The is the last of three installments on Chicago as a global city, and is also part of my “State of Chicago” series.
Chicago is definitely in a global city in any definition, but if you parse apart its economy, the global city part is smaller than is generally believed, and in any case is too small to carry the city, region, and state alone. Chicago is in many respects a regional capital like Atlanta, with an economy still tied heavily to its regional hinterland.
I’d also like to point out that Chicago is completely missing various pieces of the global city puzzle. I don’t want to make these out to be bigger than they are, but if civic boosters can cite things like the legitimately top rank culinary scene as evidence for Chicago’s robustness, then I think it’s fair to look at the other side.
The biggest issue by far is Chicago’s weakness as a media center. Chicago has never really been a huge media center, even domestically much less internationally. With the changes in the media business over the last decade or so, whatever stature Chicago had as a media center has basically been wiped out.
I outlined this a while back in a piece over at New Geography called “The Collapse of Chicago Media.”
Some folks criticized the piece because I did not mention items like Chicago Magazine or the local NPR station. So perhaps I should clarify. I’m not suggesting that Chicago lacks the same sort of local media every other decent sized city has. Of course it does. But rather that Chicago is not a national center of media importance.
This is vitally important when it comes to getting a city’s message out. The global media is saturated with information about New York, LA, Washington, and even the Bay Area when it comes to tech. But there’s seldom much global coverage of Chicago. That explains why Chicago needs to bring in events like the NATO summit to generate exposure. You expect smaller cities like Indianapolis to need to do things like host Super Bowls to get major media coverage, but for a city that aspires to be prominent on the global stage, the lack of media is a major challenge.
I should note that I omitted mentioning “Superstation” WGN which still is carried around the country I believe, as well as some smaller outfits like Journatic. I probably should also have mentioned magazines like Ebony and Jet. But I believe the point still stands.
Beyond media, fashion is another area of weakness. Crain’s Chicago Business ran a story called “Runway Doesn’t Lead to Local Fashion Scene” that noted how, despite producing quality fashion design graduates, the city has yet to create a fashion industry or scene.
The piece quotes someone saying that the Midwest is a “kind of a sweats and flip-flops society. Until the mainstream keys in, Chicago’s fashion scene is not going to be created.” You seldom see Chicago datelines on photos in fashion blogs like the Sartorialist or Facehunter. Without a fashion culture locally, it’s hard to see a fashion industry taking root. If Chicago is a 10 out of 10 on food, it’s probably more like a 5 out of 10 on fashion.
I could perhaps cite some other areas, but these are two where the verdict is pretty clear. Again, for smaller regional or national cities, none of these is a big deal. Even for Chicago in terms of the quality of life for its residents, it probably doesn’t make a huge difference (though Chicago could perhaps use stronger media that isn’t just obsessed with local and hyperlocal). But when you stake your claim to be one of the top global cities in the world, these sorts of gaps in the story add up.
Historically, Chicago media (and I include literature in this, not just news media) has been distinguished by its gritty nature and anti-glamour, anti-BS style. Think of some of the writers and journalists associated with the great age of Chicago literature: Dreiser, Sinclair, Veblen, Lardner. Maybe we need to renew this tradition, and leave the fashion industry to others.
The left-wing magazine “In These Times,” which does have something of a national reach, values its Chicago location precisely because it is away from the big media/politics complex in NY and DC, hence less susceptible to being seduced or bamboozled by the sort of people who think Thomas Friedman is a fount of wisdom. Not saying you have to agree with their editorial stance, but they deserve some respect for their independence.
Much the same can be said of the local theater scene. Many people (and not just in America) consider it the best scene for serious theater in the whole country, since it’s not infected with the glitz, glamour and money madness of Broadway.
In short: be different, be original and (where needed) be adversarial. Don’t just imitate.
I agree with the conclusion that Chicago is more of a regional capital. However, it has the FEEL of a global city, perhaps more so than any other city between the costs. It also has global aspirations. Give it credit where credit is due, and, as you have been doing, call it where it falls short.
