Chicago's Tourist Bubble

Chicago is a global city that has invested millions of dollars not only in the beautification of Chicago, but in the creation of tourist areas, specifically catered to catch the eye of visitors.  With investments totaling up to more than $2255 million dollars with the creation of attractions such as Navy Pier, Millennium Park, the reconfiguration of Lake Shore drive, the development of the Museum Campus, the rebuilding of Soldier Field, the conversion of Mig's Field into a large park, and the development of McCormick Place into a larger convention center, the city of Chicago became one of the best known tourist hubs of the Midwest.

However, this money came from the residents of Chicago, and critics are saying that it was not worth the tax dollars we put into the projects, as Chicagoans do not use these areas nearly as much as the tourists they attract. I agree to an extent; most Chicago city dwellers spend their time in the loop carrying out errands or going to and/or from work on a daily basis.  To my knowledge, not very many people go out of their way see Navy Pier or pass time in Grant Park.  This may be a result of living in the city, however.  If one lives their entire lives in the city, the residents come to know the ins and outs of what the city has to offer - and have most likely seen nearly all of the attractions Chicago houses at some point or another.

Critics are not, however, attacking the heart of the city,which is most likely a result of many Chicagoans using this space on a daily basis.  I believe that critics are simply questioning the integrity of these million dollar spaces because most (though not all) Chicagoans typically have other things occupying their time, so they do not have time to visit recreational spaces daily.  We have to remember that the city wants to attract wealthy businessmen, as we have learned from Koval.  We cannot criticize business men for doing what they were brought here to do.  In a way, the heart of Chicago is in fact a tourist attraction - the only difference being that people stay in the heart of Chicago, but only visit the attractions in the tourist bubble.

Furthermore, as we have learned from Koval, tourist attractions were created to generate revenue when cities were not doing so well financially.  Cities needed something that they could call their own, and would attract people from all over in order to bring money into the city whilst beautifying parts of the city at the same time.  Though I do not believe these areas are being used to their full potential by Chicago residents, I do believe that it was worth the effort put forth by the city of Chicago to try and bring revenue to the area and create an area of recreation.

On the other hand, however, I do believe that the city should be using the resources pulled to build these attractions to build more housing, widen the streets in the still congested areas, etc.  The city itself needs a lot of work, still.  Even after Burnham devised a great plan, there are still improvements to be made.  However, the tourist bubble has already been created, so we must now look to the improvements of the city as a whole, and not just a specific area to shelter visitors from the real Chicago.

Teacher's Union and Machine Politics

A few weeks ago, the Sociology and Anthropology club watched a movie called Waiting for Superman.  This movie followed a handful of students through their elementary journeys, through drop out factories, to the best schools in the neighborhood and even to the lottery at the best of the best schools.  Parents hoping for the best education for their children, put their children's names into a lottery, leaving their education to chance.

Last week, we had a guest speaker from the teacher's union, who spoke to us about the issues facing the Chicago Public Schools, and more specifically the Pioneer's Project.  This project suggests that elementary schools should lengthen their school day by 90 minutes, in order to provide additional instruction time to the students.  It was surprising to learn that we not only have the shortest school day in the country, but the shortest academic year as well.  Personally, I do not see a problem with extending the school day; the more education that the students can receive, the better.  Children can absorb the most during the first ten years of their lives, so why not give them the opportunity to do so?

 Our speaker stated that the teacher's union was asking parents to push their teachers into extending the school day for the benefit of their children.  However, he noticed that if the teachers had something to say, the parents almost always supported them, whether it be for or against the extending of the school day.  This showed me that it takes much, much more than the board of education to make changes in the school systems.  Parents and teachers have to come together to make the best decisions for their children/students.

However, in reading Koval, I noticed something that does not sound like the children's best interests are being kept in mind. He states that in order "to attract producer and financial services, global cities must offer the lifestyle demanded by highly paid, highly skilled workers, and excellent schools are an important element" (p253).  To an extent, I agree, excellent schools are definitely an important element to global cities, or any city for that matter.   Despite this, I do not agree completely.  When put this way, it seems as though the children's best interests are not really being kept in mind.  Building "the best school" is simply a marketing tool in order to get wealthy adults into the city, bringing with them more money.  However, what will happen to the school systems when the wealthy come to the city - won't the city care less about the schools and more about profit generation. Wait..this sounds familiar...I think it's because that is what is happening now.

