CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Handro]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

What a dumb take lmao. There's a growing number of self sustaining suburbs like Naperville and Oak Brook that has all the amenities a suburbanite needs. Lots of people here rarely or never go downtown.

Even in other cities, Atlanta for example. When I lived there, there were PLENTY of suburbs that were filled with people that never went to downtown/midtown/buckhead. Alpharetta, Roswell, Sandy Springs, Marietta, Kennesaw, etc.

If Chicago had never existed, how many of the successful suburbs would have been successful? If Chicago ceased to exist, how many of the successful suburbs would remain successful?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You obviously know it all

god damn the irony lmao

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You obviously know it all

Just facts... TUP, do you know the definition of a 'suburb'? Do you know what 'logistics' mean?

[the urban politician]

^ It doesn't matter what the "definition of a suburb" is.

What matters is the facts on the ground. Most of suburbia is not interested in downtown Chicago other than perhaps a trip or two per year.

It's reality. I happen to be different because I am a forumer here and we have a mutual interest in cities, skyscrapers, architecture, etc. I also am invested in the city quite heavily.

But for most of the people out here, downtown is hardly on the radar. Even more so in this shitty WFH world where Metra trains sit empty (ie Chicago leaders basically shooting themselves in the foot the more they push the COVID narrative)

So no, you are not stating any facts.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

If Chicago had never existed, how many of the successful suburbs would have been successful?

if chicago had never existed, none of its suburbs would've existed either, successful or otherwise.

it's not like Oak Brooks just magically spring into existence all by themselves in a vacuum in the middle of nowhere.

Originally Posted by Handro

If Chicago ceased to exist, how many of the successful suburbs would remain successful?

not that it has ceased to exist altogether (not by a long shot), but the closest major US metro area we can look to to see how that scenario might play out would be metro detroit. no other major US central city has been as hollowed out as detroit was during the white-flight era (and still now continuing into the black flight era). the locus of power in metro detroit moved with all of the white people and their money from detroit up to oakland county. many of the burbs up there are quite prosperous and successful.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It doesn't matter what the "definition of a suburb" is.

What matters is the facts on the ground. Most of suburbia is not interested in downtown Chicago other than perhaps a trip or two per year.

It's reality. I happen to be different because I am a forumer here and we have a mutual interest in cities, skyscrapers, architecture, etc. I also am invested in the city quite heavily.

But for most of the people out here, downtown is hardly on the radar. Even more so in this shitty WFH world where Metra trains sit empty (ie Chicago leaders basically shooting themselves in the foot the more they push the COVID narrative)

So no, you are not stating any facts.

wow... i thought you were a little brighter than this... how about taking a stab at 'logistics' and why that might play a part in the relationship of the suburbs to downtown?

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

What matters is the facts on the ground. Most of suburbia is not interested in downtown Chicago other than perhaps a trip or two per year.

This sounds less like a fact and more like you implementing the exact type of subconscious rationalization you tried to pin on everyone else in this thread.

Here, you are trying to convince us that a word, "suburb", which gets it's name entirely based on it's relationship to cities, is somehow not reliant on cities and the amenities they provide (museums, airports, highways, universities, hospitals, ports, etc).

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It doesn't matter what the "definition of a suburb" is.

What matters is the facts on the ground. Most of suburbia is not interested in downtown Chicago other than perhaps a trip or two per year.

I apologize for being a little glib and unclear when I wrote that downtown is the reason the suburbs exist and "that's it." Obviously--now that they already exist--there's people who live in the suburbs for lots of reasons.

But it's a little obtuse and ungenerous to interpret my point the way you have. Suburbs sprung up around every downtown because downtown was where they needed to go for commerce or employment, but they wanted as much space or affordability as possible. The suburbs are what you get when there's a push/pull between needing to be close to a region's geographic center but not wishing to--or not being able to afford or justify--living in a region's center.

450,000 people commute from the suburbs into Chicago every day for work. Each one of them is someone who almost by definition needs to be in downtown but has already chosen to move as far away from it as they reasonably can. Those workers and their families are people who have made a choice to be as distant as possible from their office and it makes sense that WFH may make it possible for them to move even further.

I know a couple who don't go to music shows or theater, complain about walking and are completely happy with Applebee's or whatever on date night. They met in Chicago, moved to Northbrook as soon as they got married and now that they work from home are considering moving to Colorado now for the mountains. These sorts of folks are more likely to leave due to WFH--in my estimation--than someone who's in a new condo in Fulton Market.

