Does Chicago "feel" Midwestern? (Marion, Lincoln: spring break, high school, subdivisions)

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I've Chicago described as being a pretentious Milwaukee...

And I've heard that the moon landing was faked on a soundstage...

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

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 1871 fire helped.

[Swandaddy]

I've always felt like Chicago has kinda one foot in the "Midwest Americana" vibe and one foot in the "diverse cosmopolitan international city" vibe. So to me it kinda feels like both. I can go hang out and eat sushi with one of my friends who has camped in a yurt in Mongolia and ran a marathon in Uzbekistan or I can go to a Cubs game and eat hot dogs with one of my friends from Iowa.

I can take the train to the airport, get on a plane and be in San Francisco in 5 hours. Or I can rent a car and be in St. Louis in 5 hours.

Like many cities, there is a huge black-white setup/segregation/etc but unlike say St. Louis or Detroit, Chicago is also a third Hispanic. So, again, Midwestern and not Midwestern at the same time.

[Kamms]

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.

I must have forgotten that the Erie Canal opened up Chicago to NYC, perhaps because I never heard this before. The Erie Canal is generally considered to have opened up Western New York and Ohio to the Hudson River, down to NYC harbor. The Erie Canal opened in 1825.

Of course the Erie Canal did open up all the Great Lakes but Chicago's primer for growth was its connection to the Mississippi River with the Michigan Illinois Canal which opened in 1848. This connection down to the Gulf of Mexico turned Chicago into a hub city along with the new railroad system being built in the U.S.

As you state, Chicago's boom was the Civil War to WWI aka the railroad era.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Swandaddy

I've always felt like Chicago has kinda one foot in the "Midwest Americana" vibe and one foot in the "diverse cosmopolitan international city" vibe. So to me it kinda feels like both. I can go hang out and eat sushi with one of my friends who has camped in a yurt in Mongolia and ran a marathon in Uzbekistan or I can go to a Cubs game and eat hot dogs with one of my friends from Iowa.

I can take the train to the airport, get on a plane and be in San Francisco in 5 hours. Or I can rent a car and be in St. Louis in 5 hours.

Like many cities, there is a huge black-white setup/segregation/etc but unlike say St. Louis or Detroit, Chicago is also a third Hispanic. So, again, Midwestern and not Midwestern at the same time.

You can meet foreigners, ride a train to the airport or go to baseball game in a few other Midwestern cities (Minneapolis, St Louis or Cleveland) and eat a hot dog.

Chicago is Midwestern, plain and simple. It is also the hub of the Midwest so you get or did tons of small town Michigan, Ohio Indiana Wisconsin Iowa etc flocking to Chicago. I remember hearing the complaining about all the Ohio transplants moving to Chicago. Don't think that's such an issue anymore though.
Chicago's definitely the most arrogant city in the Midwest.

What makes Chicago truly Midwestern is its notorious segregation and history of racial conflict.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by Kamms

What makes Chicago truly Midwestern is its notorious segregation and history of racial conflict.

Riighht, because that is strictly a Midwestern thing. Baltimore is a racial equality haven.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kamms

You can meet foreigners, ride a train to the airport or go to baseball game in a few other Midwestern cities (Minneapolis, St Louis or Cleveland) and eat a hot dog.

Of course you can, and nobody said anything differently. That wasn't the point. Chicago has the highest percentage of foreign born population of any city in the Midwest - and with the exception of Minneapolis, it's by a long shot (and still almost 6% higher than Minneapolis). The next highest outside of Minneapolis is Columbus at almost 10% less.

Foreign born population, counting Puerto Rico, percentage from the 2014 1 year ACS:

* Chicago: 22.4%
* Minneapolis: 16.5%
* Columbus, OH: 12.9%
* Des Moines: 12.6%
* Milwaukee: 11.8%
* Omaha: 11.1%
* Kansas City (MO + KS): 10.6%
* Indianapolis: 9.7%
* Cleveland: 8.4%
* Detroit: 6.5%
* St. Louis: 6.4%
* Cincinnati: 5.6%

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

Riighht, because that is strictly a Midwestern thing. Baltimore is a racial equality haven.

Not strictly in the Midwest but the Midwest region, especially. There's a reason Martin Luther King moved his civil rights campaign north to Chicago. Ugliest most vicious mobs he ever encountered were on the southwest side. Topped off with a rock to his head.

This recent Baltimore stuff is happening all over, post-Ferguson. The ethnic cities of the Midwest had the highest rates of segregation with Chicago as the poster-city for it.

Not sure when Chicago turned ''liberal'', most likely in the 90s with its influx of transplants but its not too distant past belies this. When the 2010 census came out and Chicago lost 200,000 people in 10 years, it was quickly pointed out that these were poor African Americans (otherwise known as ''glad they are gone'') so much for the liberal image.

Now Chicago faces economic issues more so than racial conflict but the same mentality created both. The population growth in the city and metro area is currently anemic. Segregation is not Chicago's biggest issue; middle-class flight by all races is. The chickens have come home to roost, indeed. Losing about 1,000,000 residents if of course is hardly mentioned.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

Riighht, because that is strictly a Midwestern thing. Baltimore is a racial equality haven.

Baltimore is actually very segregated - probably even more than Chicago, at least for Blacks.

A few other cities have it too outside of the Midwest. Though parts of NYC are very integrated, there are also huge swaths of population which are very segregated as well. The following represent the populations in NYC for the number of people living in census block groups of 75% or more of just one race:

* Black: 979,697 people
* Hispanic: 504,762 people

That's a pretty large population for those two groups about the size of Philadelphia.

Here are Chicago's numbers (which are of course worse by percentage):
* Black: 707,303
* Hispanic: 401,785

Large population for that as we know and higher than NYC obviously percentage wise, but NYC is still another city not in the midwest still with large scale segregation going on too.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Of course you can, and nobody said anything differently. That wasn't the point. Chicago has the highest percentage of foreign born population of any city in the Midwest - and with the exception of Minneapolis, it's by a long shot (and still almost 6% higher than Minneapolis). The next highest outside of Minneapolis is Columbus at almost 10% less.

Foreign born population, counting Puerto Rico, percentage from the 2014 1 year ACS:

* Chicago: 22.4%
* Minneapolis: 16.5%
* Columbus, OH: 12.9%
* Des Moines: 12.6%
* Milwaukee: 11.8%
* Omaha: 11.1%
* Kansas City (MO + KS): 10.6%
* Indianapolis: 9.7%
* Cleveland: 8.4%
* Detroit: 6.5%
* St. Louis: 6.4%
* Cincinnati: 5.6%

First off, may the poster could provide his meaning but, at one time, all of the industrial cities listed, esp on the Great Lakes, had huge foreign population rates, including Chicago. Were these cities then, including Chicago considered to be ''eastern or east-coast''? Answer: nope; same then as it is now, Midwest. Since when did foreign populations in Midwest cities elevate them to be quasi-east coast. I forgot, the thread is about Chicago trying be eastern again and pointing to its foreign born population.

I do understand though that Chicago is trying to re-create its image so it will as it also has see what sticks but trying to be ''eastern'' needs to be shut down.