Furthermore, as we discussed in class, the decline in the educational structure and the fight to gain a longer school day for the benefit of the students reminded me of Machine Politics.  With the Pioneer's Project, $150,000 was promised to the schools, and $1300 was promised to each teacher if their school voted yes to the project.  To me, this sounded a bit like the bribes used by the politicians of the democratic machine.  We promise teachers and the schools more money, they promised to take care of your parking ticket or give you a job for your vote.  I believe that schools should vote yes/no with the best interest of their students in mind, not because they get more money.  When money comes into the picture, it becomes distorted and, unfortunately, the best interest of the students will no longer be the priority.

The teacher's union is fighting to keep CPS afloat in the declining system that we have.  Students do not deserve this, and I wish more people were aware of what is going on with our children, and I say "our children" because it is our responsibility to ensure them with a chance at every opportunity that has been given to us. If we are not aware, how will we help them become successful later on in life?

Chicago's Racial Divide

The issue of racial divide is one that has been around for many many years.  I am not going to pretend that there is a right or wrong answer to this, because there isn't one.  Hopefully, however, I can highlight a few points that contribute to the racial divide and keep it persistent throughout the decades.

One example I came across was in reading The New Chicago, where Koval states that "[Martin L. King] made residential segregation the target of his northern campaign.  King looked at Chicago's vibrant central business district, the Loop, just a few miles east of the impoverished west side neighborhood where he was living, and remarked 'This is truly an island of plenty amidst an ocean of plenty'" (p83-84).  This was a racial issue in the 1950's -60's, however, this is still an issue today in the modern City of Chicago as well.  How long ago was it that Martin L. King made this statement?  And have we listened to him?

The answer provides for a mixed response.  Take Cabrini Green for example; all the high rises were taken down and new landscape/homes were built.  Great, the City is doing something for those living in impoverished neighborhoods, making the "ocean of plenty" a little bit bigger, and the island a little bit smaller.  In this way, more people can swim in the ocean.  Great, right? ..... let's rewind for a second here.  Chicago makes the ocean bigger, and the island smaller, but, where do the people on the island go, and what about those who cannot swim?  Chicago's idea of fixing the impoverished neighborhoods is simply pushing them to the outskirts of the City - out of sight, out of mind.  The impoverished neighborhoods are primarily (but not exclusively) Latino and African American, unfortunately making this one way in which racial divides are still present in today's Chicago.

Furthermore, Koval states that "African Americans, especially males, remain concentrated in jobs requiring little formal education beyond high school and that offer little promise of significant upward social mobility.  African American women fare somewhat better...[but] both genders are grossly underrepresented in occupations that might be associated with the new economy" (p87).  Because of this concentration of African Americans in the aforementioned types of jobs, they have a hard time with upward mobility, and are forced to cluster together in areas that they can afford.  Lower paying jobs leads to buying homes that they can afford.  The fact that African Americans are not viewed as being on the same plane as white Americans, undermines their skills and abilities completely; it is not just at all.  This issue only further emphasizes the racial divides in today's Chicago - not only in housing situations, but economically as well.

Lastly, the first step towards improving/dismantling the residential segregation in the city and its suburbs is to stop pushing people to the outskirts of the city of Chicago.  Our mentality is that if we don't have to see them or look at where they live, we do not have to worry about the racial divides and they will magically just go away.  This attitude has been present since the 1950's and is the first thing that needs to change before any integration (neighborhood wise) can occur.

Immigrant Chicago

In taking our tour of Pilsen, it became obvious to me that it is a largely immigrant neighborhood.  Some people believe that immigrants are not beneficial to the city culturally nor economically.  However, I beg to differ.

To begin with, we need to remember that this entire country was built by immigrants.  There is not a single person in the city of Chicago that is really from there.  Yes, they may have been born in the city, but their culture and ethnicity comes from another place entirely.  Chicago was built by wave after wave of immigrants. They gave everything up in their home countries to come here and become the foundation for our country.  They help the economy in more ways we realize; without them doing their jobs, other Americans would not be able to do their jobs or have what they have today, and the economy would decline dramatically.  They also contribute culturally through their diversity.  Chicago is known as a global city, partially, I believe due to the many cultures that are present throughout.  You cannot go more than a block or two without running into an entirely different culture of people.  They may be separated by neighborhood/block, but there is a large sense of heterogeneity present in the heart of the city; all the separate cultures came together to create what we know as the American culture - we are a little bit of everything.