[the urban politician]

Looks like I woke up the echo chamber

You can easily argue that downtown exists because of the suburbs
Or that downtown exists because of O'Hare
Or that the suburbs exist because of O'Hare
Or that OHare exists because of downtown
Or that OHare exists because of the suburbs

This is a stupid exercise being carried out in the interest of personal tastes and looking down on people who live in suburbs, that's all. And the sad thing is, nobody in the suburbs even cares

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

This sounds less like a fact and more like you implementing the exact type of subconscious rationalization you tried to pin on everyone else in this thread.

a TUP rant is one of the last places you should ever go looking for intellectual integrity.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not that it has ceased to exist altogether (not by a long shot), but the closest major US metro area we can look to to see how that scenario might play out would be metro detroit. no other major US central city has been as hollowed out as detroit was during the white-flight era (and still now continuing into the black flight era). the locus of power in metro detroit moved with all of the white people and their money from detroit up to oakland county. many of the burbs up there are quite prosperous and successful.

^ Exactly.

Chronologically the suburbs of Chicago existed as bedroom commuter towns, but fast forward to today, this statement just seems like an anachronism, which is why multiple forumers here criticized it for being the silly statement that it is:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Suburbs exist so that people can access downtown. That's it.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

a TUP rant is one of the last places you should ever go looking for intellectual integrity.

Good point. I should be more level headed and refer to people as "knuckle dragging troglodytes"

[Steely Dan]

^ it's just a more colorful phrase for "redneck", which I know you don't have a problem with.

besides, I can't remember the last time i used it. i gave up arguing politics online ages ago.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if chicago had never existed, none of its suburbs would've existed either, successful or otherwise.

it's not like Oak Brooks just magically spring into existence all by themselves in a vacuum in the middle of nowhere.






not that it has ceased to exist altogether (not by a long shot), but the closest major US metro area we can look to to see how that scenario might play out would be metro detroit. no other major US central city has been as hollowed out as detroit was during the white-flight era (and still now continuing into the black flight era). the locus of power in metro detroit moved with all of the white people and their money from detroit up to oakland county. many of the burbs up there are quite prosperous and successful.

They are quite prosperous but they still require labor workers, many from Detroit who sit through awful bus rides, to service their restaurants, malls, offices, and strip malls. No suburban region is ever fully independent of its host city.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by chiphile

They are quite prosperous but they still require labor workers, many from Detroit who sit through awful bus rides, to service their restaurants, malls, offices, and strip malls. No suburban region is ever fully independent of its host city.

for sure. detroit is not gone. ~640,000 people still call the city home as of census 2020.

but it is the closest example we have to look to to see how suburbs might exist without their central city.

wealthy suburbs absolutely rely on outside working class labor to exist, but there's no law that says that working class population has to live in a central city.

i can envision a scenario where that part of the labor force lives in more downscale working class suburbia (think of places like round lake beach or north chicago or any number of southland burbs).

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

for sure. detroit is not gone. ~640,000 people still call the city home as of census 2020.

but it is the closest example we have to look to to see how suburbs might exist without their central city.

Sure. And Houston and L.A. and a few other places are polycentric and there isn't really an important city center that truly acts as a hub or focus for culture and economic activity. Of course in those places it's often not clear what is a traditional suburb or not either. "Wait, is Culver City part of L.A. or is this a suburb? Are we in Sugarland or Houston right now? The concentration of off-ramps isn't any different. And I haven't seen a sidewalk since I landed."

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

for sure. detroit is not gone. ~640,000 people still call the city home as of census 2020.

but it is the closest example we have to look to to see how suburbs might exist without their central city.

wealthy suburbs absolutely rely on outside working class labor to exist, but there's no law that says that working class population has to live in a central city.

i can envision a scenario where that part of the labor force lives in more downscale working class suburbia (think of places like round lake beach or north chicago or any number of southland burbs).

The Detroit suburbs didn’t collapse like the central city did, but that doesn’t mean all is well. Oakland and Macomb counties show the same income fall as Wayne county.

Northern suburbs just can’t compete against Southern and Western suburbs without a strong main city to bring in new wealth and residents.

