CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Chi-Sky21]

Peoria would be a better choice.

[Halsted & Villagio]

All jokes aside, Chicago’s skyline is most definitely iconic, and one of the most recognizable in the world. Period. With that nonsense out of the way, let’s move on to the question of uniformity.

Personally, I find a skyline far more interesting and DYNAMIC if it has varying forms of architecture. See Chicago... see New York. Versus, say, Miami which has a very monochromatic skyline which I find quite boring. Same for Houston and Atlanta. No offense to those cities as they have fine skylines — but far from “dynamic” or very interesting skylines in my opinion.

Diversity and dynamism is what sets New York and Chicago’s skyline apart from just about any skyline in the world.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

All jokes aside, Chicago’s skyline is most definitely iconic, and one of the most recognizable in the world. Period. With that nonsense out of the way, let’s move on to the question of uniformity.

Personally, I find a skyline far more interesting and DYNAMIC if it has varying forms of architecture. See Chicago... see New York. Versus, say, Miami which has a very monochromatic skyline which I find quite boring. Same for Houston and Atlanta. No offense to those cities as they have fine skylines — but far from “dynamic” or very interesting skylines in my opinion.

Diversity and dynamism is what sets New York and Chicago’s skyline apart from just about any skyline in the world.

Miami is boring and sterile modern. If there was an entire city that was purely deco/gothic skyscrapers, it would be much more interesting. Traditional architecture to me looks better on the individual level but MUCH better as a uniform presentation across an entire city. A city of all modern glass or concrete just looks lifeless.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Miami is boring and sterile modern. If there was an entire city that was purely deco/gothic skyscrapers, it would be much more interesting. Traditional architecture to me looks better on the individual level but MUCH better as a uniform presentation across an entire city. A city of all modern glass or concrete just looks lifeless.

I agree. And as far as skyscraper cities go, Chicago and New York are the only two cities in all the world that combine deco/gothic/old/new/varying forms of architecture with towering skyscrapers. Shanghai has some of that. Even SF and LA have a little bit of that. But nobody has it on the level of NY and Chicago. That is something these modern all glass cities can never replicate. And it is a strong part of the reason why both NY/Chicago skylines are so interesting, compelling and dynamic.

[the urban politician]

No city, perhaps except NYC, has the majestic and monumental arrangement of skyscrapers Chicago has as well. The Mich Ave and Wacker cliffs come to mind.

Actually, the Chicago River canyon with the bridges is basically iconic. The fact that the Chicago River is so relatively narrow helps with that. Is there any city anywhere that has something close to it?

[RedCorsair87]

TUP- Why do you say "perhaps except NYC"? Chicago is gorgeous, but I always thought NYC has everything Chicago does and then some. I'm happy to be proven wrong (and I'm not trying to start a Chi v NYC fight).

[Steely Dan]

New York and Chicago are without question the two greatest skyscraper museums on the planet.

Here's one small indicator: in the 2013 edition of her NY Times bestseller, Skyscrapers, author Judith Dupre highlights 69 individual skyscrapers that are among the most famous, noteworthy, and iconic examples on the planet.

18 of them are from new York and 10 of them are from Chicago (a full 40% of the list, combined), both cities far exceeding any others in the number of entries.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by RedCorsair87

TUP- Why do you say "perhaps except NYC"? Chicago is gorgeous, but I always thought NYC has everything Chicago does and then some. I'm happy to be proven wrong (and I'm not trying to start a Chi v NYC fight).

Oh, I’m not talking about skyscraper variety. Chicago obviously can never beat NYC at that.

I’m just talking about the arrangement of what we have. I think that the vista down the Chicago river with the bridges is legendary and unique to Chicago—something that you won’t even find in NYC

[Rooted Arborial]

I have a strong preference for Chicago over New York. This has to do with levels of density and the degree to which it is possible to find different

perspectives whereby one can appreciate the creativity of the architecture. Manhattan is too dense and its richness of creativity is harder to appreciate

because it stifles itself - it feels harder to breathe in the thickness. Chicago feels brighter and, for me, it feels more energizing and inspirational.