Since you brought up fashion…The one thing that was emblematic of Chicago’s very midwest vibe (and leaves it behind every coastal, European or Asian city I’m aware of) was its pathetic dance music scene. There was one mega club for the tourists, the Smart Bar, and a few gay spots. That’s it. The rest of the night life was bars/pubs with top forty – drinking and yelling – no dancing. Several Lounges had djs, but no one danced on the tiny floors (careful, don’t break the vase). The Chicago House scene is mostly middle aged, often married w/ kids BUPpies. That’s great that they’re still going, but why’s everyone else so stiff? In global cities like NY, London, DC, LA, Tokyo, a third+ of the people out on any given Saturday are at a dance club. They have dozens of options. In Chicago, people from MI OH IN WI IA and MN just sit around and drink.
^ Anon, what a bunch of inane nonsense.
Aaron, you seem to have turned this series into a soundboard of everything that is wrong with Chicago.
If you took a microscope to any “global city” as you have chosen to do to Chicago, you would find “holes” in the global fabric.
Anybody off the street could tell you that Chicago is not a media/entertainment hub as LA/NYC are. Who doesn’t know that? But then neither is SF. Frankly, neither are Hong Kong or Tokyo.
You really lost me on this one.
Also, Aaron, you never addressed my commentary that being the “purveyor” to midwest industries naturally makes Chicago a globally connected city. This is a problem for your thesis that being a regional capital of the great lakes somehow precludes Chicago’s “global status”.
I think you need to better job to develop that point, if that is even possible. I’m not sure that it is..
Wow, I’m waiting to see you pick LA or some other city apart. I don’t know if it’s a bit of that hostility from being from Indianapolis, but you do seem to have it in for Chicago for some reason….
It’s been an interesting series and I’ve learned a bit more about Chicago.
There still seems to be much confusion over what a “global city” actually is. In earlier posts you seem to put “advanced producer and financial services” as the key in determining this. But now here you’re saying Chicago isn’t fully global because of media and fashion. Both of these, especially the fashion part, seem as secondary to me as the culinary scene is in your view.
In your “what is a global city” post you mentioned that some of the lists seemed pre-determined and the people making the lists were using the metrics that fit their pre-determinations. Here you seem to have pre-determined that Chicago isn’t fully global, and are searching for areas that fit your theory. It seems all these list-makers and rankers do this to some degree, perhaps it’s unavoidable.
Personally, I’d concentrate on the economics, trade flows, and perhaps political influence and wouldn’t worry too much about the fashion, music, or culinary scene – those things tend to follow wealth anyway if we’re talking about the high-falutin’ stuff (classical music for example). Once we get past the basic econ/political measurements of global influence and connectivity, it’s really just down to someones opinion: “you have to be a fashion center to be truly global”. Yeah? Well I say you don’t. So there.
Dave,
That’s kind of what I’m trying to say.
Aaron keeps saying Chicago is “part global, part regional capital” but what does that even mean?
If the companies in the region that you serve have global reach, then isn’t that a kind of a meaningless statement?
Sounds to me as if Aaron is just trying to pick and choose his own arbitrary criteria that make a city “global” without any basis in anything.
Finally, here’s one more thought: if a city “feels like a global city” then it probably is one. I’d like to see somebody prove me otherwise.
“Global city” status appears to be so exclusive as to include only NYC. Fine.
Maybe LA, sometimes. Maybe. If we go by high visibility industry like media/fashion, but not by total economy.
I think TUP and Dave pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Comparing any city to NYC is kind of pointless. Comparing any city in the world to LA for media is just as pointless. Almost all media coverage of DC has absolutely nothing to do with the city of Washington itself, it is coverage of the Federal Government. That is a very important distinction to make.
Chicago should not waste a single second or penny trying to become a media or fashion center. What Chicago does need to do is invest to protect and grow it’s strong areas (i.e. transportation, commodities, consumer goods) and look for new opportunities based on the available workforce and resources . Recent growth in tech start ups is a good example of a new area to look to for growth, as is recent attempts to grow tourism.
Ultimately Chicago has a lot more in common with “world class” cities like Manchester, Frankfort, or Milan than with London or NYC. It is ultimately the biggest of the “Second Cities” worldwide. There is nothing wrong with that, the focus should be on growing Chicago’s strengths while looking for new opportunities, not comparing it to random cities based on the other city’s strengths.
A forum for discussing what’s lacking in Chicago is a good thing because so many Chicagoans love to bloviate on how much better their city is compared to where they grew up (which is somewhere in the midwest for 80 percent).
