Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But it's also not the same as going to most other places in the Midwest, which is the overall point. A lot of people like to paint with a general broad stroke, but a lot of these people have also never spent time in areas likesuburban Ohio, Des Moines, Indianapolis, etc to realize that Chicago is nothing like any of those other places in the Midwest. Sure, there are areas of Chicago which you could say might be similar to some of the best areas of something like Columbus or Minneapolis food/drink wise (but of course Chicago on a bigger scale),
Chicago is a VASTLY different experience from its OWN suburbs. So it shouldn't feel like suburban Columbus, DSM, or Indy. The best areas of these CITIES often do, in fact, resemble parts of Chicago. The WORST parts of these inner cities don't look too much different, either. Is there really THAT much of a difference between the built environments and feeling of East/West Side Detroit, east side KCMO, North Side Milwaukee, North STL and the South/West/North away from lake sides of Chicago...? Probably not.
Chicago is NOT the only Midwest city with trendy bars, brewpubs, hipsters, rooftop pools, and public transit. It simply has more of those things that every place else in the Midwest. By that logic, one can say that KC isn't Midwest B/C the Country Club Plaza represents the oldest exclusive outdoor retail environment. Or one could make the argument that Indy isn't representative of the Midwest B/C its downtown features a prominent monument at its center, unlike other Midwest cities...
And I'm not arguing stereotypes or perceptions. Regardless of how people OUTSIDE the Midwest (many of whom have never set foot away from the coast/down south) PERCEIVEthe Midwest, it doesn't change the fact that Chicago IS Midwestern at its core. The culture, once you're outside the loop and the near north side, is NOT vastly different than that of inner city KCMO, STL, Detroit, MSP, etc. And the suburbs and rural/outstate areas are practically mirror images of each other. So while Chicago's economy, infrastructure, diversity, and immigration patterns may be more reminiscent of larger east coast cities, at its core, the culture and vibe of the natives (people actually from there and that live there) is MUCH like that of KC, STL, Indy, Cleveland, MSP, ESP Detroit, etc.
Chicago is NOT the only Midwest city with trendy bars, brewpubs, hipsters, rooftop pools, and public transit. It simply has more of those things that every place else in the Midwest. By that logic, one can say that KC isn't Midwest B/C the Country Club Plaza represents the oldest exclusive outdoor retail environment. Or one could make the argument that Indy isn't representative of the Midwest B/C its downtown features a prominent monument at its center, unlike other Midwest cities...
Although you have a small point and I never claimed that Chicago is the only place with trendy restaurants (a few parts of Minneapolis has it for example), you're missing the point. The point is not that some of these things exist. The differentiating factor is what is considered normal. Sure, could an upscale SE Asian lounge exist in Indianapolis? Sure, why not? But would it be considered normal? No. In Chicago, that type of thing wouldn't really be considered out of the ordinary. NYC has bars that are just like the midwest, but they aren't necessarily normal. That's the key - what's considered normal versus the culture of the place. No matter what, Chicago is the only place in the Midwest that has establishments that you'd find in other parts of the country or world that you wouldn't say "oh wow, that's so unique!" on a LARGE scale. I don't really care that Minneapolis has 5 real nice lounges - it's still not considered necessarily normal there given the culture even if a few exist.
It's not about it existing - you can find a nice lounge here and there even in Des Moines, but it's still not considered normal. People are going to write up about it as if it's a foreign type of concept that is few and far in between - because it is. That doesn't really happen in Chicago other than talking about how good the food or drinks is, not necessarily the concept itself. If some really nice cocktail lounge where you have to get dressed up opens in Chicago, nobody is going to say "Wow! That's so unique - can't do that many other places." If you put that in Indianapolis? You bet your ass they would be saying things like that even if a few already exist.
Since Chicago is the most cosmopolitan city in the Midwest by leaps and bounds and the East Coast happens to have several such cities, I'd say Chicago has more in common with east coast cities than it does most midwestern cities.
Having said that, Chicago being much younger than the Bos-Wash cities it does have a different layout. The grid layout of the streets in Chicago is much more modern and easier to navigate than pretty much any east coast city, excluding D.C.
The urban experience in the United States shifted in the post-Civil War era. This was time of huge immigration and industrialization, a time of technological advancement. In these years, the concept of urbanazation advanced as cities grapled with their problems. During this time, 4 cities were largely seen as the laboratories of urbanization: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago. Chicago came of age during the Civil War-to-WWI era.
I think the parallel developments that were going on in the east coast cities and Chicago made them have a lot in common. and let's not forget that Chicago in its role of NYC's "client city" from the time of the Erie Canal when New York supported Chicago as the western terminus of the canal/Great Lakes water system kept a close connection of Chicago to the East Coast and New York.