A good example is the Chrysler building. It is terrific and fun, but to take it in you need to go to greater effort to get a good look at it because it is

continuously getting further buried by the ever-growing walls of Manhattan. Some people here seem to think density only improves a city as it increases.

I very much disagree. The best view from within Manhattan is from the top of the Metropolitan Museum of Art because of the available space.

Wanting too much of a good thing is a form of irresponsible behavior.

For me, Chicago needs to be more careful because it is in the process of reducing itself by seeking greater density.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

...
For me, Chicago needs to be more careful because it is in the process of reducing itself by seeking greater density.

Chicago will never have the density of New York unless there's some sort of water catastrophe that drives population to the Great Lakes.

Even in the most dense ten square miles, we're talking about only subsections that even exceed 50,000 ppsm, vs much of Manhattan exceeding 100,000 ppsm. Once the Central Area, which is a city-designated area surrounding the Loop that is only about 8 square miles, is fully built out, density overall in that area will *maybe* hit 40,000 ppsm. Subsections will be at higher densities, but many won't even hit 35,000ppsm. Current density in the Central Area, overall, is about 25,000 ppsm. Those are residential. For jobs, the current, pre-COVID numbers were around 600,000 jobs in the Central Area. That might hit 800,000 at full build out, which is about 100,000 jpsm, but mostly concentrated in the Loop, Fulton Market, and Michigan Avenue, with "the 78" probably, hopefully, adding a lot of new jobs, too.

Outside of the Central Area, only a few areas even match Brooklyn levels of density and gentrification means reduced densities before it creates higher densities, if it even ever does.

[Rooted Arborial]

Originally Posted by emathias

Chicago will never have the density of New York unless there's some sort of water catastrophe that drives population to the Great Lakes.

Even in the most dense ten square miles, we're talking about only subsections that even exceed 50,000 ppsm, vs much of Manhattan exceeding 100,000 ppsm. Once the Central Area, which is a city-designated area surrounding the Loop that is only about 8 square miles, is fully built out, density overall in that area will *maybe* hit 40,000 ppsm. Subsections will be at higher densities, but many won't even hit 35,000ppsm. Current density in the Central Area, overall, is about 25,000 ppsm. Those are residential. For jobs, the current, pre-COVID numbers were around 600,000 jobs in the Central Area. That might hit 800,000 at full build out, which is about 100,000 jpsm, but mostly concentrated in the Loop, Fulton Market, and Michigan Avenue, with "the 78" probably, hopefully, adding a lot of new jobs, too.

Outside of the Central Area, only a few areas even match Brooklyn levels of density and gentrification means reduced densities before it creates higher densities, if it even ever does.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your measures are dubious and simplistic. The negative effects of increased density are not limited to the presence of humans. I'm talking about breathing

space and avoiding the walled-in glut of mind-numbing excessiveness which is most of Manhattan. Certainly, Chicago is not there, but the city is heading into

becoming less healthy with each added tower. Chicago seems determined to prove that more is less - even though New York long ago proved that is the case.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your measures are dubious and simplistic. The negative effects of increased density are not limited to the presence of humans. I'm talking about breathing

space and avoiding the walled-in glut of mind-numbing excessiveness which is most of Manhattan. Certainly, Chicago is not there, but the city is heading into

becoming less healthy with each added tower. Chicago seems determined to prove that more is less - even though New York long ago proved that is the case.

Design is the issue, not density. If density was the problem every American would look to Europe or Japan as a "walled in glut of mind-numbing excessiveness" rather than an alluring vacation destination. Paris, for example has nearly 3x the population density of Chicago in many places yet people aren't decrying the excessiveness of the city. Bad design (and also bad politicians) makes a city bad, not density.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your measures are dubious and simplistic. The negative effects of increased density are not limited to the presence of humans. I'm talking about breathing

space and avoiding the walled-in glut of mind-numbing excessiveness which is most of Manhattan. Certainly, Chicago is not there, but the city is heading into

becoming less healthy with each added tower. Chicago seems determined to prove that more is less - even though New York long ago proved that is the case.

You're the one who used the descriptor of density to describe your complaint. My measures are based in hard facts and only simplistic because all you listed as a complaint was density. If you have a problem with my answer, it's actually with your poorly-expressed complaint, so try actually writing more than three sentences if you want a serious conversation. Otherwise you're just a troll.

[marothisu]

The 2019 American Community Survey is out (1 yr). I have been taking a look. Here's some statistics for Cook County regarding foreign born population.

2018-2019, Top countries for increase in change living in Cook County, IL. Born in:
1. China: +7001 people
2. El Salvador: +3815 people
3. Honduras: +2452 people
4. Japan: +2363 people
5. Italy: +2291 people
6. Guatemala: +2216 people
7. Kazakhstan: +1965 people
8. Egypt: +1785 people
9. Venezuela: +1690 people
10. Iran: +1674 people
11. Jordan: +1667 people
12. Bulgaria: +1596 people
13. Ireland: +1494 people
14. Pakistan: +1382 people
15. Ecuador: +1364 people
16. Bosnia and Herzegovina: +1319 people
17. Switzerland: +1008 people
18. Panama: +958 people
19. Spain: +897 people
20. Guyana: +887 people
21. Nepal: +830 people
22. Chile: +778 people
23. Jamaica: +717 people
24. Israel: +693 people
25. France: +663 people

Regionally, also:
Other Western Africa: +2085 people
Other Northern Africa: +1812 people
Asia, not specified: +1252 people
Other Eastern Europe: +1125 people
Other South Central Asia: +1075 people

2018-2019, Top countries for decrease in change living in Cook County, IL. Born in:

1. Mexico: -12,310 people
2. Poland: -9426 people
3. India: -7246 people
4. Korea: -3431 people
5. Vietnam: -3230 people
6. Philippines: -2353 people
7. Haiti: -2210 people
8. Germany: -2140 people
9. Morocco: -2138 people
10. Russia: -1339 people
11. Nigeria: -1318 people
12. Canada: -1269 people
13. Greece: -1207 people
14. Syria: -1122 people
15. Lithuania: -1027 people
16. Moldova: -947 people
17. Cuba: -831 people
18. Cambodia: -816 people
19. Czechoslovakia: -806 people
20. Saudi Arabia: -789 people
21. Albania: -738 people
22. Romania: -706 people
23. Singapore: -510 people
24. Barbados: -444 people
25. Netherlands: -436 people

[the urban politician]

^ A lot going on there.

Nearly all of the loss of Mexicans is being made up for from immigrants from Central and South America. I wonder if they are headed to Chicago or to suburbs like Cicero, etc?

Also, the loss in Indians is alarming. Is the decline also happening in Chicago or is it mostly occurring from Cook County suburbs?

Indians typically gravitate to the burbs but I’m still surprised that Cook County is seeing a decline since much of the County consists of suburbs. Are they simply moving further out to Lake, Dupage, Will County, etc or leaving the region altogether?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ A lot going on there.

Nearly all of the loss of Mexicans is being made up for from immigrants from Central and South America. I wonder if they are headed to Chicago or to suburbs like Cicero, etc?

Also, the loss in Indians is alarming. Is the decline also happening in Chicago or is it mostly occurring from Cook County suburbs?

Indians typically gravitate to the burbs but I’m still surprised that Cook County is seeing a decline since much of the County consists of suburbs. Are they simply moving further out to Lake, Dupage, Will County, etc or leaving the region altogether?

Unfortunately a lot of data is not available. Cook County is really the only county in Illinois available that you can compare the same studies for 2019 and 2018.

