WHAT IF: a Midwest without Chicago (insurance, price, agricultural)

[bobinc]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

God this thread is pretty pointless. All that will come out of it is verbal Masturbation.

agree

[Costa Rica Chica]

Originally Posted by Paxtonian

Can one imagine the Midwest without the intricate (and intrinsic) corruption rampant in Chicago?
I've been educating a New Yorker in the ways of doing things the Chicago way, he is in a complete state of shock- repeating time after time "You've got to be kidding!"

I think it's fair to say Chicago/Illinois has its fair share of corruption, but I also think it's pretty easy to separate the government from what the City has to offer: beautiful architecture, great restaurants, cultural institutions, festivals, etc. The Mid-West without Chicago? A huge expanse of area in need of a big, world-class city.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Costa Rica Chica

I think it's fair to say Chicago/Illinois has its fair share of corruption, but I also think it's pretty easy to separate the government from what the City has to offer: beautiful architecture, great restaurants, cultural institutions, festivals, etc. The Mid-West without Chicago? A huge expanse of area in need of a big, world-class city.

But ideally, don't you think it would be a better greater region if the people, the wealth, and cultural institution, etc. were more evenly spread out? I think so. I don't want people to be living in a bubble.

Don't take offense this (given your username) I wouldn't want to see the midwest (or even America) to turn into something similar to a Latin American country where you have one, maybe two enormous, gigantic cities and a relatively impoverished countryside. That creates for a very polarized society.

I think a better model would be Germany where the wealth and cities are spread out more evenly throughout the country. Or as "Edg25 or whatever" compared to other regions of the country have their attractions/wealth more spread out among several cities.

Maybe high speed rail trains would help.

[binarybelle]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Maybe high speed rail trains would help.

Most definitely. I believe Amtrak is in the works of setting up a European-style high-speed rail system between Chicago and St. Louis. That's only the start. Such a system would hopefully serve as the backbone for future expansions amidst the midwest.

[Costa Rica Chica]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But ideally, don't you think it would be a better greater region if the people, the wealth, and cultural institution, etc. were more evenly spread out? I think so. I don't want people to be living in a bubble.

Don't take offense this (given your username) I wouldn't want to see the midwest (or even America) to turn into something similar to a Latin American country where you have one, maybe two enormous, gigantic cities and a relatively impoverished countryside. That creates for a very polarized society.

I think a better model would be Germany where the wealth and cities are spread out more evenly throughout the country. Or as "Edg25 or whatever" compared to other regions of the country have their attractions/wealth more spread out among several cities.

Maybe high speed rail trains would help.

No offense taken. But I don't think there's much threat that Illinois/the midwest will turn into a "Latin American" model where there is one big city and a huge separation of wealth - at least more than what already exists. Most major cities have the region's economy focused in one georgraphic area. That's kind of what a city is. A densely populated area which serves as a region's center for business/development.

As for high speed rails, there are plans in Chicago's future (and I believe as part of the stimulus package" to build new rail systems between the larger cities in the midwest.

[At1WithNature]

it would be absolutely worthless then! LOL...most think it already is and that is with chicago. really, the midwest is a good wholesome place to raise a family and experience the 4 seasons but it is boring compared to out west or the east coast or even the south with states like florida and texas. i guess ocean coasts really do matter. there aren't any successful landlocked nations, are there?

[RichMonk]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Maybe high speed rail trains would help.

Most certainly...but I don't expect to see those around until I am at death's door, if at all.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But ideally, don't you think it would be a better greater region if the people, the wealth, and cultural institution, etc. were more evenly spread out? I think so. I don't want people to be living in a bubble.

Don't take offense this (given your username) I wouldn't want to see the midwest (or even America) to turn into something similar to a Latin American country where you have one, maybe two enormous, gigantic cities and a relatively impoverished countryside. That creates for a very polarized society.

I think a better model would be Germany where the wealth and cities are spread out more evenly throughout the country. Or as "Edg25 or whatever" compared to other regions of the country have their attractions/wealth more spread out among several cities.


Maybe high speed rail trains would help.

...that Chicago is in a similar position to NYC in terms of centralized power; Chicago has St.Louis to the southwest, Indianapolis to the southeast, Cleveland to the east, Detroit to the northeast, Milwaukee to the north, and MSP-St.Paul to the northwest. Chicago's size is comparable to NYC's size in relation to their surrounding cities, as NYC dwarfs Bos/Philly/Balt/WashDC.

I also believe that if Chicago didn't exist, Milwaukee would be much larger, as would St. Louis.

Lastly, I have heard of mass transit being planned that would link Chicago with Milwaukee, Madison and MSP-St. Paul, but it may be years before any real progress is born.

[At1WithNature]

Originally Posted by MassVt

...that Chicago is in a similar position to NYC in terms of centralized power; Chicago has St.Louis to the southwest, Indianapolis to the southeast, Cleveland to the east, Detroit to the northeast, Milwaukee to the north, and MSP-St.Paul to the northwest. Chicago's size is comparable to NYC's size in relation to their surrounding cities, as NYC dwarfs Bos/Philly/Balt/WashDC.

I also believe that if Chicago didn't exist, Milwaukee would be much larger, as would St. Louis.

Lastly, I have heard of mass transit being planned that would link Chicago with Milwaukee, Madison and MSP-St. Paul, but it may be years before any real progress is born.

interesting post. before chicago built their man made waterway system, st. louis was larger than chicago as it was directly on the mississippi river and perfect for shipping things down to new orleans and to the the gulf of mexico. however, chicago's access to both the great lakes and mississippi (after the water system was built) ensured its' success. if chicago wasn't here, st. louis would be HUGE!

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by At1WithNature

interesting post. before chicago built their man made waterway system, st. louis was larger than chicago as it was directly on the mississippi river and perfect for shipping things down to new orleans and to the the gulf of mexico. however, chicago's access to both the great lakes and mississippi (after the water system was built) ensured its' success. if chicago wasn't here, st. louis would be HUGE!

I agree, I think that St. Louis was the biggest loser regarding the rise of Chicago. Its location was the second best (after Chicago) for funneling traffic from east, west, north, and south via rail and water in the 1800s.