Chicago dominates its own region in a way that is incomparable in any other major city. Parallels don't seem to exist. If you look at the regions in the US, you will see:
• the Northeast with our largest city, New York, and our capital, Washington, both huge power centers. But it also has the educationally and research charged city of Boston, an historical city whose urban lifestyle is one of the nation's best and huge and historic Philadelphia as well.
• the West? It's a head to head battle between the two cross state rivals, Los Angeles and San Francisco while high tech Seattle has also carved out a serious niche.
• In the Southwest, Dallas and Houston play their own version of the California pair in a region they share with Phoenix and Las Vegas.
• Down South, New Orleans represents old power, Atlanta represents the South coming of age, Miami's connection to Latin America is unique, and Charlotte and Nashville strieve to achieve Atlanta's status; none sticks out from the masses.
• an then we come to the Middle West. Chicago separated itself from its fellow midwestern cities in the mid-19th century and really never looked back. On this board, when discussing midwestern cities, the most common term used seems to be "except for Chicago, of course". This is not a knock against the fine cities of the midwest (progressive, liveable business oriented Minneapolis, the historic mix of north, south, east, and west that is St. Louis, gritty Detroit - down but not out but dripping with soul, quaint and hilly Cincinnati, the miracle that is the 20th century rise of Indianapolis, and our own nearby and cherished neighbor, Milwaukee with its unique character and its own coming of age today. Yet none are Chicago.
Is this preceived regional dominance real (as opposed to in my mind) and if it is, how much does it contribute to the unique nature of Chicago? Is such a city with such a hinterland a fundamentally different place?> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment