your definition of "own little world"

[almost3am]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

2) Naperville and Schaumburg shouldn't be on the list. They seem to blend into the mass of suburbia that surrounds them and not really "their own little world".

I was thinking about this reason for taking out these two cities, and then every city on my list started blending into the surrounding communities, so no suburb was its "own little world". Actually, I disqualified anything beyond the loop, because everything blended in with its surrounding area.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by almost3am

I was thinking about this reason for taking out these two cities, and then every city on my list started blending into the surrounding communities, so no suburb was its "own little world". Actually, I disqualified anything beyond the loop, because everything blended in with its surrounding area.

But the point of the thread, was what places, despite being part of the metro area, hold on to their uniqueness and individuality more than others.

If you take that definition, then no place anywhere is in their own little world because we are connected by highways, airports, cell phones, etc.

Thats why "own little world" is in quotes.

And yes, I do think that the places mentioned so far, especially edsg25s original list are places hold on to uniqueness more than others suburbs.

Its kind of like this: Washington D.C. and Baltimore blend together, and it is completely suburban between the two, yet they have their own individuality.

Same with Dallas-Fort Worth. All suburban in between, yet with their own individuality.

San Fran Bay area is composed of San Fran, Oakland, Berkeley, Silicon Valley, San Jose, etc.

In SE Michigan, Ann Arbor, Windsor, Ontario, even Dearborn, are all part of a more or less continuously built up area, but yet are not necessarily viewed as suburbs.

Chicago on the other hand is different, in that the huge city overwhelming dominates, and the next biggest places are rather small.

You can think of the question as being rephrased:

What is Chicagos version of:

Washington D.C. to Alexandria/Arlington, VA

Detroit to Ann Arbor or Windsor

Minneapolis to St. Paul, San Fran to Berkeley/San Jose, etc.

L.A. to Anaheim, Pasadena, etc. etc.

What are they places within Chicagoland that are more of their own town despite being part of the metro area?

Thats the point of this thread.

[almost3am]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But the point of the thread, was what places, despite being part of the metro area, hold on to their uniqueness and individuality more than others.

If you take that definition, then no place anywhere is in their own little world because we are connected by highways, airports, cell phones, etc.

Thats why "own little world" is in quotes.

And yes, I do think that the places mentioned so far, especially edsg25s original list are places hold on to uniqueness more than others suburbs.

Its kind of like this: Washington D.C. and Baltimore blend together, and it is completely suburban between the two, yet they have their own individuality.

Same with Dallas-Fort Worth. All suburban in between, yet with their own individuality.

San Fran Bay area is composed of San Fran, Oakland, Berkeley, Silicon Valley, San Jose, etc.

In SE Michigan, Ann Arbor, Windsor, Ontario, even Dearborn, are all part of a more or less continuously built up area, but yet are not necessarily viewed as suburbs.

Chicago on the other hand is different, in that the huge city overwhelming dominates, and the next biggest places are rather small.

You can think of the question as being rephrased:

What is Chicagos version of:

Washington D.C. to Alexandria/Arlington, VA

Detroit to Ann Arbor or Windsor

Minneapolis to St. Paul, San Fran to Berkeley/San Jose, etc.

L.A. to Anaheim, Pasadena, etc. etc.

What are they places within Chicagoland that are more of their own town despite being part of the metro area?

Thats the point of this thread.

Actually, I understand and agree with your definition and pretty much the original list, I was more disagreeing with the "blending in" idea...but I probably presented it in a bad way. Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

[cubssoxfan]

Schaumburg was a farming community, then a suburban sprawl suburb built primarily in the 70's and early 80's with no railroad history or ties, no downtown with any kind of history. I guess some of the older (80-100 year old) neighborhoods adjacent to Naperville give it an "own little world" charm. I think Barrington and Woodstock are better choices than Naperville and Schaumburg.

[thePR]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

That could be said about several other towns as well, like Glen Ellyn and Arlington Heights. Guess it depends on your definition of "own little world"

I think that Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights and Des Plaines all blend together.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by thePR

I think that Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights and Des Plaines all blend together.

I would switch out Des Plaines and say Buffalo Grove,Mount Prospect,Arlington Heights,and Palatine are all pretty much the same place.

Des Plaines has a much more humble and working class back round than the other towns.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Not downtown Naperville!!!...

That may be true to a degree, but how many people live in "downtown Naperville?" For the most part,one has to drive to get there.