# Chicago as a case study: aren't cities better off without "comparisons"



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Are our cities far better off when we drop the comparisons between them and allow each to operate on its own?

I ask this as a Chicagoan because Chicago often becomes the poster child city for making comparisons. 

We get a lot of the "smaller version" of New York arguments or the that Chicago and LA are in some absurd battle for some sort of non-existent "second slot" in the US, each city's attributes and negatives contributing to its relative rise or decline.

I myself totally dismiss the concept that Chicago is a "mini-New York" on any level; Chicago's personality is unique and cannot be compared to any city. Likewise, Chicago and LA are great cities, doing far more battle here than they do in "the real world". Both are unique and niether depends on the other to detmine its greatness.

As a Chicagoan and one who has been invovled with so many out-of-town visitors (an well as knowing locals well) get the following impression of my city: the people who live in it love it, the people in the metro region are proud to be part of it (and will identify themselves as "Chicagoans"), out of towners are enchanted by it, and those who haven't been to Chicago look at it as a place they like to go.

*Every one of the perceptions I listed above is strenghtened by eliminating comparisons to other cities and seeing Chicago as Chicago.*

In that sense, I would be curious to know how people on the board see Chicago as a city when they see it as Chicago.....*and avoid comparing to New York, LA, or any other great city.* Basically, how does Chicago come out when it stands on its own two feet when the obvious achievements of New York, LA or elsewhere are left out of the conversation???????


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

best city in the world....... 


seriously.

every ethnicity, no ruling class/caste......

constant innovation in science, commerce, architecture, music, theater, literature, education, politics, social change/reform..................

4 seasons.......

and a citizenry that truly LOVES it......even the suburbanites.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Great city Chicago is, and I agree with you. Comparisons don't do justice for Chicago, because they're all so unique.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Yeah I might go there this summer...great city no shit.


----------



## schmidt (Dec 5, 2002)

Chicago's got the best architecture in this world!


----------



## partybits (Apr 29, 2005)

As much as comparisons can get annoying, it is necessary. It creates a competitive environment that allows cities to thrive to be better. The true point of demise is when one feels nobody is better or ever will be better than they are. That's when the underdog comes from behind. However, always comparing and competing pushes a city to enhance itself in every way.


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

^^ true , comparing does promote competitiveness and helps from resting on its lorals but i thing Ed is looking more to discuse Chicago on a more simplified level. what ,withall comparisons asside , is your veiw on Chicago? is it a shitty city, is it an awsom city, is it a ok city. whats good and whats bad about it? whenyou see Chicago , what do you see. the hardest part to answereing this question is to leave the comparisons at the door since when discusing a citys greatness or the things you dilike about it , the opinion is always relitive to somthing else and that is usaly anouther city. but i think that if we put all comparisons aside its hard not to love or at least find chicago an interesting place you would want to visit someday.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

wickedestcity said:


> ^^ true , comparing does promote competitiveness and helps from resting on its lorals but i thing Ed is looking more to discuse Chicago on a more simplified level. what ,withall comparisons asside , is your veiw on Chicago? is it a shitty city, is it an awsom city, is it a ok city. whats good and whats bad about it? whenyou see Chicago , what do you see. the hardest part to answereing this question is to leave the comparisons at the door since when discusing a citys greatness or the things you dilike about it , the opinion is always relitive to somthing else and that is usaly anouther city. but i think that if we put all comparisons aside its hard not to love or at least find chicago an interesting place you would want to visit someday.


i never had any question on this one: wicked understands me.

absolutely correct. my contention is that Chicago comes up shining bright when you leave the comparisons off the table.

Chicago projects itself as a city of tall buildings that are treated as works of art; architecture is important here. Likewise, the ability to see these buildings from street level, from blocks away, from being cross town is important here. Canyons are kept at a minimum and frankly only one (LaSalle Street's run through the Loop) is really designed for wall-to-wall high rises....and even LaSalle comes across more impressive than overpowering.

Meanwhile, the city has built a unique relationship with Lake Michigan, an open shoreline virtually the length of the city. This relationship is built on the magnificance of open water and the fact this open water is lake rather than ocean, allowing for a city-to-water connection impossible on the more turbulant and destructie waters of an ocean.

Chicago's charm is often found in the ability of its neighborhoods to offern a remarkable density and urban fabric in areas where most buildings rise two-to-four floors and even the larger structures are not super sized. This is a city where the high rise downtown (Loop and surrounding neighborhoods) and the condos that line Lake Shore Drive north and south are the high rise zones; the areas to the west often delightfully lower scaled.

Chicago astonishes because of its very flatness: the open lakeshore, the parks, the high rises....and the flatness behind. The city looms ever large as you approach it from land, flat land, from all directions.

The city-wide grid, the world's largest, gives an interconnection of neighborhood to neighborhood throghout the city, adding an incredible sense of unity. Grid and flatness work together to build a walkers' city, a place you wish to stroll.

Public works and improving the common ammenities is a big part of Chicago...from Navy Pier to the Museum Campus to incredible Millennium Park.

