CHICAGO | General Discussions

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Handro

the thing Chicago has in spades compared to other, more "culturally relevant" cities is cheap real estate relatively close to downtown plus all the trappings of a major metropolis. getting some kind incentive for artists, musicians, cinematographers, and creatives of all types to come here and ply their trades while would do wonders to start moving the needle back to a place of cultural prominence. why should tiny, expensive Austin (for example) in Texas of all places have more cultural appeal to people under 40 than Chicago???

marothisu does a great job illustrating the under-the-hood stats that Chicago is still an economic powerhouse, but corporate consultants, lawyers, and banking don't really inspire much in the popular media that make people want to visit a place. Neither do very trivial factoids about 19th century history, but that seems to be where the Chicago marketing team is hanging their cap...

I think that's a complicated thing regarding artists. I'll get semi personal. Expecting artists to behave a certain way or look a certain way is just anti to everything. When I see people all conforming to one another and then claiming they're an "artiste" I cringe. I have been involved in art my whole life as I used to even tour around part of the US as a singer and also having a sister graduating from art school plus a ton of my close family involved in various ways. My sister especially is very anti areas like Brooklyn, Wicker Park, etc because she thinks they're all fake artists and for some of them I'd tend to agree. I'm not one to judge though totally. There's just this aire of elitism there like you *have* to look and behave a certain way like "an artist".[/I] I have a few friends in Chicago who I consider to be very talented artists. One of them has massive muscles and looks like a meathead and another one looks like a movie star and wears trendy suits around. Their art is very vivid and a little out there at times though. I have another friend here who used to be a touring jazz musician before he got into a computer career. I have another friend who is an executive for a sizable multi national corporation who went to the top US art school and still very involved in the area with creating art. But if you see his title and maybe even him in public nowadays, many people might assume otherwise.


This guy is one of the most prolific modern artists IMO (Bruce Nauman). He lives on a ranch about 25 miles from Santa Fe, NM. I guarantee if he stepped foot in Brooklyn or Wicker Park or whatever like this, people wouldn't even believe he's an artist unless they recognized him somehow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLWsrfa3tMU

This guy? One of the most prolific guitarists in the world:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...91327452349392


Point is - there's tons of people walking around who are artists not just here, but pretty much everywhere.. but we all have the idea of what an artist should look and act like, and we just assume there's not as many as the reality. The important thing to do in the city is give outlets for people of all types of art persuasions whether museums, organizations, studios, music venues, practice spaces, meeting spaces, etc. It's easy to make a catalog of those things as they operate as businesses and whatever, but assessing a place's art prowess based on anything else is a really slippery slope expecting artists to magically look and act a certain way. Outlets are important though, and also having inspiring places is important too.

As someone else mentioned too, it has to be an organic thing. But remember art is also very personal to everyone. Just because I am a musician for example doesn't mean that all I want to do with my time is be outside of home at a music venue or playing in front of an audience anymore. Just as well at home drawing, playing guitar/piano or singing.

[SIGSEGV]

I thought East Pilsen was where the cool artists are at (but maybe that's changed).

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Handro

why should tiny, expensive Austin (for example) in Texas of all places have more cultural appeal to people under 40 than Chicago???

Easy. Because Austin is the only tolerable place to live in triangle with corners at San Diego, Kansas City and New Orleans. If Sacramento, Dayton or Providence were in that spot instead of Austin people would feel the same way about it.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Point is - there's tons of people walking around who are artists not just here, but pretty much everywhere.. but we all have the idea of what an artist should look and act like, and we just assume there's not as many as the reality. The important thing to do in the city is give outlets for people of all types of art persuasions whether museums, organizations, studios, music venues, practice spaces, meeting spaces, etc. It's easy to make a catalog of those things as they operate as businesses and whatever, but assessing a place's art prowess based on anything else is a really slippery slope expecting artists to magically look and act a certain way. Outlets are important though, and also having inspiring places is important too.

As someone else mentioned too, it has to be an organic thing. But remember art is also very personal to everyone. Just because I am a musician for example doesn't mean that all I want to do with my time is be outside of home at a music venue or playing in front of an audience anymore. Just as well at home drawing, playing guitar/piano or singing.

I think of the relationship between art and cities from this perspective:

Suppose Chicago went gaga over neo-swing dancing and local stick figure Mona Lisa paintings, and it became the national craze. What would stop NYC, LA, Dallas, Miami, etc. from following up with their own swing dancing venues and stick figure portraits 6 months later?

There wouldn’t likely be inordinate gains to the city from the art alone besides a historical footnote. Maybe if the city sponsored some niche local artists, a few hundred additional people would seek them out.