Chicago is just a large midwestern city. It has all the strengths and weakness of its neighbors. Hardworking, generally honest people, but also hundreds of thousands surviving on crime and subsidies. Beautiful architecture on boring topography. Lots of man-made marvels to fill the time when its too hot or too cold to be outside (1/2 the year). Good universities and corp hqs, but too few start ups. As far as arts and amenities, there’s nothing in Chicago that’s not in Indy or Columbus in proportional quantity.
The only thing great about Chicago is its superiority complex. Chicago is Minneapolis sitting on Detroit and yelling “I’m King of the World.”
“The only thing great about Chicago is its superiority complex. Chicago is Minneapolis sitting on Detroit and yelling “I’m King of the World.””
Really, former Chicagoan? That’s the only thing that’s great about Chicago?
This blog is losing its focus. Aaron the Chicago series is getting a little tiresome.
I struggle with Chicago being a global city, because on one side that is almost needed in today’s & future society. On the other hand, should we try hard to become things we are not? Are we going to force it and “imitate” (as another poster said) in order to reach that goal? Can we just work hard to keep our city running, functional, amazing for the people that live here and let the rest happen naturally? Of course, people have to create movement in many different areas to push progress along, but I also believe there can be a natural push and flow to it as well. I’d hate to see this city become something that other people expect us to be, rather than what we truly are.
I do believe it also must be noted that many people have perceptions about Chicago, Chicagoans, and the Midwest, and that’s part of the problem we are facing. No matter what strides we make as a large city in the United States, there are still many people internationally (and even nationally) that won’t shake the perception they have of us. Most know DC because of our politics. New York is OUR global city. Los Angeles is Hollywood – honestly, they don’t even have to try in any other areas because of Hollywood, how does THAT make them a global city? Simply because they are KNOWN globally? What’s the good in that?
I’ve always said…. New York is the world’s city, Chicago is the United States’ city. It’s working class, gritty, natural, green, tough. We should keep striving towards success, a better business sector, more green initiatives… we should keep striving for excellence. But we shouldn’t pretend or force ourselves to be something we are not for the sake of changing people’s minds about us. They need to figure that out for themselves. If people don’t know about Chicago, then they aren’t taking an opportunity to educate themselves.
“Ultimately Chicago has a lot more in common with “world class” cities like Manchester, Frankfort, or Milan than with London or NYC. It is ultimately the biggest of the “Second Cities” worldwide. There is nothing wrong with that, the focus should be on growing Chicago’s strengths while looking for new opportunities, not comparing it to random cities based on the other city’s strengths.”
Attrill – eloquently stated. I concur.
former: “As far as arts and amenities, there’s nothing in Chicago that’s not in Indy or Columbus in proportional quantity”
But not in quality. Institutions like the Art Institute, Chicago Symphony, and Lyric Opera are among the best in the world, not just the country.
Civis Romanus Sum, I beg to differ. For example, the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis is certainly world-class and is usually considered to be the best there is.
The Children’s Museum of Paris is amazing….
“This blog is losing its focus. Aaron the Chicago series is getting a little tiresome.”
Mr. Renn has lost his focus. The Chicago series at this point is just plain stupid. I am sure Mr. Renn realizes this, but he has some hang up that he can’t let go.
“As far as arts and amenities, there’s nothing in Chicago that’s not in Indy or Columbus in proportional quantity”
That is a blatantly false statement. Off the top of my head I know that neither city has a pro baseball team, the dining options in Chicago are in an entirely different league, and how about the amenity of public transportation? From a business perspective there are also plenty of businesses in Columbus and Indianapolis that use Chicago firms for professional services like PR, advertising, legal counsel, etc. The reverse is not true in any appreciable numbers.
That isn’t to say that Columbus or Indianapolis aren’t great places to live – they are. But saying they are mini-Chicagos is just as ludicrous as calling Chicago a min-New York.
Thanks for the comments – and all the kind words 😉
Again, as people with much bigger platforms than me (including a big article in the Tribune just this week) are constantly talking about Chicago’s culinary scene, theater, etc. as among the best in the world and illustrative of the city’s power, it’s only fair someone point out other areas.
As this is the section of my series on “framing the problems” the focus is of course on those. The next section on changes is going to start with a post about the positive things Rahm has been doing.
BTW: Oprah dumped Chicago.
