Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 Economist Survey on Chicago Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Bucket
Member
Username: Bucket

Post Number: 35
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 207.148.208.42
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:19 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Economist recently published an in-depth economic survey of Chicago:

"Chicago has come through deindustrialisation looking shiny and confident, says [Economist writer] John Grimond. Can other rustbelt cities do the same?"

http://www.economist.com
Top of pageBottom of page

Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 1026
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 136.1.1.154
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:40 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A direct link to the article: http://www.economist.com/surve ys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5 601463
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 3821
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 6:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chicago had became a next big booming city since the 1800s thanks to merchantile farming trades, demarcation of black and ethnic communities, keep its suburbs small and let the sprawl extend out in the ex-urbs. Chicago has experience rapid demographic and economic growth during the past 25 years. More jobs means more condos, single family housing, gentrification of Chicago neighborhoods, more fancy retail and dept. stores and continued demarcation of Chicago neigborhoods. Detroit can do the same, but we folks just keep on bickering to ourselves than think.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 944
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.142.86.133
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:59 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I LOVE Chicago. And to see what it was in the 80's as a little kid, and what it is today, it really is bursting with life and excitement. Each year goes by with it becoming better and better.

Detroit can learn much. While it will not have the economic diversity of Chicago, its leaders and businesspeople who are here can learn much. It isn't perfect. But they do get the job done. As much as Daley is an asswipe, he gets it done. As silly as planting flowers all over the city might be, it adds that little something that makes it feel a little spiffier. A rust belt city that takes the lead on health (smoking) and the environment (blue bag program) is impressive.

It reminds me a bit of the progressive thinking I love about San Francisco out here, but with that homey, neighborhood, beer drinkin, sports lovin, huge city feel.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3406
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:26 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Everytime I hear the two cities mentioned together, I can't but think how very different they are. Unlike Chicago's economy, that requires a strong center/downtown to work, the auto industry and other heavy manufacturers never needed a strong center/downtown to work, and that is apparent in the size of Detroit's downtown (past and present). While it was easy for Detroit to just pick up and move out to the suburbs, that is nearly impossible with downtown Chicago and still have the metro work.

Chicago has also been masterful in offsetting its urban outward flight by producing a huge, urban inward flight of immigrants to offset the loss.

I have real doubts that what makes the big three (NYC, LA, and Chicago) work, will also make smaller metro's work. I'm sure a few policies and ideas can be translated successfully, but I really wonder if the differences are greater than the similarities.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1356
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:47 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

While it was easy for Detroit to just pick up and move out to the suburbs, that is nearly impossible with downtown Chicago and still have the metro work.




It's well-documented that union pressures and a perceived need for large open plots of land decentralized the automobile *production* industry. I find it dubious, however, to claim that the offices in downtown Chicago could not just as easily be in the suburbs. Do you have evidence supporting this claim? After all, didn't Sears itself move to suburban Hoffman Estates? Most of the jobs in downtown Chicago are office jobs--what forces mandate those jobs stay put, when they could just as easily be relocated to the suburbs (even more so than a manufacturing job could be relocated)?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2241
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:26 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chicago's vitality lies in immigration.

One small but seemingly significant part of this (due to a ripple effect) is attracting young college grads (mostly from the upper midwest) to entry level white collar professional jobs in the city. The thing is this is a limited resource in both the quality of the talent pool AND the availability of good starter jobs for these people. Re. shallow talent pool: Michigan, Wicsonsin, downstate Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, etc. have all been suffering the ill effects of middle management brain drain and de-indusrtiallization for a good generation now, many of the children of such people now grow up in TX, FLA, AZ, CA ... CHI is a faraway, cold and unfamiliar place to go to PERMANENTLY move. Re good jobs for these people ... well the trend for off-shoring entry and mid-level financial services jobs does not bode well for the mid term job prospects for just about any American looking for an entry level white collar job in a globallized industry that involves sitting in front of a computer and reading or typing stuff. Scary, I know, but likely true.

More importantly a VERY large and significant part of Chicago's population stabilization is due to foreign immigration to low level and low paying service sector jobs -- pushing brooms, washing dishes, making food etc. Unlike the SE and SW USA this influx is to a region that has a relatively FLAT, not growing population base and is ontop of existing severely underemployed working poor families, what is not clear is the longer term implications of this.

Chicago is a very interesting and dynamic place.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 948
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.142.86.133
Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:49 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I believe transit might play a part too. All lines were setup when Chicago had most of the metro population. All lines run directly to the loop, both CTA and Metra lines.

I think as the area grew, there was always a desire to be close to the transit trunks. When all freeways and all transit lines point towards the city, the easiest way to be close to all the transit is to be downtown. People can come from N, S, and W and all converge on one spot.

In most cities, the setup didn't work like this. You could go to/from you destination and totally bypass the city. In Chicago, you can't.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.