Is Chicago where NYC was 25 years ago?

[ChiMIchael]

I don't think Chicago should strive to become NY per se, but I would like it to be a vibrant city with some sense of identity. I think Chicago economic future partially depends on whether the Midwest can have an major role in the global economy. Also, convincing certain interests that it isn't the 1920s anymore would help.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by 10023

Much of the South Side is fine. It's as diverse as NYC's boroughs, but without the intense housing cost pressure that's causing gentrification

[the urban politician]

I think this thread is evolving into a "Chicago should never dare compare itself to New York" kind of thing and the usual paraphernalia that accompanies it (rolling eyes, snarky & insecure comments, etc) but the more I think of it, the OP did bring up a good topic.

My take is that Chicago is NOT where NY was 25 years ago. The north side and core are doing much better (notwithstanding global differences in the respective cities' importance) than where NY was back then, while much of the south side is possibly doing worse. It is a tale of two cities moving in opposite directions.

[10023]

Ok fine, it's not as diverse as NYC's boroughs in terms of its racial/ethnic makeup. The point was that you're talking about a very large area with very different built environments and states of repair or disrepair. There are neighborhoods with apartment highrises, dense brick 5-story apartment buildings, tree lined suburban neighborhoods, bungalow belt tract housing that could be somewhere in the western US, abandoned industrial landscapes, etc.

[DCReid]

I do not think Chicago is where NY was 25 ago, but NY has caught up with Chicago. I think Chicago had been doing as good or even better than NYC up to about 2008, the recent real estate bust, especially in terms of skyscraper development. All of Chicago's 30 buildings over 200 meters were constructed since 1969; previously the tallest building was the old Prudential building with the big spire and the Chicago Stock Exchange building. Up until the 60s, Chicago really did not have a big skyline. I read somewhere that the old Prudential building was the first skyscraper constructed in Chicago in about 20 years and it started the 60's/70's boom that produced Hancock, Willis and Aon. Some of those new buildings, like Hancock and Willis, are icons.

NYC has always had a recognizable skyline, but the Empire State, Chrysler and Woolworth buildings, constructed in the 1930s were the most iconic. Not many of the NYC skyscrapers constructed since the 60s have been iconic; even the original World Trade Center was not really liked. Only now is NY building some interesting and really tall buildings. Previously, NYC has been conservative with buildings, so it is refreshing that some of designs are more interesting.

One difference between the cities is that NYC is more regulated and the community has more input, so development has seemed to be more controlled, less hectic most of the time. Chicago can go through big booms in development as evidenced by the high rise condo boom along the north lakefront in the 1970s and the south loop condo building boom recently, and with every big boom, there is usually a bust.

[10023]

^ No one outside of this forum would look at skyscraper development as a measure of a city's health and success.

[chris08876]

To be fair, how about we can all come to the conclusion that both cities are unique, but Chicago with respect to crime is what NYC was 25 years ago. Other than that, I think thats the only fair conclusion. Both cities are powerhouses, and share amazing cultural diversity; But crime wise, Chicago needs to fix the high murder rate.

Both cities are crucial for the nation as well. Chicago especially because it is the biggest player when it comes to rail, and air as well. Chicago can't be compared to NY economically because they have always been global juggernauts. When it comes to architecture, both cities are world class. Chicago IMO is a compressed NYC. Smaller, but shares attributes that people associate with a big city; bustling streets, cultural melting pot that New York has. Size doesn't always matter!

Originally Posted by 10023

^ No one outside of this forum would look at skyscraper development as a measure of a city's health and success.

The Communist Party of China sure does and so does the UAE. 5 year plans that work.

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I don't think Chicago should strive to become NY per se, but I would like it to be a vibrant city with some sense of identity. I think Chicago economic future partially depends on whether the Midwest can have an major role in the global economy. Also, convincing certain interests that it isn't the 1920s anymore would help.