There are also many obstacles that immigrants face as well in today's Chicago.  For example, in the 1920's there was not as strict of a "document" policy, where as today you can be deported without papers, regardless of the life you have built or the family you are supporting.  However, there are many similarities between the immigrant groups of today and of Chicago in the 1920's as well.  For example, in Zorbaugh's Gold Coast and the Slum, he describes a second generation immigrant that was too Americanized for his family, and was too culturally similar to his family to be considered American.  The second generation was put in a place where they almost had to choose between assimilating to American culture and leaving their native culture behind, and keeping their native culture alive with their family and not being accepted into American society.  I feel as though today's immigrants face that same issue; how to find the balance between the two cultures without giving into or giving up one over the other.  The only thing that has really changed between the immigrant waves, are the cultures that they represent; the hardships they face between creating a new life and assimilating into a new culture remain the same for the most part.

However, the immigrant experience is different for Mexicans than it was/is for white Europeans.  Unfortunately, this is most likely due to their ability to assimilate into American culture much more easily than immigrant groups such as Mexicans.  For example, Europeans have fair skin/hair/eyes, where as Latinos have completely different physiques.  Therefore, despite the fact that Europeans, too, had cultural differences and different social norms than Americans, they were able to assimilate more efficiently than Latinos.

Hull House

Last week's tour of the Hull House was rather interesting, and I definitely enjoyed learning about the contributions Jane Addams and her colleagues made towards the community of immigrants living in Chicago.  I have heard of the Hull House in the past, but I had no idea how deeply woven the services Hull House offered to the community were.  I also did not know the extent of her work, but the museum provided many details of each individual's life that I was unaware of before our visit.

However, what I do not understand is why the Hull House was shut down so abruptly .  Hull House was doing an abundance of good for the community; the "staff" left the lives they were used to, and moved to an area full of immigrants to actually be with them, understand their needs and try to do something to help them.  They were there, experiencing things with them in order to make their lives just a little bit better.  Hull House made decisions that were not necessarily "giant leaps for man," but instead, they made decisions that would best benefit the people living there; they made decisions that were feasible for the community around them.

Creating a daycare for working men and women that needed to support their children, but could not watch them and work at the same time was the first step the Hull House took toward helping the community.  It was a project that could help and be put into effect immediately.  Children were cared for and were not left to wander the streets.  Soon after book clubs, art classes, weaving classes, a boys club, sewing and cooking classes for girls,  and lectures emerged at the Hull House.  Eventually, apartments were created for families that needed a place to stay, a play ground was built for children, and even the first public bath house was created thanks to Jane Addams and her colleagues.

Furthermore, Addams made sure that all the immigrants could come to Hull House and share their culture through art, cooking, talking, dancing, weaving and games.  She wanted to make sure that every ounce of their culture could be shared, lived, and most importantly, not forgotten - all while helping them to become a part of American society.

However helpful those at the Hull House were, though, it did not seem to be enough to gain notice from the city of Chicago as a whole.  Instead, the University of Chicago decided to completely undermine anything and everything Hull House was doing for the immediate population, and petitioned to build their new campus on the Hull House's property.

It seems to me that Chicago has no regard for its people, and only considers it's appearance.  It did not matter that Hull House was helping so many people and giving them programs and skills to help build a better life so far away from the homes they once knew.  The city of Chicago only wanted (s) beauty that will attract businessmen and tourists to bring money into the city.  I mean, look at Cabrini Green as well.  Fix the high rises and make Cabrini look pretty, all while pushing the less wealthy to the outskirts of the city - that way people won't see them when they come to visit.

Instilling the values of community and helping those around you just does not seem to matter anymore; it's all about profit. The cost it brings to the people that live there and their families is no longer a concern, and helping them is no longer a concern either. If you ask me, it is shameful to even think that we could turn our backs so easily for money and appearance.

Cabrini Green

Cabrini Green is an area of Chicago that was once known as a very dangerous place (and is still considered as such by some people).  It was home to high rises that were built but never maintained; these structures gave Cabrini Green an appearance of a slum due to the lack of up-keep in and around the buildings.  

