Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
Weekend Diversion: Night Of The Ponies
Morning Box Score: Bears Fall To Eagles
Pedway, First Store Open At Block 37
Carol Marin is "a little worried about Chicago being a world-class city," given that that status tends to equal corruption and bullshit. No joke. You know what we're worried about? The phrase "world-class city."
The term — which means what exactly? — has been all over the place recently. RTA boss Stephen Schlickman's saying it. A "Chicago Reader driver." An Olypmic committee guy. Edward Keegan. The Sun-Times can't get enough. Mayor Daley says it, that stupid daily rant column has it. Some LexisNexising shows that in the last 90 days alone, the Trib has quoted Alderman Gene Schulter, the new head of the city's Department of Planning and Development Arnold Randall Jr, and Alderman Ed Smith saying it, and both Rich Miller and Laura Washington have used it in Sun-Times columns. Metromix jazzes it up as "world-class metropolis." And we weren't even looking very hard.
You stay world-classy, Chicago!
World-class skyline photo by Runfar.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I think the use of the term speaks to the longstanding insecurity among many in Chicago that, indeed, we are not a world-class city, and that whatever qualities we have, we are slipping in the global competition.
There are only a few cities that nearly everyone would classify as "world-class"--you know, NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, Rome (if only for the heritage), LA (if only because of its most influential product, entertainment) and perhaps one or two others. Chicago, for its macho bluster, always wondered if it was good enough to make the cut--if it was as good at NYC, as Paris, or, about a 100 years ago, as good as Berlin (another city that can be very insecure, even now, and a city whose fundamental history has a lot of similarity to that of Chicago).
I don't know if Chicago is world-class. I guess it depends on what part of Chicago you are talking about--art, writing, buildings, food, finance, civic culture, journalism, political influence, media influence, quality of life, transit, etc. I see us winning in a few areas, but falling dangerously behind in others.
What they are likely, loosely referring to is the classification "World city" used by geographers and planners. World cities are centers of finance and/or culture, largely unparalleled, that lower tier cities rely upon for critical business functions. While the term comes from measurable criteria, the designation nonetheless lends symbolic status as cities like New York, for example, become synonymous with finance and stability.
Were Chicago to become known as a world city, its perceived role in the global economy would strengthen and its existence would seem imperative. Locally, the assumption is world city designation would lead to increased international investment. That's my guess, anyway.
Actually, Chicago is classified as a World City by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network, headquartered in the geography department at Leicestershire's Loughborough University. (You can see their inventory of World Cities, ranked by significance, here, and a map of that inventory here.
The GWaC ranks cities based on "advanced producer services" like accounting, advertising, finance and law, and the provision of those services by international corporations.
The problem with everyone kicking around the World-Class city expression is that when it gets misused (like "begging the question" was after Joe Wilson's testimony before Congress), the less meaningful it is.
You cant be a world class city when your leadership is crooks and patronage hacks that care more about jobs for political workers and city state and county contracts for friends then they do about the services provided to the overburdened taxpayers. No Chicago is a second clas city at best and is sliding backwords very quickly.
Total wikiality, Kevin. GWaC didn't start publishing reports until 1997 (as far as I can tell from their site...), and Chicago journalists have been using the phrase way longer than that--I got Nexis results through the early 80s.
That's true, Margaret. I've heard "world class" for years, and it has nothing to do with the def of World city.
What I wonder about is why it matters. We all have to live somewhere. Why does it have to be a competition? Plenty of people leave "world class" cities to live in the country or a smaller city because of things those places afford them. Civic pride would entail making the place you live in the best it can be for the people who live there based on what THEY value, not whether you can build an Eiffel Tower on the lake or whatever.
That is indeed one measure, Kevin, and the Economist would be inclined to agree, for what that is worth--though the Economist did note that Chicago's rise has been rough, and its present standing relatively fragile.
I think we are in grave danger, though, of going downhill. I am optimistic that more people seem to be figuring this out every day, which is probably our best hope for change. In the current global economic reality--the quick rise of new cities, for instance, and shifting populations--only the "big four" of global cities are really certain of any stability in their status.
All this talk of World Class reminds me of World Class Championship Wrestling.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates the S-T "daily rant".
Interesting "fed up". I thought in order to become a world class city it took crooks and patronage. You learn something new everyday. Every city in the history of humankind has had these problems, World Class or not. The Chicago Way is not uniquely Chicago, as much as some of us would like to believe.
Matilda, I think those of us who live here, and experience the city on the day to day basis are aware of the tenuous nature of our world class status. However anytime anyone I know (and strangers/tourists I encounter/interact with on the street) who comes here is overwhelmed with Chicago's beauty, friendliness, architecture, the lake (are you sure thats not an ocean?) etc... Now these may not be world class city qualifiers, but they certainly dont hurt.
Finally in the last several years I have noticed a large increase in the number of foreign tourists. Obviously this is just casual observation, not a scientific study. But I think this may be a good/true benchmark of whether or not Chicago is truely worldclass.
Thunder: I agree with you.
I guess I worry about the recent economic challenges--the taxes poised to increase significantly; the increasing difficulty of working and middle-class people to live here; the crumbling of our mass transit--as things that could knock us of that perch, and change what has been so great about Chicago. I think this city became way to sure of itself and complacent in the last 15 years, as though escaping the fate of other Rust Belt cities was enough. It isn't, not in our global ecomony [sorry to use such a trite phrase, but it does have meanings that are vital].
I have often shown tourists around Chicago who came from other great cities. They more or less love this city and are amazed more people don't know about it in the way people know about NYC or LA. That said, our recent problems of the past year or so--mainly mass transit, but also TIFs and enduring corruption--have made these people wonder how truly great Chicago. Granted, that is just minor anecodotal evidence, but it struck me.
I must take issue, though, with your implication that all cities have corruption, and that corruption is needed for greatness. Well, maybe, but when that corruption produces smaller returns in exchange for higher costs, what is the point anymore? When does the corruption become not a way to help the city progress but mainly a way to steal from the average citizens? Because that is indeed the case in Chicago now.