Wow...if this is true about Marshall Field's we all need to write to Daley

Saw this on SSP, wanted to confirm it but the Economist's website is hella slow. -------- By any other name Chicago will lose an institution—or at least its name—next autumn, when all Marshall Field's department stores will be called Macy's. Federated Department Stores announced the decision on September 20th, about a month after the Minneapolis-based firm bought May Company, owner of Field's, for $11 billion. Federated announced other changes as well: FieldÂ's will lose not only its name, but many employees and even its target market. Federated plans to cut up to 6,200 jobs from MayÂ's corporate offices next year, and downgrade inventory at Field's, dropping higher-quality products so that Fields can compete with Wal-Mart and other inexpensive superstores. Field's has 62 shops across the country (mostly in the Midwest), but is rooted in Chicago, where its flagship store was built 126 years ago. The renaming touched a nerve in Chicago, with local newspapers filled with letters and editorials bemoaning the chain's demise. It hardly helps that Macy's is an iconic New York brand, inflaming the inferiority complex of Chicago as a Â"Second CityÂ".>

The Tribune...and the world-class city

Here's one we surprisingly have never discussed here (at least from what I can remember): world class cities usually list a world-class newspaer as one of their assets. the NY Times, LA Times, Wash Post add luster to their cities, in a way that unfortunately the LA Times' owner, our Chicago Tribune, does not. So let's look at the Tribune today. It is obviously a far better paper than it was in the issolationist, blatantly pro-American era prior to WWII. It has gotten as post "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN" as the White Sox have gotten past the Black Sox. It has acquired parts of the defunct Daily News and the more struggling Sun Times over the years. It can be read by more liberal Chicagoans today without any need for gagging while doing so. But it "ain't up there" yet. Could it be? Could the Trib evolve into something more high powered, more investigative along the lines of the Post, more delving into so many areas of interest like the NY Times. Can the Trib join its counterparts in NY, DC, LA with that elusive quality of "greatness"???? WHERE DO YOU SEE THE TRIB TODAY...AS COMPARED TO ITS PAST, AS COMPARED TO AMERICA'S GREAT NEWSPAPERS, AS HOW IT RELATES AND ENHANCES A WORLD CLASS CITY???>

Bridgeless stupidity?

It must be a slow day. Forgive me. This may well be the dumbest post ever posted. Even by me (and that takes something). Ignore it if you wish (I know I would). However... This one is so crazy, a "problem" that cannot be connected. Here we go... Chicago's downtown and skyline have everything imaginable for total greatness except for one thing: a major bridge, beautifully suspended. Our waters are either too wide to cross (Lake Michigan) or too narrow for grandeur (Chgo River). The result: not one fabulous view of a major bridge coming into our downtown area (no Brooklyn Bridge into lower Manhattan or Queensboro into Midtown, no Bay Bridge into SF; hell, not even Milw's I-784 looping up right south of downtown. Cincy, Philly, Pgh, Boston, DC, StL, NO, Miami, Mpls, SD, and others put us to shame. I don't have a solution. The best I could come up with is add another channel from river to lake near McC Pl, making the Loop and South Loop an island and bridge that gap with a magnifcent bridge as part of LSD. I know. It won't happen. And I'm just being childish here, but, DAMN, I'd sure like a major downtown bridge, the grandest of grand entrances to downtown.>

NYC's and LA's in-city sububia and Chicago growth

Here's one I just can't seem to get a handle on. Thought I would throw it out here and see what you folks think. Both NYC and LA are structured far differently than Chicago. Due to their physical size and lay-out, these cities create a much wider city-to-suburban environment within their city limits than Chicago which is basically city with a small suburban fringe within city limits. New York does this through having the outer boroughs that include relatively sparsely settled Staten Island and the outer reaches of Queens which are basically suburban. LA doesn't have any political divisions, but the geographical ones are most evident. The San Fernando Valley, a part of the city, is removed from it by mountains and is largely suburban in nature. Both NYC and LA are growing cities, and most evidently so. Their rate of growth exceeds Chicago's. Future growth projections for both are impressive. All three cities have done a great job of attracting immigrants, the largest source of growth in any of them (without immigration, all three would be losing population). My question is this: is it the physical layout of NYC (outer boroughs) and LA (Valley, other underdeveloped areas) that keep their rate of growth ahead of Chicago (a more traditional city with little suburban land within city limits) -or- are they more attractive for growth than Chicago? I suspect the second might be true (although I would hope it isn't) insofar as Cook County would represent a greater Chicago similiar to NY and LA and the county is not experiencing growth.>