TUP, what you are saying is similar to what I think Chicago’s focus ought to be re:global city. Namely that it should seek to be the Midwest’s global gateway. I will develop this further in a future post, but clearly the rest of the Midwest needs Chicago for access to global networks they can’t directly reach.
Atrill is a perfect example of my point. You should get out more.
Every mw city has pro sports (especially Columbus, Ann Arbor and Madison)
Every mw city has mass transit and none of it is convenient.
You can attend professional opera in any mw city.
Every mw city has every type of ethnic restuarant plus avant garde foodie places that combine foodstuff is wierd ways.
Ever mw city provides prof services for smaller cities nearby. Yes Chi is the center of our struggling region.
I lived in Chi 03-08. Chi has more gentrified neighbors, but also more blighted neighborhoods. Other than size, there is very little that distinguishes it from other mw cities.
I’ve followed the dying Chicago vs growing Chicago debate since my studies at USC in the mid 90s and seems its a debate that will never end. What’s important now is to look to the future and how well positioned cities are to adapt to the new global economic realities of narrowed capital flows and in this regard Chicago is doing a great job of attracting foreign direct investments but not so good in banking headquarters. So which is more important? It seems attracting capital is better than having giant banks on federal life support, who knows if the mega banks propped up on wall street will even be relevant in ten years. My observation is built infrastructure on which to build the future is most important and this is where Chicago really has potential. It’s a city built for 4 million people not including the suburbs, and a third of this land is basically used as a holding pen for the poor. No global city has so much built out empty prime real estate just ready to be redeveloped so close to its core. It’s potential as a densely populated, residential city with access to transportation for its residents is unrivaled if only the city could attract the residents and end the poverty industry on the west and south sides. For global businesses it could be the best place to plant a flag in North America. Sadly, it will take a major spike in oil costs or restructuring the welfare state to effectively release this potential. As of today the suburban flight and crime fears still drive the majority of settlement in the metro region.
I’d like to add in the radio and early television days Chicago was a major media hub due to its centrality and the limits of broadcasting antenae. Technology and the preference of media talent on where to reside ended that.
former Chicagoan says:
Every mw city has every type of ethnic restuarant plus avant garde foodie places that combine foodstuff is wierd ways.
True but, every mw city does not have several large ethnic districts that are pumping out authentic, good food for the diverse populations it represents. That’s where the differences are. Chicago’s large Mexican population gives it an edge in the midwest, and maybe even in the entire northeastern U.S. for mexican cuisine. Check any legit food magazine, blog or writer and you will realize this. Also while you may have Greek, Chinese, Indian and other cuisines in your town, ethnic restaurants here have been changing and upgrading due to a younger more sophisticated palate.
former: “You can attend professional opera in any mw city”
OK let’s take this as an example. There’s still that quality / quantity difference. Note for instance that Indianapolis Opera puts on a grand total of 3 productions per year, while Lyric Opera in Chicago puts on 9. And if you want to see the world’s best singers and musicians on a regular basis, you’ll have to go to Chicago, not “any MW city.” What’s more, Lyric isn’t even the only opera company in Chicago.
The biggest metropolises really are different. They’re not just blown-up versions of smaller cities.
I agree with much of Aaron’s overall point.
It’s not unreasonable to believe that, with the third largest MSA, Chicago would be either a leader in the media/creative field or at minimum in its first tier.
For our size and footprint (MSA and CSA) the scale of what is produced here is a lot lower than it should be. Chicago should be producing work here in Chicago, made by local artists, featuring local above the line talent and using local tech crews.
And arguments about cultural trends and strengths aside, artists and people in the media field still produce goods and services, and the health of local, sustainable businesses are an important metric to be measured.
I am surprised there are not more TV shows locally produced here, particularly when TV viewership has splintered from “broadcasting” to “narrowcasting” and budgets have shrunk accordingly. It would be significantly cheaper for shows to be produced here as opposed to NYC and LA…you know, THE two MOST expensive cities in the country in terms of costs of living/basic infrastructure costs.
We lost Oprah, of course, and are gaining one national talk show (Steve Harvey). We have Windy City Live (WLS) and a smattering of locally produced programs on WTTW. But I am surprised that Chicago isn’t the home to more production. And yes, it’s great when a film shoots here, but those tend to be short term vs a permanent production.