In recent years, those involved in the housing projects decided to make a change.  They tore down every last public housing high rise in Cabrini Green, and began major renovations.  New buildings were put in their place that would attract buyers (both previous public housing tenants and new tenants from mixed-income backgrounds) in hopes that mixed-income housing would take flight.  

In retrospect, this plan sounds like a good idea.  Tear down the old high rises, build pretty new housing, integrate the community, and viola - Cabrini Green has been transformed.  

WRONG.

In order to tear down the high rises, all the previous tenants had to be displaced - but where?  Our tour guide explained to us that the tenants had three options.  

1. Move to an available space, still within public housing

2. Choose to rent an apartment that would be subsidized by CPH, with the tenants only having to pay a certain percentage of their total income

3. Remove themselves from CPH all together

These tenants are technically guaranteed a place in the new mixed-income housing, but not all return, and CPH does not seem too concerned with the people that don't come back. Honestly, the places that were torn down were once their homes.  I believe it should be a responsibility of CPH to make sure that the past tenants get what was promised to them.  Our guide gave the impression that the needs or concerns of the people were not being taken care of or listened to in the slightest.  He even said that he knows it is not "right or fair" but that " it's just the way it is."

Just the way it is does not seem like the heart warming story that this was supposed to be.  Promising tenants new, better homes and then not caring about where they end up seems very cold to me.  While reading Koval,  almost all that was mentioned were things about improving the landscape to make it look more appealing and the generation of profit (other aspects were mentioned as well, but not as heavily as these two).      From these readings, and in hearing our guide speak to us, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that the government of Chicago is clearly more worried about its appearance than its residents.

Koval further states that the integration of the community is the only way to begin to fix the problems of Chicago.  I agree with this to an extent, we all must come together in some form or another- but kicking people out of their homes to make them "look pretty" and not caring about what happens to these people is not the way to do it.  To begin to fix Chicago's problems, they have to talk to the people, get to know them, and form a solution.  Making the landscape look nice to try to out do other cities/ make it look like we're doing something about our problems, and pretending like the problem has been fixed is not the way to go about it at all.  

The Gold Coast

In walking around the Gold Coast for last week's class, I realized that there was a slight stiffness in the air.  Each house we walked past was in pristine condition, not a single thing stood out, and they stretched out occupying the entire lot upon which it was built.  As our class was walking down Aster avenue, those who were walking down the block looked at us as if they were saying "we know you do not belong here." I also noticed that the people walking down the streets did not speak with one another.  They simply passed each other and continued on to their destination (though you would imagine in such a wealthy and quiet/safe neighborhood, people would be more likely to talk with one another since they have commonalities).  Furthermore, it is an extremely wealthy area, and as one proceeds to Lake Shore Drive, you notice the stores screaming out "high fashion" and "couture."  There are also high rise luxury apartments, and lavish hotels such as the Drake that we were able to see for a brief moment last class.

These observations show that status and looking your best are still as important today as they were in the past.  Furthermore, this also demonstrates the parallels between the two societies in the sense that neither of them spoke with their neighbors or bothered to get to know each other.  Interactions were reserved for the appropriate times, such as joining someone for tea (or, today, going out for lunch), and were ignored until the next appropriate encounter.  As we may read on page 66, "There is no neighborliness among those who live on the North Side.  I live in a  twenty-apartment hotel, and of the others who live in it I have a speaking acquaintance with but five, and know but one...People live on Lake Shore Drive simply because it is the most expensive place to live."  Here we may see that people were aware that no one knew each other, and did not care one bit.  They only wanted to live in the area to flaunt their money and improve their already high status, and I feel that there is still an essence of this (money flaunting) in today's Gold Coast that is no different than that of the past.

However, I couldn't help but notice the differences between the two societies either.  For example, as Zorbaugh demonstrates in The Gold Cost and the Slum, there were many rules that needed to be followed in order to be considered a proper member of society such as not carrying an umbrella, not being able to go to tea in a morning coat, or be seen at dinner without an evening jacket.  Rules such as these seem to have disappeared into thin air.  I am sure that there are still rules of etiquette that are to be followed in today's Gold Coast culture, but they do not seem to be as intensely articulate as those of the past.  Furthermore, although there were elite "high status clubs" that required membership in order to be a proper member of society, many of these societies no longer exist in today's Chicago.  There are only a few, and in order to be a member of the Gold Coast's select society, you do not need to show your status by joining them - you only need money.