And Chicago's linkage to the most early years of our republic, while avoiding colonial history, and with its interior location is a city that is uniquely positioned to tell the tale of US (as opposed to American) history, a tale in which it not only has had a shining role, but one which has paralleled our country's story as well as any other city.

I could go on...and won't. If I look back at what I wrote, I am most pleased that I could get the idea across about what makes Chicago special without putting down any other city....or even mentioning one by name.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Not to say that Chicago wouldn't benefit from a few more hills! 

Chicago is also a very 'real' place. It's history isn't exactly pretty the whole way through. For a few years, it was a strong symbol of the grotesque realities of a relatively uncontrolled capitalism.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> Are our cities far better off when we drop the comparisons between them and allow each to operate on its own?


Absolutely. Comparisons do nothing but give us an easy, uncomplicated, narrow-minded method of evaluating cities. Inevitably, it ends up going something like this: line up each city's attributes side-by-side (ignoring nuance if possible), make hasty and unanalytical decisions as to which city "wins" in each category, create some sort of theoretical scorecard as a method of tracking results, and declare "victory" to one of the cities on the basis of said scorecard's final record. This, of course, was the whole basis of the old city vs. city threads. 

Of course, the final results almost always tend to support the evaluator's preconceived notions of superiority. Comparisons rarely, if ever, take into account the full scope of what any city has to offer. They ignore crucial factors like unquantifiable human experience and replace authentic evaluation with uninformed judgment. Even in the best-intentioned discussions, it's hopeless to think we can accurately compare two social entities and come up with a result that's remotely legitimate. 

Bottom line: in the real world, cities are organic communities, not abstract entities designed for comparison to one another. There is no such thing as a "superior" or an "inferior" city. Cities simply are what they are, and the only way to understand them is to experience them. Attempting to create a hierarchical relationship among them is just pissin' in the wind.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

JustadudeBottom line: in the real world said:


> WELL SAID, JUSTADUDE.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> ...


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> absolutely correct. my contention is that Chicago comes up shining bright when you leave the comparisons off the table.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I understand what you are saying, and I think that any negative comparison
> ...


----------



## keros (Aug 22, 2005)

Better of other cities ? GOODDD !! for the reason Spain and France are the best countries with more tourism in the world


----------



## thesion69 (Feb 1, 2006)

this thread can be detrimental for other cities xD lol xD


----------



## keros (Aug 22, 2005)

XD


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

Comparing cities is a nefarious business, especially when they are so different in scope, size, population, geography, whatever. Even cities that are right next to each other, e.g. Buda and Pest are not comparable. Chicago has its strengths and weaknesses, but they are pretty unique to Chicago.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Agree, its problematic comparing cities and you can't really compare Chicago with NYC or LA. These places are very different in natural setting, layout, history, demographics, economics, and world role. Chicago occupies a very unique place in the US. However, Chicago offers a great model for the Great Lakes Midwest. Other midwestern cities, particularly Cleveland or Milwaukee, which are the closest to being "little Chicagos", often compare themselves to Chicago. And would certainly like to emulate Chicago's city population regrowth. St. Louis also often compares itself with Chicago. But the cities are really very different, Chicago having developed later, having eclipsed St. Louis as the biggest city in the Midwest. Detroit, which boomed later than Chicago, and during WW II & the early postwar decades, seemed poised to rival it, declined early & quickly. And so Detroit is less easily compared to Chicago. However, you might compare Chicago with other second or third ranked cities in other countries. Many other countries have/had their own "Chicago". Birmingham in the UK. Osaka in Japan. Perhaps Melbourne in Australia. Winnepeg was once known as Canada's "Chicago". But really today, Canada has no equivilent to Chicago.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

^Osaka is a sister city of Chicago, actually. And the two have much in common and have the same character about them. If there is a Japanese equivalent to Chicago, it's definintely Osaka.

Winnepeg was known as Canada's Chicago mainly because Winnepeg is the rail hub of Canada... correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Rail Claimore said:


> ^Osaka is a sister city of Chicago, actually. And the two have much in common and have the same character about them. If there is a Japanese equivalent to Chicago, it's definintely Osaka.
> 
> Winnepeg was known as Canada's Chicago mainly because Winnepeg is the rail hub of Canada... correct me if I'm wrong.


You're probably right. For perhaps a century, that was the definitive characteristic of Chicago.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

I believe there is an aspect of our city's history that gives Chicago a unique environment today. They all relate to land usage.

Chicago's status of rail capital has given the city something incredibly special today: vast stretches of unused and underused r.r. trackage right smack in the heart of town. The concept of air rights first openned this land for redevelopment and has given us the beehive of growth and quality urbanliving that is Lakeshore East, were the river meets the lake due east of the Loop. In other locations, such as the South Loop, rail yards that are no longer in use are being developed into large scale urban communities, some of which also benefit from the adjacent Chicago River.

The river itself is a lightning rod to quality urban development as it has transformed from industrial to chic.

Meanwhile, the city's close in former factory and warehouse neighborhoods, many of which include quality old brick loft buildings have long since transformed to the art, residential, and entertainment complex that is River North today or the warehouses west of Greektown (on Halsted) that is a huge residential region.

Available land has given this city a unique opportunity to redevelop itself in a way that often feels off the charts.


----------