I’m concerned about what will happen with Harpo Studios – it’s sitting empty most of the time and an ultimate closure of the space seems inevitable. That would have a potentially devastating impact on the West Loop. I don’t want to overplay or overemphasize Oprah’s importance, but I think the effects of her departure have been underreported or minimized.
The old paragons of print journalism are on incredibly unsteady ground, with both newspapers in bankruptcy over the last several years and the Johnson Publishing Company (Essence/Jet) in transition as well. (And I do understand that’s a GLOBAL transition happening to media, not just a Chicago problem.)
I don’t want to discount WGN (TV) completely, but its main strength seems to be its newscasts (and its meteorologist) and beyond that, it’s just another channel that carries repeats of syndicated shows.
The one consistent area of strength in Chicago media is public TV and radio, with some NPR/WBEZ programs (like This American Life) and Chicago Public Radio’s Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, recorded in the Loop. Chicago does, it should be noted, also have a very strong international/foreign language media presence, with many stations and networks either having US HQ’s here or who have a Chicago office/bureau.
It is puzzling, since we have the people/talent and the technology. But the investment hasn’t been there.
Chicago can’t even seem to have a sustainable media museum. The Tribune reported yesterday that the Museum of Broadcast Communications, open three months, is struggling to pay its bills.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-31/news/ct-ent-0829-broadcast-museum-20120831_1_broadcast-museum-broadcast-communications-mortgage-loan
It was under construction for years (8 or more from groundbreaking to completion, including time in the middle where it was paused b/c of funding issues) and is still apparently not in a state of sustainability. Seems like a metaphor for the city’s weakness in the media field.
Pointing out that Chicago and Indianopolis both have approximately one Opera production per 1 million population in the MSA is evidence that Chicago is not just a large Midwest city?
btw, every mw city has ethnic neighborhoods.
NY, LA, DC, etc. really are different. Chicago is not. If people in Chicago recognized that, instead of being full of themselves, maybe they would be looking for ways to improve cities like ours.
former: I guess you missed my quality-related point, and also that “Lyric isn’t even the only opera company in Chicago.” Indianapolis also has a minor-league baseball team, and despite any jokes you might crack about Chicago baseball, they’re not competing on the same level.
“ways to improve cities like ours”
What specifically do you have in mind?
I think there’s a clear distinction between what Chicago has to offer, and other Midwest cities. However, I think that generally the gap between Chicago and elsewhere has considerably narrowed. When I first moved to Chicago in 1992, you couldn’t get a decent cup of coffee in most Midwest cities. While Chicago was nowhere near where it is today, other cities were (with an exceptional bit here and there, like the famed Maisonette restaurant in Cincinnati) pretty much like Siberia.
Today in most cities you can get excellent locally brewed beer, top quality micro-roasted coffee, excellent food with lots of farm to table type offerings, etc. And with the internet and things like the Met Opera simulcast, much of what you don’t have (like super high end fashion) can be obtained without too much trouble.
I’m not yet blogging this since I’m still noodling it, but I think part of the difference between Chicago in the 90s and 00s is that back in the 90s Chicago was the only Midwest game in town, and today, even for hip Gen Y folks, there are other real options. I think that’s a clear factor in why Atlanta has stumbled. Places like Charlotte, Nashville, and Raleigh are giving it something it never had before – competition.
While Chicago continues to offer an unmatched urban lifestyle, I don’t think Chicago can simply expect to attract the Midwest cream of the crop like it used to. More and more people are staying at home and/or are being attracted to other regional cities. The OECD study suggested that Chicago does not have exceptionally high inflow of the educated.
I think it’s important to point out that, despite the size difference, the other Midwest metro areas are sufficiently large enough to hold their own against Chicago from time to time.
Indianapolis can compete Chicago (NFL, etc) in ways that a mid-sized city like Fort Wayne, for example, cannot.
Correction: the word “with” should be between the words “compete” and “Chicago” in the second paragraph.
Aaron, are you suggesting that “the cities-lite” (metros of 1.5-2.5 million) are competing successfully with “the city lights” (of the top 10 metros)?
If Gen Y is driving this change, is it their debt load and job prospects keeping them closer to “home” in less-expensive cities while they still demand urban amenities?
Or are they second-generation suburbanites who actually prefer sprawling vs. dense metros? Either could result in a preference for “cities-lite”.
