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.
Metro Detroit don't even have much respect for their central city. I think its the only major city in America where suburbia is consider the place to be seen and be trendy. Pretty sad if you ask me
Next, Chicago has lots of problems. In fact, a lot of what Detroit is struggling with, Chicago has the same problems and in some cases, worse. Within the past 3 years, Chicago been hitting headline news with youth violence.
As far as other midwest cities, Minneapolis has its own uniqueness. First to start, the twin cities are home to the largest concentration of Somalis and Hmong people, which Chicago lacks. Its home to the Mall of America(well technically in the suburbs). And for black/white couples, Minneapolis is the best central city to be in the Midwest.
Prince is from there. Over 200,000 black people in Minnesota and over 1/3 of them are African immigrants or the parents are(Somalis being the most known)
Northside Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park have the highest concentration of blacks.
Detroit can stand up to Chicago with the culture and buildings but the economy is struggling and it isn't the safest city in the world.
Minneapolis may have the strongest economy of the big three in the midwest, but the whole metro is a little on the boring side, with suburbs showing there lack of character.
That being said, the people I know, although respecting some of the sweet things Chicago has (Navy Pier, lakefront, feel almost like NY) would never live in the city. It has a terrible reputation for crime amongst many northern minnesotans.
I really don't think too many people in Minnesota (I don't know too many in the Twin Cities) feel an inferior complex between the Twin Cities (the hub of the state) and Chicago.
The Northside has nearly 1.1 million residents in roughly 59 sq miles(minus O'hare and the near northside). Compare that to the southside with 50,000-100,000 more people covering 120-134 sq. miles.
A much higher percentage of the housing stock on the south side consists of single family homes compared to multi-units on the north side. Also much more industrial property (or formerly industrial property) on the south side keeps population density lower.
Chicagoans feeling superior when compared to the rest of Illinois and Midwest is nothing new at all really, but the Chicago most people think of is the one with the dominating skyline, the busy L stations, and the dense vibrant north side neighborhoods.
The south side of this city is a complete wreck, not all that different from Detroit. It's almost like two separate cities. It's surprising to see neighborhoods that are completely dilapidated and ridden with crime and see Chicago, IL in their address.
I would argue that the Chicago superiority complex stems outside of the Midwest and to the rest of the United States. Chicagoans would argue, and rightfully so , that Chicago is Americas second best city. We think we're "better" than cities like L.A, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. I think the only reason people accuse Chicagoans of constant bashing is because a lot of us do. Chicago often has to work harder to prove that it can hold its weight. People often write it off because of its location which is complete b.s.
By the way, if I relocated outside of Chicago, I wouldn't consider anywhere else in the midwest...I'd flee for the East Coast...probably New York or Boston.
Same here, I certainly didn't move to Chicago (from Florida) to live in the Midwest, I moved there specifically for Chicago. Nor did my family originally immigrate there from Germany for "the rest of the midwest" they went there for Chicago. There are some cool areas in the Midwest sure but I am not really concerned with them (I am a city person). If that offends people I guess so be it, that doesn't mean I won't visit other cities in the midwest, sure, I like them, but given a choice, they just aren't on "that level" to have a transplant can choose to live anywhere they want in the U.S. pull. If I had family say in Minneapolis then it certainly might be enticing for instance. If I was in NYC though I wouldn't be visiting Albany and Buffalo too much either, just like I don't visit Sacramento out here in SF. I like big bustling world caliber cities, and I like visiting other ones as well. And if I do travel from Chicago, it usually isn't driving out of town, it is usually taking the blue or orange line to one of the airports and flying somewhere else. Really though its nothing to do with the rest of the midwest where I'd want to visit, I like visiting all types of cities big and small, or no city at all. Where I'd want to live in is a totally different ball game, there are only about 5 in the U.S. I'd enjoy, and yes Chicago is the only one in the Midwest that fits the bill.
A much higher percentage of the housing stock on the south side consists of single family homes compared to multi-units on the north side. Also much more industrial property (or formerly industrial property) on the south side keeps population density lower.
I think that is one factor many people forget in comparing the density of an area. Areas with a large industrial area will naturally have lower densities but still be very urban. (the same with large commerical areas)
Actually old industrial sites could be a good place to build new development. One plus is that it would be easier to start with a much denser population than developing one in areas with residences already. One reason is that there isn't the NIMBY factor of apartments/condos/highrises that can occur if they start appearing in areas that are mainly single family homes.
From what I have seen the areas that highrises would do the best are often the hardest places to put them in. I am thinking the next best areas after places that has a stable to strong residental population is places that have few residences due to being either commercial or formerly industrial.
Same here, I certainly didn't move to Chicago (from Florida) to live in the Midwest, I moved there specifically for Chicago. Nor did my family originally immigrate there from Germany for "the rest of the midwest" they went there for Chicago.
I think the immigration thing might be a bit much. People immigrated to where the jobs were, or to where they knew people, or to places that seemed more like their own climates in their home countries. Hence why you find all those Scandanavians in Minnesota and the Dakotas and Northern Iowa, or Germans in many different locales in the Midwest (both urban and rural). I assume that when your family immigrated there, unless they were fairly recent immigrants, was pre-1900, when Chicago wasn't yet the mecca of the Midwest. It came to be that way for many reasons (location, climate, economy, etc.) but I don't think at that point it was yet "Chicago vs. the rest of the midwest". It was probabaly more along the lines of "East Coast/Old America vs. the frontier that was the Midwest." Just a thought.
I do agree with you, though, that there are just certain places that some prefer living. I'm cool with that. Some people are just city people and others are just country folk. I, personally, am pretty laid-back and have lived in and enjoyed living in both big urban and more rural environments. My issue is with people like a previous commentor who said he doesn't know anything about cities like Detroit or Minneapolis and doesn't care to. You don't have to move or anything, but for goodness sakes, at least get out there and explore your immediate surroundings a little.
I think the immigration thing might be a bit much. People immigrated to where the jobs were, or to where they knew people, or to places that seemed more like their own climates in their home countries. Hence why you find all those Scandanavians in Minnesota and the Dakotas and Northern Iowa, or Germans in many different locales in the Midwest (both urban and rural). I assume that when your family immigrated there, unless they were fairly recent immigrants, was pre-1900, when Chicago wasn't yet the mecca of the Midwest. It came to be that way for many reasons (location, climate, economy, etc.) but I don't think at that point it was yet "Chicago vs. the rest of the midwest". It was probabaly more along the lines of "East Coast/Old America vs. the frontier that was the Midwest." Just a thought.
I do agree with you, though, that there are just certain places that some prefer living. I'm cool with that. Some people are just city people and others are just country folk. I, personally, am pretty laid-back and have lived in and enjoyed living in both big urban and more rural environments. My issue is with people like a previous commentor who said he doesn't know anything about cities like Detroit or Minneapolis and doesn't care to. You don't have to move or anything, but for goodness sakes, at least get out there and explore your immediate surroundings a little.
Yeah I know what you mean, I enjoy going to Madison, I've been to Minnesota state fair, I've been to Detroit, I've been to Packers games, summerfest Milwaukee, farnsworth house, south bend, indy, door county, etc. etc. It is just where I prefer living when it comes to that, not "I am better than somebody else b/c I live somewhere else" ...just personal preference.
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.
, that Chicago is Americas second best city. We think we're "better" than cities like L.A, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. I think the only reason people accuse Chicagoans of constant bashing is because a lot of us do. Chicago often has to work harder to prove that it can hold its weight. People often write it off because of its location which is complete b.s.