In fact, I see only two cities outside the northeast corridor that share the urbanity of the east coast due to their development and rise to urban greatness in the era described: Chicago and San Francisco.
Although you have a small point and I never claimed that Chicago is the only place with trendy restaurants (a few parts of Minneapolis has it for example), you're missing the point. The point is not that some of these things exist. The differentiating factor is what is considered normal. Sure, could an upscale SE Asian lounge exist in Indianapolis? Sure, why not? But would it be considered normal? No. In Chicago, that type of thing wouldn't really be considered out of the ordinary. NYC has bars that are just like the midwest, but they aren't necessarily normal. That's the key - what's considered normal versus the culture of the place. No matter what, Chicago is the only place in the Midwest that has establishments that you'd find in other parts of the country or world that you wouldn't say "oh wow, that's so unique!" on a LARGE scale. I don't really care that Minneapolis has 5 real nice lounges - it's still not considered necessarily normal there given the culture even if a few exist.
It's not about it existing - you can find a nice lounge here and there even in Des Moines, but it's still not considered normal. People are going to write up about it as if it's a foreign type of concept that is few and far in between - because it is. That doesn't really happen in Chicago other than talking about how good the food or drinks is, not necessarily the concept itself. If some really nice cocktail lounge where you have to get dressed up opens in Chicago, nobody is going to say "Wow! That's so unique - can't do that many other places." If you put that in Indianapolis? You bet your ass they would be saying things like that.
What's considered "Normal," and who makes these considerations...?
Hmmm... Point taken. Sounds like an argument of What's perceived vs what actually exists. I don't disagree that Chicago has an abundance of amenities that are perceived (and at times, factually) to be lacking in the Midwest. My argument is that what's perceived simply doesn't always match reality, and that what people outside the Midwest perceive the Midwest to lack outside of Chicago often DOES exist outside of Chicago. Sometimes, in abundance. Just not the SCALE of what you would find in Chicago.
The perception (and at times, reality) that Chicago is the only place in the Midwest that has certain amenities, infrastructure, attractions, diversity, etc. doesn't change the fact that Chicago is still as representative of the Midwest as are Detroit, Cincy, Indy, STL, etc., and that people actually from Chicago and Chicago itself have/has much more in common with their/its Midwestern peers than with the east coast. DESPITE the size difference, which really IS the biggest difference between Chicago and its Midwestern peers.
I'd be hard pressed to believe that if you took someone from outside the midwest, blind folded them and dropped them off on a major thoroughfare in a random Cleveland hood, east/Midtown KCMO, much of Detroit, or MSP, etc., removed the blindfold, and told them you were were on either the south or west sides of Chicago, or in uptown Chicago, that person would be able to tell the difference....
I am just going to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. I don't think Chicago is a good representation of the Midwest, just as SF isn't of the West Coat or Miami of the South. Chicago is very different and at the same time very similar to the Midwest and its surrounding region. I really don't think it has to do with size either. I think it has to do more than with anything else, that Chicago was booming at the same time the East Coast cities were and San Francisco too. Which created large, dense, diverse populations, comparable economies and industries. While the East Coast cities are older, back in the day Chicago was a rival to them in the 1800's/1900's and growing with them and even competing with them. Hence why Chicago is not similar to the likes of Houston or LA because the relationship with Chicago and those two cities were very different and they really grew at a much later time. So historically I think there is something there that laid the foundations for Chicago to have similarities to the East Coast. Chicago never had to really compete with the Midwest cities, but sure as heck had to with the East Coast, which is why I definitely think that has something to do with building the foundation of the city's culture and residents.
8 of the 20 largest cities in the country were Midwestern in 1950. 4 of them were in the top 10, and some of them, such as St. Louis, had a connection to the East Coast when Chicago was a mere backwater.
Chicago also sure as hell did compete with Midwestern cities back in the day, especially since many of them were a lot bigger and more powerful than they are today
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Although you have a small point and I never claimed that Chicago is the only place with trendy restaurants (a few parts of Minneapolis has it for example), you're missing the point. The point is not that some of these things exist. The differentiating factor is what is considered normal. Sure, could an upscale SE Asian lounge exist in Indianapolis? Sure, why not? But would it be considered normal? No. In Chicago, that type of thing wouldn't really be considered out of the ordinary. NYC has bars that are just like the midwest, but they aren't necessarily normal. That's the key - what's considered normal versus the culture of the place. No matter what, Chicago is the only place in the Midwest that has establishments that you'd find in other parts of the country or world that you wouldn't say "oh wow, that's so unique!" on a LARGE scale. I don't really care that Minneapolis has 5 real nice lounges - it's still not considered necessarily normal there given the culture even if a few exist.