Realistically, big immediate cultural gains would require founding a record label or an independent movie studio - huge institutional backing with lots of money. That’s not going to happen.

Much of the widespread cultural changes in Chicago are going to depend on the desire for the current infrastructure. Big downtown theaters, small affordable corridor retail fronts, and logistics/warehousing for production — for stuff that other cities can’t easily imitate.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I thought East Pilsen was where the cool artists are at (but maybe that's changed).

Definitely a lot of studios in Pilsen still. There's artists in every neighborhood of the city. Some have studios. Some might not. Some are influential in the community in the scene. Many others are unknown.

The person I was responding to was more talking about influence. But I wanted to address the thought of which places have more artists than others (attracting artists). I think that is a lot more complex than commonly believed because it's hard to even measure outside of a place that happens to have a lot.of influence in the space. That's easier to measure typically. I'd love for Chicago to have some more influential artists for sure.

Definitely important to have arts programming and spaces for art to thrive at the end of the day.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Easy. Because Austin is the only tolerable place to live in triangle with corners at San Diego, Kansas City and New Orleans. If Sacramento, Dayton or Providence were in that spot instead of Austin people would feel the same way about it.

huh?? you gotta explain this one. What triangle?

[urbanpln]

Before this discussion gets too far off point here's my little perspective. It's not easy to create an image for a city without a real focus on what you want to become, especially if it has not been created historically or made over several decades using your existing assets. We can use New Orleans and Atlanta as two examples that fit my perspective. New Orleans has been shaped historically and Atlanta's new image has been created more recently or over the past 30 years.

New Orlean's unique culture was shaped over several centuries due to its location and colonial history. Atlanta, which also had a rich history has recreated itself as a slick metropolis and views itself as a black mecca/Hollywood. Atlanta has taken advantage of the attraction to their historically black universities (HBCUs) and turned it into gold. It's now a mecca for black gays and is the current center of the universe of the R&B and Hip Hop industry. This has led to many entertainers moving there. Elton John was one of the first megastars to reside there.

Atlanta leaders worked hard to shake their southern racist past to become one of the most tolerant cities in the nation. The city continues to attract and grow at a rapid rate due to this new image. The city still has major problems but it has benefited greatly from its new image.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But I have long felt that Chicago just markets itself so poorly that it’s criminal. Just being a place that people from Michigan and Iowa visit to take in some cool skyscrapers………Goddamn, come on man. Really?!!

Everyone knows that there is way the hell more going on here. Why can’t anyone finally get this point across?

I don't think this is a marketing problem really. We need to deliver on things like affordable housing and crime reduction, and then we can lean into the "gangster city" image (which is iconic/distinctive in its own way) once it no longer reflects a sad reality. Not sure we can shed that image any more than we can improve the weather.

The city has a tremendously diversified economy but no particular calling-card industries. People will move here for jobs, dreamers will go somewhere else. It's not something we can really change; leaders just have to keep the wheels churning and not let things like crime or budgetary issues sink the ship.

Originally Posted by urbanpln

Atlanta leaders worked hard to shake their southern racist past to become one of the most tolerant cities in the nation. The city continues to attract and grow at a rapid rate due to this new image. The city still has major problems but it has benefited greatly from its new image.

Atlanta succeeded because it offered tangible benefits to lure people and businesses - affordable housing, good jobs, decent weather, natural beauty, arguably the US' best air connections. Any kind of civic branding is just a gloss that doesn't move the needle much in isolation.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't think this is a marketing problem really. We need to deliver on things like affordable housing and crime reduction, and then we can lean into the "gangster city" image (which is iconic/distinctive in its own way) once it no longer reflects a sad reality..

Yeah..no I really don't think that's gonna work, considering it's already a toxic, unsustainable and dead-end lifestyle, with nothing but misery and tragedy in its wake. Why even feel a need to 'lean into' something that so many people in so many neighborhoods are trying to get away from, that has directly lead to so much strife in the same neighborhoods, not to mention carry-over issues throughout the larger city?

The fucked-up mass media glorification of violent gang lifestyles is appalling, frankly, and one that I really don't think needs to be sanitized any further. Best to move away from that minefield.

[cityofneighborhoods]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

Before this discussion gets too far off point here's my little perspective. It's not easy to create an image for a city without a real focus on what you want to become, especially if it has not been created historically or made over several decades using your existing assets. We can use New Orleans and Atlanta as two examples that fit my perspective. New Orleans has been shaped historically and Atlanta's new image has been created more recently or over the past 30 years.