For Indians there's probably a few explanations. One is that they could be moving into other suburbs outside of Cook County. No idea though because that data isn't available yet. Another reason has to do with many Indian IT consultants - I have worked with many of them who have worked/lived everywhere from the Bay Area to Chicago to NYC to Bentonville, AR. The third explanation is visa rules are causing many to go back to India as the percentage of visa rejections, even for a simple visa transfer, has gone way up in the last 2-3 years. And speaking from personal experience on this - it's hurt my company, which is one of the largest American companies (NOT a tech company - but many tech workers). Anyway, not to get too political..


Santa Clara County, CA (San Jose) lost even more India-born people than Cook County in the same time period. Harris County, TX (Houston) and Alameda County, CA (SF) lost over 5500 each. Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix) was the big winner at almost +9400. The Los Angeles area also gained nearly 5000.

Can't know for certain though with Chicago area until the other counties have data. That will come either next month or December.





In "honor" of the top group for Chicago (China), this is how it compares to some other counties in the country for 2018 to 2019:

Orange County, CA (LA): +8286 people
Fairfax County, VA (DC): +7171 people
Cook County, IL (Chicago): +7001 people
Brooklyn, NY (NYC): +6444 people
Santa Clara County, CA (San Jose): +6356 people
King County, WA (Seattle): +4768 people
Philadelphia County, PA (Philadelphia): +3658 people
Broward County, FL (Miami): +2878 people
Manhattan, NY (NYC): +1478 people
Dallas County, TX (Dallas): +1392 people
Clark County, NV (Las Vegas): +1280 people
Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix): +564 people
Alameda County, CA (SF): +528 people
Montgomery County, MD (DC): +132 people
Riverside County, CA (Riverside, CA): -38 people
San Diego County, CA (San Diego): -884 people
Bergen County, NJ (NYC): -947 people
Harris County, TX (Houston): -1176 people
Palm Beach County, FL (Miami): -1292 people
Nassau County, NY (NYC): -1421 people
Westchester County, NY (NYC): 1514 people
Queens, NY (NYC): -1745 people
Middlesex County, MA (Boston): -1922 people
Miami-Dade County, FL (Miami): -3518 people
Contra Costa County, CA (SF): -3727 people
San Mateo County, CA (SF): -7133 people
Los Angeles County, CA (LA): -13,816 people

The city of San Francisco lost 13,460 people born in China from 2017 to 2019.

[the urban politician]

^ Interesting...and unexpected. Cook/Chicago seems to be becoming a more recent magnet for Chinese immigration.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Interesting...and unexpected. Cook/Chicago seems to be becoming a more recent magnet for Chinese immigration.

Yes, a big reason is because real estate is cheaper whether downtown or in an area like West Elsdon, Bridgeport, etc. A lot of Chinese buyers for homes in areas like West Elsdon, Brighton Park, Archer Heights, etc in the last handful of years. You can get a house for pretty cheap. Or you can buy a 2 or 3 unit building and rent out too..cheaper buildings. Areas like South Loop, Streeterville, West Loop/near Pilsen, parts of River North, and also parts of Lincoln Park have seen big uptick in the Chinese population. There's actually a handful of legitimately authentic Chinese restaurants in Lincoln Park now.

The authentic Chinese food quality has become noticeably better in the last decade. There's also a massive new Chinese grocery store on Jefferson near Cermak now like you'll find on the west coast. Bunch of restaurants and housing coming there. It's a big deal for the Chinese community. New hotel coming around there too. Pretty much a major geographic expansion of Chinatown.

I've seen chatter on whether it can handle it. Quite literally Chicago is in the top 3 cities in America lately for people from China. The born in China population growth in the city proper alone will end up being around +20,000 between 2010 and mid 2020, potentially more.

Only issue of late is as crime has spiked, the reputation has gone down a little. There's a reason though why lower cost metro like Chicago and Philadelphia have increased for this population. Housing costs play a big role.

[Chi-Sky21]

7K+ Chinese moving to our nations capital basically is very interesting.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

7K+ Chinese moving to our nations capital basically is very interesting.

Diplomats and staff, businessmen and women and their families...and spies maybe?

Doesn't seem unreasonable..