I agree. What makes it unique is the fact that is not New York. Diversity is always great. If all cities looked like New York, it would get kinda boring. Change is good.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

It may be technically diverse but its still mostly either latinos/hispanics or muslims from the middle east, asia and india that's still segregated imo

With the caveat that blacks pretty much always live apart, in NY as much as in Chicago, Albany Park is about as diverse as America gets.

No American city can claim to have "figured out" integration... "diversity" in a given neighborhood is pretty much always the result of smaller communities living side by side and not mixed together.

[memph]

Originally Posted by 10023

Much of the South Side is fine. It's as diverse as NYC's boroughs, but without the intense housing cost pressure that's causing gentrification to spread to almost every corner of the city.

This is the South Side:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.75...eR-qCPS40g!2e0

There's actually a fair bit of vacant buildings there, although at least they look in good shape and like they could be re-occupied, rather than burnt out or having been turned into vacant lots. I think this is one advantage of Chicago over many rust belt (and sun belt) cities where the ghettos have lower quality buildings.

Overall though, it's true much of Chicago is still pretty intact. The situation must have looked pretty hopeless in Harlem, the South Bronx and even parts of Brooklyn in the 1970s. I don't think Chicago's equivalents are worse in that regard. NYC's homicide rate from 1975-1995 was higher than Chicago's today.

Chicago is the most urban city between the East and West Coasts by good by a big margin, I think that will help it out. If the Near West and Near South sides can continue to revitalize, I think that will help the neighbourhoods further out.

[mind field]

I'm not sure many on here are really qualified to answer this question with facts and first hand accounts. Who here was living in New York City 25 years ago? And now currently lives in Chicago?

I think some of the biggest hurdles Chicago faces in becoming the best city that it can be are meaningful reductions in crime on the south side and solving the upcoming budget issues. Reducing crime enough for investors, tourists and most importantly residents to feel safe in the south side will have to be approached on so many levels; grass roots, community, city, state and even federal possibly. I won't really comment on the budget issue as I don't follow it closely enough to have an informed opinion.

Chicago is a great city that does so much right and has so much to offer. Comparing it to New York for any reason other than for improving itself is a waste of time. They are two different cities, with two different destinies. That's what makes cities great, no two are the same, nor should they be!

[fflint]

I lived on the East Coast 24 years ago, and used to drive into NYC with friends about once a month. I'm not as familiar with Chicago, but I'm going to try and figure this out anyway.

The New York of 1990 was buffeted by two strong and countervailing forces: an ongoing decline in certain areas and among certain demographics; and a nascent rebirth, also in certain areas and among certain demographics. I think 1990 was right around when the two actually were equal forces, as the slow but steady resurgence began to overpower the lingering decline.

So I take the question to mean "Is Chicago at this same kind of tipping point in its own respective history?" And if that's how we frame the question, the answer is "I don't know." But I hope so.

On the one hand, certain parts of Chicago and certain demographics are doing very well right now, better than any time in recent memory. On the other, certain parts of Chicago and certain demographics are worse off than they've been in recent history as well. So that tension is present, just as it was in 1990 New York.

Before we can definitively answer the OP question in the affirmative, Chicago will need to get to a point where the declining areas and segments are being positively impacted enough by the improving areas and demographics that, on the whole, we can say there is more positive than negative forces shaping the entire city overall--that more people are being positively impacted by positive change than by negative change. If so, then yes--we can say Chicago is where NYC was roughly 25 years ago. If not, then not.

[ardecila]

Well, yeah. Places like Washington Park and Englewood will need to undergo transitions like this:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...6&postcount=64

Of course, bringing these neighborhoods up isn't just about new buildings... we can throw money at them all we went, but the key is to improve the economy and reduce crime to the point where new construction is viable in these places.

[KevinFromTexas]

If we're going to talk about which city has the highest number of murders and or which has the highest rates and debate if someone is wrong on that or not, maybe it would be better to offer up a link to support or refute those claims, instead of calling people assholes.

[dc_denizen]

murders in Chicago are broadly distributed in the S and W sides. NYC or DC have had much higher murder rates than Chicago in the very recent past, yet the cities continued to thrive as most areas were nonviolent and safe.

It might be better to try to reduce the geographical size of the murderous areas, and worry later about reducing the total number of murders.

[the urban politician]

Another problem in Chicago is that the banks, essentially, are still redlining Hispanic and black areas. That keeps their property values lower and continues to limit investment. They are still shell shocked from the financial crisis, I guess.

Also, the going ideology has been that Chicago was in a state of decline in the latter half of the twentieth century. That was true in some sectors, but I actually think that Chicago did a lot of things right during that period that set it apart from the rust belt and allowed it to become the global city that it currently is. #1 on that list is prioritizing downtown over all else. If Chicago had not done that, this very thread wouldn't exist.

[simms3_redux]

I, for one, don't see a lot of parallels between the two cities. Chicago is a segregated city in almost every way. Its central core now is WAYYYYY cleaner/safer/"gentrified" than the Manhattan of 1990. There aren't really "bad" parts of downtown, and then basically the entire northside is doing great. New York in 1990 was as spotty as can be with large swaths of rundown, crime ridden neighborhoods in almost every direction, including much of Manhattan itself.

Chicago is literally black and white, north and south. And white/north claims the downtown, which is certainly one of the cleanest and safest in this country, despite the overall reputation of the city. This is certainly not the same situation as in New York, which obviously did have segregated neighborhoods, but not in the same sense as Chicago. The New York that Giuliani "cleaned up" is a completely different beast than the Chicago Rahm Emmanuel is overseeing now.

We can talk about parallels in their economies, perhaps, but I don't think there are necessarily too many parallels there, either. NYC never lost its status as the financial capital of the world from the 1970s-1990s, despite everything that was happening in the city. Chicago is not on that level. Like most cities, Chicago does have some risk of becoming irrelevant. The health of the overall city is probably tied a lot more to the health of its economy than in NYC, where that city's deterioration was caused by lots of other factors (namely bad leadership and a lot of resting on its laurels in previous decades).

I don't think the two are all that comparable on that deep of a level. I think as with Boston/Philly/SF/LA there are lots of easy superficial comparisons that can be made to NYC, but Chicago and NYC are certainly not on the same trajectory, nor have they ever been, nor are they really that similar, and that's why they are both great and why both play such strong roles in the American psyche.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

It might be better to try to reduce the geographical size of the murderous areas, and worry later about reducing the total number of murders.

Right... one city has a population of 8.4 million and another 2.7 mill.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

This entire argument reminds me of my own thoughts when I see posts saying that the US should replicate British gun laws, or replicate Norwegian healthcare.

The fact is the demographics that exist in the US are entirely different compared to any other country.

Comparing either city's (Chicago or New York) stature or success to the other's is utterly inaccurate.

Is NYC where San Fran was 75 years ago?!

[M II A II R II K]

Even though that NYC could decline in certain areas it always had the advantage of being in the Northeast corridor which will always be the financial, cultural, educational, and other institutional elements of the US. The rust belt outside of that region succumbed to the manufacturing decline.

Also it's been suggested that Chicago was somewhat saved by the influx of Mexicans, otherwise it could have declined like the other large midwestern cities.

[aquablue]

Chicago won't ever follow NYC's trajectory. The South is the future for business and population growth and the NE is safe due to historical/trade reasons and NYC's presense. Chicago needs to find a way to make itself an appealing destination for tourism I believe as the future of business is the South. I don't see it as an inernational hub of investment due to the winters. If it reinvents it's image, addresses South African style segregation and crime, and develops some 'sex appeal' based on some cultural developments, I think it will have a brighter future. Cultural, artistic, etc is a good way for a city to become vibrant and reinvent itself. Great architecture can help, look at Bilbao. So, become hipster I suppose. Copy Brand Brookyn, etc.. Everyone loves a good hipster town.