New Orlean's unique culture was shaped over several centuries due to its location and colonial history. Atlanta, which also had a rich history has recreated itself as a slick metropolis and views itself as a black mecca/Hollywood. Atlanta has taken advantage of the attraction to their historically black universities (HBCUs) and turned it into gold. It's now a mecca for black gays and is the current center of the universe of the R&B and Hip Hop industry. This has led to many entertainers moving there. Elton John was one of the first megastars to reside there.

Atlanta leaders worked hard to shake their southern racist past to become one of the most tolerant cities in the nation. The city continues to attract and grow at a rapid rate due to this new image. The city still has major problems but it has benefited greatly from its new image.

I think with the OPC, increased development in Bronzeville/Woodlawn, Bronzeville possibly getting National Register of Historical Places designation, black owned businesses like Bronzeville Winery and Turner Haus Brewery, etc. popping up, the South Lakefront would be a great place to focus on changing the city's image.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Atlanta succeeded because it offered tangible benefits to lure people and businesses - affordable housing, good jobs, decent weather, natural beauty, arguably the US' best air connections. Any kind of civic branding is just a gloss that doesn't move the needle much in isolation.

I agree with your assessment, but an effort to shine the spotlight on its assets which included rebranding its image helped in boosting its success today. That entire region is not without flaws but it works together better than our region does.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods

I think with the OPC, increased development in Bronzeville/Woodlawn, Bronzeville possibly getting National Register of Historical Places designation, black-owned businesses like Bronzeville Winery and Turner Haus Brewery, etc. popping up, the South Lakefront would be a great place to focus on changing the city's image.

I agree with you 100%. You can also throw in Hyde Park and the South Loop, especially the intersections near State, Michigan, and Cermak. Over the past 3 to 4 years there have been many new commercial establishments that cater to the residents of the neighborhood which include young professional African Americans. The customer base is way more diverse than other vibrant entertainment districts in the city.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Atlanta succeeded because it offered tangible benefits to lure people and businesses - affordable housing, good jobs, decent weather, natural beauty, arguably the US' best air connections. Any kind of civic branding is just a gloss that doesn't move the needle much in isolation.

We don't have affordable housing? We've got more real estate than we know what to do with.

We have good jobs.

We've got great air connections.

What we don't have is weather or beauty. I'm looking out my window and I see SHIT, SHIT, SHIT! Chicagoland looks like CRAP But we do have an amazing built environment in Chicago, no doubt about that.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

We don't have affordable housing? We've got more real estate than we know what to do with.

Our housing is affordable compared to coastal metros, but you "get more for your money" in Atlanta. For the price of a Chicago bungalow in a semi-safe neighborhood with mediocre CPS schools, you can get a 5-bedroom house on a quiet cul-de-sac in Atlanta with great schools.

I shouldn't have to tell you of all people why the suburban lifestyle is appealing to lots of folks... and the suburban lifestyle is simply cheaper in Atlanta than Chicago. The price of disinvested real estate on the South Side isn't relevant for people that have already decided that kind of area is simply not acceptable for their family.

Also, for all the talk of Atlanta's sprawl, Chicago is no less massive. If you work downtown, the transit system gives you an opt-out of congestion, but if you live in Tinley Park and work in Naperville or Schaumburg, your commute is just as long and painful as someone in Atlanta or Dallas. Suburban lifestyle is the same everywhere, our cities are interchangeable, so it's no surprise that people gravitate to the places where that lifestyle is cheapest and weather is good.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Our housing is affordable compared to coastal metros, but you "get more for your money" in Atlanta. For the price of a Chicago bungalow in a semi-safe neighborhood with mediocre CPS schools, you can get a 5-bedroom house on a quiet cul-de-sac in Atlanta with great schools.

I shouldn't have to tell you of all people why the suburban lifestyle is appealing to lots of folks... and the suburban lifestyle is simply cheaper in Atlanta than Chicago. The price of disinvested real estate on the South Side isn't relevant for people that have already decided that kind of area is simply not acceptable for their family.

Also, for all the talk of Atlanta's sprawl, Chicago is no less massive. If you work downtown, the transit system gives you an opt-out of congestion, but if you live in Tinley Park and work in Naperville or Schaumburg, your commute is just as long and painful as someone in Atlanta or Dallas. Suburban lifestyle is the same everywhere, our cities are interchangeable, so it's no surprise that people gravitate to the places where that lifestyle is cheapest and weather is good.

Tell me you haven't been to Atlanta lately without telling me you haven't been to Atlanta lately.

Atlanta is a more expensive city than Chicago nowadays. Chicago real estate is dirt cheap, Atlanta COL has absolutely skyrocketed these past two years. Please give me a link of a "cheap" 5 bedroom house in Atlanta, probably gonna be an hour+ outside the city in the boonies. OH AND ANOTHER THING. The pay in Atlanta is ASS. Minimum wage here is $15, meanwhile in Atlanta its fucking $7.25. Not only do you get paid here more, its less expensive! You get paid way less in Atlanta, and the COL is skyrocketing, no wonder so many people are getting displaced down there.