[lakeshoredrive]

I just saw the news that General Iron was denied a permit to build a new location on the SE side of Chicago due to environmental complaints as well as heavy pressure from the community and protests.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

for sure. detroit is not gone. ~640,000 people still call the city home as of census 2020.

but it is the closest example we have to look to to see how suburbs might exist without their central city.

wealthy suburbs absolutely rely on outside working class labor to exist, but there's no law that says that working class population has to live in a central city.

i can envision a scenario where that part of the labor force lives in more downscale working class suburbia (think of places like round lake beach or north chicago or any number of southland burbs).

Detroit suburbs have never "existed without their central city" at any point. More like the total opposite, they feed off the central city and are completely and totally dependent on it and always have been. The entire premise here makes no sense. Suburbs are nothing but extensions of central cities.

Detroit's center is pretty strong these days with by far the most development, growth and investment in the entire region. So not really an example of anything here. Metro Detroit has also seen more growth than Chicagoland this last decade, so it's fared pretty decently.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Detroit suburbs have never "existed without their central city" at any point.

i never said that detroit's burbs have ever existed without their central city, just that detroit is the closest example we have of a major US city to that situation.

but as i pointed out, it's still a long, LONG way away from that because, despite the massive losses in population over the decades, detroit still has 1/3 of its 1950 peak population left.

it's all a giant hypothetical exercise anyway, because, barring extreme calamities like global nuclear war or asteroid impact, i don't foresee any major US central city's population dropping to zero anytime soon.

there is always going to be some level of interplay between central cities and their burbs.

Originally Posted by The North One

Metro Detroit has also seen more growth than Chicagoland this last decade, so it's fared pretty decently.

yes, overall, metro detroit grew a tiny bit faster than chicagoland last decade, but it was all growth in the burbs, whereas chicagoland's growth was much more balanced between the city and the burbs.

and neither of them are close to what you'd call a "fast growth metro area": of the 56 1M+ MSA's in the nation, chicago and detroit were #49 and #48, respectively, for growth rate last decade.

the great lakes cities, collectively, did pretty bad on that score, with 6 of the 10 slowest growing 1M+ MSAs, 7 if you include nearby pittsburgh (hartford, memphis, & st. louis were the other 3).


pop. growth 2010 - 2020:

chicago MSA: +157,397 (+1.7%)
detroit MSA: +95,791(+2.2%)

city of chicago: +50,790 (+1.9%)
city of detroit: -74,666 (-10.5%)

suburban chicago: +106,607 (+1.6%)
suburban detroit: +170,457 (+4.8%)

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i never said that detroit's burbs have ever existed without their central city, just that detroit is the closest example we have of a major US city to that situation.

but as i pointed out, it's still a long, LONG way away from that because, despite the massive losses in population over the decades, detroit still has 1/3 of its 1950 peak population left.

it's all a giant hypothetical exercise anyway, because, barring extreme calamities like global nuclear war or asteroid impact, i don't foresee any major US central city's population dropping to zero anytime soon.

there is always going to be some level of interplay between central cities and their burbs.







yes, overall, metro detroit grew a tiny bit faster than chicagoland last decade, but it was all growth in the burbs, whereas chicagoland's growth was much more balanced between the city and the burbs.

and neither of them are close to what you'd call a "fast growth metro area": of the 56 1M+ MSA's in the nation, chicago and detroit were #49 and #48, respectively, for growth rate last decade.

the great lakes cities, collectively, did pretty bad on that score, with 6 of the 10 slowest growing 1M+ MSAs, 7 if you include nearby pittsburgh (hartford, memphis, & st. louis were the other 3).


pop. growth 2010 - 2020:

chicago MSA: +157,397 (+1.7%)
detroit MSA: +95,791(+2.2%)

city of chicago: +50,790 (+1.9%)
city of detroit: -74,666 (-10.5%)

suburban chicago: +106,607 (+1.6%)
suburban detroit: +170,457 (+4.8%)

While I would love to see these numbers go up for both cities.... I only want them to go up to a degree. I think Chicago can manage a healthy level of growth over the next decade whereby housing supply can meet demand. Obviously the same can be said for Detroit I suspect. I just don't wan the hyper growth you see in cities like Austin and Denver. There is definitely a happy middle to achieve with population growth. Honestly, I think Chicago is not far from that now with the level of growth and new construction in the city. Plenty of land to develop on, and no shortage housing for folks who want to own.