The Plan of Chicago

In reading Carl Smith's Plan of Chicago, i was astounded to read about the horrible conditions of the city that are not too far behind us in the past.  In as little as 100 years, the city has transformed from a place of unsanitary conditions, overcrowded streets and smog ridden air into the modern version that we see today.  Daniel Burnham envisioned a plan that would take Chicago into the future safely and efficiently.  Though many of his plans were put into effect a few years after his death, not all were realized.

While I believe that Burnham did a fairly good job in addressing the structural problems of the city, I feel that the future was not readily addressed in an appropriate manner for certain things. Chicago was being redesigned in order to fix the city and promote longevity.  But with longevity in mind..why were only buildings considered?   For example, with the ever growing population and all the cars/trucks/carriages crowding the streets, why weren't more parking structures built?  There is barely enough room for street parking, and places with parking spaces available charge $22/hr (modern day).  Furthermore, the streets were widened enough for the 1930's, but with the future in mind, some streets should have been widened even further.  If something isn't done soon, we are probably going to be spending 7/8 of our lives in a car instead of at home with our families.  I realize that the planners couldn't have anticipated this many people, but they wanted to make structures for the future and families.  I feel like the situation with cars could have been considered a little more carefully.

Also, I believe that more parks could have been created to "break up the city" in a sense. When walking around, all you see is building after building after building.  In order to go to take a break from the city life, you have to walk all the way to the east side of the city to Grant Park.  Personally, I wish there were more "Grant Parks" throughout the city.  Yes, there are parks throughout the neighborhoods, but they are mostly for children.  Adults need a place to relax as well.  Bigger parks (like Grant) should have been placed throughout the city to give people a place to go when they are on their lunch break or want to catch a five minute break before heading home through the rush hour(s) traffic.  Maybe more areas where people can relax will help to calm down the fast paced environment - A little bit of nature can go a long way.

Urbanism As a Way of Life

Wirth begins his article by describing a city using density, heterogeneity and size (large and permanent) as his three main focal points, attempting to gain a better understanding of what we may define as a city.  In my experience, coming from a small town near the Wisconsin border, the city may be described using Wirth's main points as defining characteristics.  The density and size of the city were the most obvious things that caught my eye the first time I visited.  All the buildings were incredibly close together, cars lined the streets, hundreds of people were on the same sidewalk and even the air felt a little bit thicker.  The city was also filled with many different types of people.  As Wirth describes in Urbanism as a way of life,  "the heightened mobility of the individual, [brings] him within the range of stimulation by a great number of diverse individuals."  This was also holding true to Wirth's definition, as everywhere I turned there were what seemed to be very different people all in the same group, standing outside of a building, talking; no two people were the same.

However, in moving into Taylor Lofts, I realized that the only reason I would agree with Wirth is because I was an outsider.  I lived in a very different environment for most of my life, and the city was simply different.  Now that I have the chance to actually live the city life, I realize that Wirth missed a few things.  One thing I cannot argue with is the size and density of the city.  However, the heterogeneity is a bit skewed in Wirth's definition.  Once you live in the city, you begin to see that it is not so heterogeneous at all.  Neighborhoods and even streets are divided by different ethnicities, cultures, genders, age, etc.  Walking one block will bring you to an entirely different group of people without even realizing it.

Wirth also does not touch on how fast paced the city is.  No matter what you are doing or where you are going, you have to get there as quickly as you can.  This is why one may not notice the difference in the "heterogeneity" of the city.  People are too submerged into trying to keep up with the pace of the city, that they do not notice the changes in the blocks, people and buildings they are walking past- leading to skewed definitions of the city. The only thing heterogeneous about the city is that they all move together in an orderly fashion, never breaking from their organized pattern of movements unless they are ducking into a building to go to work.

Furthermore, Wirth does not look at how the media affects the people in the city; it gives us a definition of the city all on its own.  The city is big, fast and dangerous according to the media-which only emphasizes our need to be running around like chickens with our heads cut off for fear of being late, and increases our fear of certain avenues or blocks when in reality they aren't so bad.  The media molds us as a people, and most city dwellers never think to deviate from their media stricken roles.

However, even though our modern world is much different, there are definitely still characteristics that With observed to be true about the city life. I did enjoy reading Wirth's article none the less as it gave me a new perspective on the city, and a base to draw new conclusions that fit our modern world.