And these cities are drastically different. Chicago is a world class metropolis, Atlanta is an oversized suburb. Yeah Chicago has sprawl but NO WHERE near close to Atlanta, I lived in both and its not even close. You do not get more for your money in Atlanta lol. It's warmer and safer, thats it. The schools in the good districts near Atlanta (Cobb, Gwinnett, northern part of Fulton County) are fucking expensive, way more than Naperville or Oak Brook. APS, Dekalb Schools, and Clayco schools (where the "cheap" housing are) are just as bad as CPS.

There is no transit out of suburbia in Atlanta. Chicago has the largest commuter rail network in the country outside of New York. I just really gotta laugh at you saying Chicago and Atlanta have similar sprawl...Chicago is far denser with the best transit in this country outside of New York.

And (in my opinion) Chicago is a MUCH more beautiful city than Atlanta. Have y'all seen downtown Atlanta? yuck... All the inner city neighborhoods look the same, all big ass generic single family homes right next to skyscrapers. Chicago suburbs are way better than Atlanta suburbs. Atlanta has no water nor mountain features. Yeah the city is hilly, but the hills aren't visible and pretty like Austin. Chicago has beautiful Lake Michigan anchoring one of the world's best skylines, beautiful unique brick architecture, and tree lined streets in distinct neighborhoods on a perfect grid.

Not hating on Atlanta, lived in the city for many years. It has its positives (relatively safer, warmer weather, big black middle class that most of Chicago lacks, hilly), but its not in Chicago's league and never will be.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

There is no transit out of suburbia in Atlanta. Chicago has the largest commuter rail network in the country outside of New York. I just really gotta laugh at you saying Chicago and Atlanta have similar sprawl...Chicago is far denser with the best transit in this country outside of New York.

And (in my opinion) Chicago is a MUCH more beautiful city than Atlanta. Have y'all seen downtown Atlanta? yuck... All the inner city neighborhoods look the same, all big ass generic single family homes right next to skyscrapers. Chicago suburbs are way better than Atlanta suburbs. Atlanta has no water nor mountain features. Yeah the city is hilly, but the hills aren't visible and pretty like Austin. Chicago has beautiful Lake Michigan anchoring one of the world's best skylines, beautiful unique brick architecture, and tree lined streets in distinct neighborhoods on a perfect grid.

Not hating on Atlanta, lived in the city for many years. It has its positives (relatively safer, warmer weather, big black middle class that most of Chicago lacks, hilly), but its not in Chicago's league and never will be.

I’ll co-sign to this general impression of Atlanta and Chicago. (Lived in FL but went to Atlanta often enough. FL entry-level wages in 2010 were $8.15 and rent $1,800 in FL, so bailed for the $18.00/hr wages and $600 rent in Chicago with classes on the side.)

I think people are missing the obvious

Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, Southern states had a MASSIVE rural population and very few established cities where they could go for opportunity. Most people do not want to move too far from home unless they are either very skilled and ambitious or very desperate.

One of the Southern cities was going to become a large metropolis no matter what. It just so happened to be Atlanta - with good access to railroads, ports, and major interstates. Not to mention being an excellent stop for people driving to and from Florida.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

Not hating on Atlanta, lived in the city for many years. It has its positives (relatively safer, warmer weather, big black middle class that most of Chicago lacks, hilly), but its not in Chicago's league and never will be.

Atlanta actually had a slightly higher murder rate than Chicago in 2021 (though they're virtually equal), though it's possible it's safer in some other metric.

[Steely Dan]

According to this link based November 2021 data, the Atlanta MSA has a median home price that's very much in line with the Chicago MSA.

Atlanta MSA: $325,700

Chicago MSA: $337,800

Source: https://www.nar.realtor/research-and...-affordability


That's a difference of only 3.7%.

[thegoatman]

January 2022 info

Atlanta - $364,550

Chicago - $346,469

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...egin_6pA6shFfm

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...e9caH23sNAMu_u


So yes, Atlanta is higher than Chicago. And again, you get paid more in Chicago. Atlanta also doesn't have the amenities that Chicago has.

[Steely Dan]

^ Jesus, the median home price has gone up $40K in Atlanta in only 3 months!

Yikes.

The sunbelt is no longer a "bargain" coming from the Midwest.

Sure, most of it is still considerably cheaper than bos-wash or Cali, but high housing costs are definitely not what's holding Chicago back relative to other major US cities.