Chris, it’s hard to say, since you don’t see a huge number of bake off type competitions for people. But I do think that those smaller cities now have what it takes to be in the talent game. The choice is no longer between civilization and exile. It’s between two civilized places, with tradeoffs to be made between them in terms of urbanism, cost, traffic, certain amenities, opportunity, etc.
Migration is down, student debt levels and such are up. That might well keep people closer to home but I haven’t seen data on it.
Chris, you are even seeing this in Philly, which started to turn around in the 2000s, gaining population for the first time since 1950. Now people who would never have given it a second look consider it a potential alternative to NYC. See:
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/ex-new-yorkers-start-again-philly/
MetroCard, definitely some cities are stronger than other. I tend to use a rule of thumb that you need a regional population of 1-1.5 million to have minimum scale to compete, or be a state capital with a population over 500,000. There will probably be exceptions, but clearly this is an urban/metro favorable time, and so real cities are the ones that are most likely to be able to thrive.
Aaron, you might as well just call it “the Madison exception”.
Madison’s strength is the combination of original liberal/counterculture brand (with Berkeley), major university and state capital of a decent-sized state. MSP, Columbus, and even Indy share the capital-university pair. (Lincoln would qualify, but Nebraska is too sparsely populated a state.) Austin has leveraged this position with its climate to create the Sunbelt version of Madison.
Lansing is an exception in the opposite direction, probably doomed because the sheer mass of SE Mich (Ann Arbor/Detroit) still dominates Michigan, and possibly also because Mich State is the A&M school. In MSP, Columbus, Madison, and Indy the general “Big State U” and A&M universities are in the same school.
Chris, this doesn’t apply fully in other regions, but you can look at say Des Moines (a capital without the state university), which is doing extremely well. Lansing is less than 500,000 metro. (As is Ann Arbor, whose statistics in population growth and such that I used for my original research into this actually isn’t that strong a place compared to Madison). Some even smaller cities like Fargo appear to be doing well however.
Re Philly: I lived there when it was still the fourth-largest city/metro. It has the transportation, civic, and suburban infrastructure of a great city. Still. Not to mention a big collection of colleges and universities and pre-eminent grad schools of business, law, and medicine.
No wonder the kids have discovered it.
It would also feel similar to NYC because of its immigrant and ethnic mix, including a substantial Jewish population. (As late as the 80’s, Philadelphia public schools took days off for the Jewish High Holy days, though that was probably more for teachers than students by then.)
Even if its orchestra has fallen out of the Big 5. 🙂
The problem with Plains states (possibly including Iowa) is that they are all smaller in population than a good-sized metro. The Dakotas and Montana’s combined population would make for a mid-20 rank metro. All of Iowa has fewer people than MSP. Nebraska is about the same population as Indy (metro).
And so the corn-ethanol and shale-gas booms have had disproportionately large percentage economic growth effects in Iowa, Nebraska and the Dakotas. Plus, as the Plains states’ rural counties empty, the in-state cities are the beneficiaries.
Yes, those states and cities tell a story but it’s a mix of boomtown and emptying hinterlands that distort stats.
Hit send before last line: Filtering for the noise would be hard; time and the decline of drilling and ethanol subsidies will tell.
Philadelphia (where I lived briefly) also has some unique local attractions. Along with Boston, it’s one of the most European cities in America, at least in the center. It has its own signature cuisine, some great historic neighborhoods, and a characterful mix of high civilization and proletarian toughness. And it’s where the USA officially began, which should give it some special status for all of us. The long decay and neglect of this city was a real shame. If “the kids have discovered it,” that’s great.
As a native New Yorker who lived in Chicago for more than 35 years and spent time in most of the world’s major urban centers, I can’t blame Chicago for aspiring to be a top-tier city.
It has the architectural presence, cultural dynamism, economic strengths and political influence (for better or worse) to qualify for at least consideration of such status.
But it doesn’t quite make the cut. Here’s why:
Unlike such consensus world class cities as Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Paris and New York, Chicago’s identity is primarily regional, its interests predominantly local. It sees itself as an urban setting with a small-town feel.
I would wager that most people on the East Coast hardly know exactly where Chicago is.
If you think about what distinguishes Chicago today as a city and as a brand, you find that its identity is based largely on things local and past.