It's not about it existing - you can find a nice lounge here and there even in Des Moines, but it's still not considered normal. People are going to write up about it as if it's a foreign type of concept that is few and far in between - because it is. That doesn't really happen in Chicago other than talking about how good the food or drinks is, not necessarily the concept itself. If some really nice cocktail lounge where you have to get dressed up opens in Chicago, nobody is going to say "Wow! That's so unique - can't do that many other places." If you put that in Indianapolis? You bet your ass they would be saying things like that even if a few already exist.
Give me a break. Lounges, clubs, microbreweries, wine bars, upscale restaurants, etc, aren't considered unusual or out of the ordinary in other Midwestern cities. Certain types of ethnic food would draw more buzz outside of Chicago, but a cocktail lounge will not in many of the larger Midwestern cities/metros. There's probably a similar ratio of upscale drink places versus everyday sports and dive bars as well, it's just that Chicago would of course have more because it's bigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
The urban experience in the United States shifted in the post-Civil War era. This was time of huge immigration and industrialization, a time of technological advancement. In these years, the concept of urbanazation advanced as cities grapled with their problems. During this time, 4 cities were largely seen as the laboratories of urbanization: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago. Chicago came of age during the Civil War-to-WWI era.
I think the parallel developments that were going on in the east coast cities and Chicago made them have a lot in common. and let's not forget that Chicago in its role of NYC's "client city" from the time of the Erie Canal when New York supported Chicago as the western terminus of the canal/Great Lakes water system kept a close connection of Chicago to the East Coast and New York.
In fact, I see only two cities outside the northeast corridor that share the urbanity of the east coast due to their development and rise to urban greatness in the era described: Chicago and San Francisco.
Chicago and San Francisco are the only two that survived, you mean. In 1950 there were 3 cities in the Midwest larger than San Francisco, not counting Chicago. Even if you don't want to count Detroit, St. Louis and Cleveland were plenty urban.
Chicago is also not currently in the same situation as San Francisco. Our population growth is stagnate, and could easily turn negative again at the drop of a dime, and our economic situation with the pensions is in a precarious state.
I think I am done with this thread. I mean this is all about opinion, so I am just going to disagree with those I disagree with and agree with those that I do and call it a day!
I'm by no means the Chicago expert, but here's how I see it: get away from downtown and out into the suburbs, and it seems to have a midwestern feel, to a degree. Go into the city and you're not in Kansas anymore, so to speak. Not as much of a world city as New York City, but much more sophisticated that the typical midwest city like Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Cincinnati, and so on.
I don't see why the 'Midwest' needs to carry a negative connotation. There are some pretty cool and beautiful areas in the Midwest outside of Chicago. I will say that Chicago has a critical mass feel urban feel, vibrancy and pace that does make it something of an anomaly in the Midwest though. I spent time with my girlfriend's family in Astoria Queens a couple weeks ago. We spent time in close-in Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan. Although different in some aspects, Chicago and NY (whether in Loop or Manhattan or outer boroughs and places like Pilsen or Albany Park) share enough DNA that I can definitely see those comparisons. People walk, talk, and interact in much the same way. Different places to be sure, but similar in feel in many ways. I'd say Chicago is more culturally in line with that than say, Minneapolis. Just flying in...It's also sits physically on basically a "coast" in Lake Michigan, which again makes it feel a bit different to me. If you had no context and dropped me in many parts of Chicago, I'd have no clue it's in the midwest. I think people hold on to regions, when really you should be comparing cities of like size..that's the more apples to apples comparison in my eyes.
I don't see why the 'Midwest' needs to carry a negative connotation. There are some pretty cool and beautiful areas in the Midwest outside of Chicago. I will say that Chicago has a critical mass feel urban feel, vibrancy and pace that does make it something of an anomaly in the Midwest though. I spent time with my girlfriend's family in Astoria Queens a couple weeks ago. We spent time in close-in Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan. Although different in some aspects, Chicago and NY (whether in Loop or Manhattan or outer boroughs and places like Pilsen or Albany Park) share enough DNA that I can definitely see those comparisons. People walk, talk, and interact in much the same way. Different places to be sure, but similar in feel in many ways. I'd say Chicago is more culturally in line with that than say, Minneapolis. Just flying in...It's also sits physically on basically a "coast" in Lake Michigan, which again makes it feel a bit different to me. If you had no context and dropped me in many parts of Chicago, I'd have no clue it's in the midwest. I think people hold on to regions, when really you should be comparing cities of like size..that's the more apples to apples comparison in my eyes.
Exactly. There's a concrete jungle-like feeling you get in Chicago that you don't feel as much in the other Midwestern cities. For someone that doesn't like to be in the city too much it's almost claustrophobic. Those other Midwestern cities are far smaller and you can almost reach the suburbs in about 10 minutes (think about Milwaukee for example). Plus the folks within Chicago's city limits (especially near downtown) just seem to be in a hurry among the crowds & a bit more neurotic than you'd find in these other emptier Midwestern cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