Impact of high office vacancy rate

I 'm thinking of the recent artiel by David Roeder, I believe, "Towering Contradiction" -- talking about the boom in office construction at a time when office vacancies are at high levels ( I believe about 13% in the city, and as high as 25% in the I-88 corrider, due to the foundering of Lucent mainly, I think) How healthy is this situation? Would it be preferable to have less contruction so that net absorption could catch up ? The relatively high vacancy rate does seem to have positive aspects. Since it creates a renters' market, and renters by definition have more of a Chicago presence than office building owners, this would seem to be good for Chicago. Chicago firms, such as Exelon, are going to get great leasing deals. Many of the foreign or otherwise out-of-town REITS and other firms that own the buildings will be reaping fewer profits in this way. Also, if Chicago's leasing rates are lower than other cities, this could attract more companies to establish branch offices here. (How do Chicago's vacancy rates compare to other metro areas? I have heard that Washington, D.C. market is really tight. Is the Bay area still in the 20s in vacancy as it was after the tech bubble burst?) Thoughts..?>

Sears Tower and Hancock Switch Spots! (Awesome Imaginary Chicago Shot!!!)

Someone requested me to switch the Sears and the John Hancock around to see how the skyline would change in perspective. Well, Here it is: Anything is posible!>

Massive photo of Chicago!!

You guys may have seen it before, but I was on Wikipedia, and this was today's featured photo. >

question about rehabing neighborhoods

what extreamly low income areas or neighborhoods are the most populare to invest in to rehab and gentrify and were do you forsee the trend to move to over the next few years?>

One hill of a good idea?

Is this one hill of a good idea, or not? Does anyone have pictures to post of the rarest of rare commodities on the Chicago board: a hill? even a ravine or a bump in the road might work (this isn't San Francisco, after all). But how about it, any visuals to share from Beverly in the city or a from suburbia: • Palos/Orland • the ravines on the North Shore in Winnetka, Highld Pk, Lk Forest, Lk Bluff • Barrington Hills/Inverness • Fox River Valley: St. Chas, Geneva, Algonquin, etc. • even Lake Geneva I love all our flat shots, but something like this would be a real eye opener here.>

The Best of The Sears Tower! 20 Shots to Die For. Pick your Favorite!

Please post your favorite shots of the Sears to remind everyone that the Sears Tower is still the best skyscraper ever! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The street, as seen from the top of Sears Tower> 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Just added. 21. New! 22. NEW! 23. WHICH ONE IS YOUR FAVORITE?>>

What would cause you to leave Chicago?

For those of you planning to stay in Chicago, name 1 thing, or 1 trigger, that would be enough to make you say "I've had enough with this city. I'm outta here!" No, I don't mean a nuclear explosion or if the whole city sank under Lake Michigan, etc. etc--let's be realistic here. Just curious...>

Old School Chicago

I found these remarkable photos at another site, posted by "Allan," and thought I'd share them. Allan provided the captions. Old Capone General Headquarters (2222 South Dearborn), 1944 Skyline from Grant Park, 1944 View east from 25th Floor of La Salle - Wacker Building, 1944 Kimball Mansion at 1801 Prairie Street, 1945 View from Milwakee Avenue Viaduct, 1946 Old Saint Xavier's Academy, 1946 Along Skid Row (505-107 North Clark), 1948 Cyrus McCormick Mansion (675 Rush Street), 1948 Wrigley Building seen from Michigan & Water, 1948 14th & Sangamon Street, 1949 Maxwell Street near Morgan, 1949 Cyril Hotel, 1949 Maxwell Street, 1949 Sunday on Maxwell Street, 1949 3414 South Wabash, 1949 3218 South Wabash, 1949 Masser Hotel, 1949 Lennox Apartments (3525 Cottage Grove), 1949 Keyhole Windows at 1325 Dearborn, 1949 2944 South Michigan Avenue, 1949 Apartment at 316 Erie Street, 1951 Skyline, 1958 From Grant Park, 1958 North on Michigan from Congress, 1958 Michigan Avenue from Grant Park, 1963 View north from the Prudential Building, 1963 Southwest from the Prudential Building, 1963 >