The city originated and grew as a transportation hub — water, rail, air — during the country’s expansion. As a result, it became a major commercial center. But its transportation and commercial importance has diminished.
The city’s narrative emphasizes earlier historical periods: The Great Fire of 1871, the Columbian Exposition of 1893, the Haymarket Riots, Prohibition, the age of skyscrapers (aside from the earliest ones, there are basically only two of any renown: Willis Tower — still known locally as Sears Tower — and the Hancock Center), the Race Riots of the 1960s.
Of the major personalities most closely associated with Chicago — Daniel Burnham, Jane Addams, Marshall Field, George Pullman, Louis Sullivan, Carl Sandburg, Saul Bellow, Al Capone, the Mayors Daley, Enrico Fermi, Ray Kroc, Jesse Jackson, Michael Jordan, Dick Butkus, and let’s not forget Harry Caray! — only a few had impact on the world stage and none are influential today.
Its iconic images — the Loop, Wrigley Field, the skyline, Lake Shore Drive, the Water Tower, State Street — may be beloved by residents but, in truth, have scant resonance on a global scale.
So I think Aaron is basically right in taking the city’s problems into account. Chicago finds itself at a critical juncture. It is losing population, violent crime goes unchecked, the public school system is unaccountable and self-serving (a teachers’ strike looms), its politics is authoritarian and inbred, its coffers are empty. No doubt, it has a lively culinary and entertainment scene and a colorful history. But it needs to worry less about its image as a global city and focus more on growing as a Midwest economic and cultural center, one that will spark new ideas and attract investment and talent.
I agree with some of the other commenters that Chicago is too regionally focused to be considered a consensus global city. It’s much more similar to Dallas and Atlanta than NYC & LA. It’s essentially a regional hegemon.
Or, looking at Europe, It feels (to me, at least) like a bigger Hamburg, Manchester, type city than one that is truly global. I mean, the issue is, if you have to argue the point, then it probably isn’t global. No one’s going to argue whether or not Paris is global.
Some interesting perspective from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/03/chicago-welcome-to-obamatown?fb=optOut
Chicago was a media center of radio in 30’s-early 50’s and ascendency of television. It strength in radio was due to geographic location … time zone and reach of AM transmitters to largest audience. Since Chicago didn’t have depth of theater (NYC) or movies (LA) it declined in importance with the rise of television. Chicago was also saddled with more “provincial” newspapers (Fields were more involved in retailing; McCormick with right-wing politics). Chicago is still a great city, comfortable in its own self, straightforward.
Matt D,
I don’t get your logic.
Chicago has plenty of companies that serve clients around the world.
How is it “too regionally focused”?
By that virtue, then, most cities are “regionally focused” because they service the industries that dominate their region. East coast tends to be financial, Bay Area tends to be tech, LA tends to be industrial and port-oriented. Chicago tends to be a mix of these, plus distribution and consumer products.
When I walk around Chicago I see a vibrant city brimming with people from all over the world, and I feel like I”m in a global city.
Therefore it is a global city.
And you can say that “well, that’s only the nice parts of Chicago”. Fine, how many tourists do you know who visit the suburbs and poverty-stricken areas of Paris when they visit the City of Love?
SPQR:
I think you are somewhat on, although a bit pessimistic. I would like to respond to this statement by you, however:
“Unlike such consensus world class cities as Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Paris and New York, Chicago’s identity is primarily regional, its interests predominantly local. It sees itself as an urban setting with a small-town feel.”
I think the last sentence here is true, and sometimes is one of my frustrations. I don’t mind Chicago being the “purveyor to the midwest”, and I really don’t know why so many people here feel the need to look down their noses at Chicago’s role serving Great Lakes industry as if that somehow is anything less than a massive undertaking.
But I do get tired of the “big city with a small town heart” attitude that is so often said about Chicago; surprisingly, it is said by Chicagoans themselves. Frankly, I don’t think it’s true–I have lived in small towns and Chicagoans really aren’t as friendly as they seem to think they are. But why not celebrate what you are? Why not celebrate your role as a major city? It almost seems as if people think there is something wrong with that; and when you mention New York you often get the response “we are not New York and we don’t want to be New York!”
There is nothing wrong with being tasteful, but you can only take mild-manneredness so far. And Chicago needs to step up the big city brass, so to speak. I would even go so far as to argue that one of the reasons we are even having this discussion about Chicago and not other “global cities” is because Chicago has done such a relatively poor job so far at spreading the word about itself.
Urban Politician’s remarks made me think of that classic Sinatra Chicago lyric, “I saw a man, he danced with his wife.” Chicago is a big-time city but it maintains a certain domestic ease and familiarity that many associate with the Midwest. Nothing wrong with that. Having a neighborly feel hardly excludes a city from being a “global” city.
However, I’ve always thought of Chicago as the most typical “American” city, more representative of American style and culture than say New York, Washington or Los Angeles. Foreign visitors are almost always pleasantly struck by how uniquely American it looks and how American are the things that it offers.
Maybe one should forget about seeing Chicago as a “global” city. Somehow, that designation just feels out of place. True, Chicago has international elements — cuisines, immigrants, foreign trade, entertainment — but it tends to assimilate, tone down and modify such influences in a very American way. Maybe Chicago’s destiny is to fulfill its role as the pre-eminently American city. It’s a thought.
^ SPQR,
It’s not a bad thought.
The argument whether Chicago is a global city is a valid question. I’m surprised no one has mentioned Chicago’s greatest weakness… it’s political leadership, poor educational system and high level of corruption. There’s a reason why the educated class, the talented and the best and brightest have chosen to bypass Chicago in recent years. Successful people have no desire to be held back due to unnecessary laws, regulation and red tape. You can barely operate a food truck in this city. Corruption has a heavy price to pay! The local, county and state level governments are a recipe for stunned-business growth. Chicago is not the ideal place to go into small business. The corruption will immediately strangle your hard work and once the city is in your pocket, they’re going for broke. Most transplants stay for an average of 3-5 five years before leaving for greener pastures.
Chicago is far different from NYC, Boston, Philly, SF or D.C. in terms of racial diversity and racial interaction. In addition, educated minorities are far more plentiful in the previously mentioned cities than in Chicago. Chicago has become what appears to be the whitest large city in America. If this is what makes a global AMERICAN city then Chicago is it. However, I choose to live and raise my children in a socially diverse and educated society.
I think Rahm Emanuel is doing his best considering the mess that was left before him however the city needs to rebuild itself from a community-oriented perspective vs. a global perspective. We’re not there. Until Chicago becomes a city worth living and raising a family, the “so-called” global reputation, tourism and everything else will eventually fall off due to fundamental problems within the city. Chicago needs to take care of its residents before trying to be something that it really isn’t.
Chicago is far different from NYC, Boston, Philly, SF or D.C. in terms of racial diversity and racial interaction. In addition, educated minorities are far more plentiful in the previously mentioned cities than in Chicago. Chicago has become what appears to be the whitest large city in America. If this is what makes a global AMERICAN city then Chicago is it. However, I choose to live and raise my children in a socially diverse and educated society.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Anyone who walks through the streets of the central area and most of the north side communities know this is a just plain wrong. Sure it is racially segregated like most cities in this country. The southside is very segregated but, there is a fair share of mingling, not as much as I would like to see,in this city.
Chicago the whitest city in American? WTF
I’d hardly say Chicago is the whitest city in America, let alone that it is the most American because of such an attribute.
The clusters of ethnic areas you find in Chicago may be, in part, the remnants of an earlier era when racial segregation was indeed the norm and when the patronage system under Daley Sr. and others, reinforced such divisions, with each group getting its share of the spoils, as it were. The construction of large public housing blocks (Robert Taylor Homes, Cabrini Green) did little to foster integration.
You do find in Chicago, even to this day, distinct areas of the city predominated by specific ethnic groups, not only African-American, but also Hispanic (Mexican and Puerto Rican mostly), Polish, South Asian (Indian, Pakistani), Korean (a sizable but nearly invisible Chicago enclave), Chinese, Italian, Arab, Greek, Jewish, Serbian, and so on. I suspect the political practice of gerrymandering along ethnic lines contributes to perpetuating this situation.
But such clusters are not exclusive to Chicago by any measure. Large portions of the south and west sides of Chicago are solidly black and struggling with crime and poverty. Families who are able are moving out to other parts of the city, to the suburbs, and to other states. In fact, black population in Chicago is declining.
In any case, only about a third of the city’s population is “white.” How this might affect Chicago’s status as a “global” city escapes me.