The Arts and Entertainment section of the Sunday Trib had an interesting cover story: Is Vegas the new Broadway? It discussed such issues as the size and complexity of Vegas threates compared to NYÂ's (noting that midtown Manhattan real estate would never allow NY to compete with what Vegas is building), the artistic freedom to create productions by casino owners who basically just want to make money (and have the money to make more). Other factors were discussed, as well.
The article noted that Vegas is ahead of Bwy for the rest of this decade and perhaps forever.
I realize this is opinion, and not fact. But it is there, right smack on the front page of the Arts and Entertainment: VEGAS THE NEW BWY. ThatÂ's a thought that many people would never have expected to encounter.
So why bring it up here? Why discuss this on the Chicago board rather than on the US? Why are Vegas and NYC relevant to Chicago?
Perhaps itÂ's because (as IÂ've stated so many times before), I think there is an insanity of the hierarchial thinking about cities that we show on this board. We put New York in a positon of being king-of-the-universe and we anoint it as such for eternity. We say all other cities pale in comparison. Yet if New York can lose in what was considered on of its greatest strengths (theatre), it can lose in other areas, as well (as in a long-departed port and financial institutions that left the city long before 9-11). Chicago is subject to the same dynamics. All cities are.
No city is static. They are all dynamic, organic; they change and evolve in time. And nothing lasts forever or, even as long as we think it will. We look at the world today and think that this tells us what it will look like tomorrow. It doesnÂ't. Change is inevitable. I donÂ't know what NYÂ's or ChicagoÂ's global position will be in ten years and I daresay neither do you.
So if Vegas is ahead of Bwy (in the thinking of some), it is also far ahead of Chicago. And I have no doubt that as Vegas is way ahead of Chicago in hotel rooms, it is probably more of a convention center than we are. Things go up. things go down. And every city has to constantly reinvent itself; there are no laurels to rest on.
My point? IÂ'm comfortable with cities preceived as being Â"behind usÂ" developing characteristics that may and do challenge us. And so, on the reverse end, I donÂ't look at New York (or anyplace) leaving Chicago in its shaddow. Chicago can challenge New York...and Houston can challenge Chicago.
So much happens on the world stage that no city controls. In fact, cities control very little. Much of what makes them economically prominent comes from multinational corportations with no loyalty to any city and a presence in all.
Ultimately this drives me (through I hope what hasnÂ't been a too long and too convuluted route for anyone reading this) to look at Chicago on how it stands on its own. The competition is not between us and other cities but between what we are and what we can be. And my thinking works so well for me because I think my city is a fabulous place and I can totally ignore the comparisons with other places, knowing that no matter how great another city is, it has no bearing on ChicagoÂ's unquestionable greatness. ChicagoÂ's greatness does not depend on a pecking order. Chicago's greatness does not go up because another place goes down; it doesn't go down because another city goes up. Chicago is great because it is a great city. Because it is Chicago. Period.> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment