Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
In its annual "America's Most Miserable Cities" list, Forbes named Chicago the nation's third most miserable city. Numbers One and Two? Stockton, California and Memphis, Tennessee. Said Forbes of our fair home:
Chicago would seem to be on quite a roll these days. The city is a leading contender to host the Summer Olympics in 2016. The hometown Cubs had the most wins of any team in the National League last year and are one of the early favorites to win the 2009 World Series. And, of course, one of its own just became the most powerful person in the world (we're not talking about Oprah either, but she's close).So with all of the good vibes coming out of Chicago, how does it show up as the third worst city on our second annual list of America's Most Miserable Cities?
Article ControlsLousy weather, long commutes, rising unemployment and the highest sales tax rate in the country are to blame for the Windy City being near the top of our list. High rates of corruption by public officials didn't help either...
Living costs in the Second City are not much higher than the national average, but the 10.3% sales tax is a killer and is the highest of any city. A winning Olympic bid should move along needed transportation infrastructure improvements.
Really, Forbes? Stockton and Memphis are your two most miserable cities? How dare you. We are waaaaaaaaaay more miserable than either of those two! Man, we hate getting slighted by mainstream publications. We are so canceling our subscription.
Photo by The New No. 2
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Lousy weather? Because Chicago gets hit with hurricanes and tornadoes all the time. Not to mention the tsunamis and earthquakes that keep destroying the city. I guess that Detroit and Gary must have just been disbanded and no longer count as cities.
That said, my new hope is for Chicago to loose the Olympics and for the selection committee to name high taxes and municipal corruption as the reason.
Long commutes?? Who the hell are they talking to? Sure the CTA isn't all it can be, but for the most part people get to work in a reasonalbe time, at the same time every day. If they're talking to people coming in from the 'burbs, hey, they CHOSE to live out there.
Rising unemployment? Gee, you'd think a magazine that specializes in business and financial new would know that that sort of thing is happening ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!!! How in hell can they single out Chicago for that?
OK, I can't argue with that high sales tax, but that's a lousy list of reasons.
Wait a minute... why am I arguing with a stupid magazine?
Forbes has been on a roll with these ludicrous rankings lately. Just the other week, Andrew Sullivan was listed as one of the "25 Most Influential Liberals." Andrew Sullivan! You can eliminate all of the indicators except for sales tax because that's the only one I think Forbes took into account.
Good one Marcus!
Last year's had NYC and LA on it.
What a stupid, arbitrary list.
I think it's the print world's version of a "troll".
So, this is going to be one of those situations where some group of outsiders notices all the same stuff about Chicago we're always complaining about anyway, and we rise up in defense. I guess it takes Forbes magazine to get a Chicagoan to defend the CTA.
YAWN. The CTA is far from all it can be but it's still miles (hey-o!) ahead of the mass transit situation of the other top ten most populous US cities save New York. Chicago has its fair share of problems, but none that would amount to "third most miserable city."
Last year, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles were 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. The only thing this "study" reveals is a rightist, anti-urban agenda and the same penchant for sensationalism that has steadily chipped away at the credibility of the rest of the MSM.
YAWN. The CTA is far from all it can be but it's still miles (hey-o!) ahead of the mass transit situation of the other top ten most populous US cities save New York. Chicago has its fair share of problems, but none that would amount to "third most miserable city."
Last year, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles were 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. The only thing this "study" reveals is a rightist, anti-urban agenda and the same penchant for sensationalism that has steadily chipped away at the credibility of the rest of the MSM.
YAWN. The CTA is far from all it can be but it's still miles (hey-o!) ahead of the mass transit situation of the other top ten most populous US cities save New York. Chicago has its fair share of problems, but none that would amount to "third most miserable city."
Last year, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles were 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. The only thing this "study" reveals is a rightist, anti-urban agenda and the same penchant for sensationalism that has steadily chipped away at the credibility of the rest of the MSM.
For fuck's sake: treble post.
I'm not sure which of your posts to reply to, so I'll go with the last.
In my personal, anecdotal experience, Boston's public transit kicks Chicago's ass. And Washington's train systems run better. But that's all beside the point.
According to a U.S. census report last revised Nov. 18, 2008, Chicago has the second highest average commute time of any American city with a population higher than 250,000. Nobody who's ever tried to get out of this place at 4:00 on a Friday afternoon would dispute that.
And what would a magazine with a rightest, anti-urban agenda have against Memphis?
According to a U.S. census report last revised Nov. 18, 2008, Chicago has the second highest average commute time of any American city with a population higher than 250,000. Nobody who's ever tried to get out of this place at 4:00 on a Friday afternoon would dispute that.
Why would they dispute that? Trying to get out of the downtown area of a city with 250,000 is a lot easier than trying to get out of a downtown area of a city with 2.8 million. That's like comparing the problems of a high schoolk team to those of a pro team. Why not limit your comparison to cities with 2 million more?
Because that's not the scope of the article we're discussing.
Might want to hit those census estimates again: neither Boston nor Washington are among the ten top most populous US cities. And I was talking about the CTA; commute times clearly take into account automobile traffic.
It's not as much that Memphis is included on the list as the history of this sorry ranking system and its bizarre formula. That New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia wound up on it last year should say enough; that Chicago moved up in those rankings after a great year for the city and amidst the disaster plaguing those in the Sunbelt says the rest.
Absolutely. It's the Chicagoan's prerogative -- nay, obligation -- to complain about the city, but woe betide the outsider who avers a similar sentiment, no matter how benign.
Seriously. We don't no opinion nobody sent.
*want*
Oh fuck Forbes.
You know who whines about the weather? Tourists and non-natives. OMG it's cold. No shit, it's fucking JANUARY.
Unlike NYC, the box Forbes lives inside of, Chicago is an ENORMOUS city in terms of sheer distance covered. That you can commute from say, Rogers Park, to Downtown in 35-45 minutes on the El is fucking impressive.
Yes, there's corruption. Yes, there are taxes and crime. But try living in the fee-topia that is NYC on anything approaching a human salary.
If anything, the railing and cage-rattling I get up to about Daley and the like is mainly directed at their goal of taking Chicago down the same bland path as New York. A disney-fied city center where no actual taxpayers can live.
And now Forbes has gotten us to defend sprawl ... although it's a false point, as Chicago is barely as big as Manhattan Island. There are four other burroughs, you know.
Which is why I also miss the point about New York's bland path toward Disneyland. I guess you'd think that if all you ever saw of the city was Midtown Manhattan, but like I say, there are four other burroughs.
Difference is, you can do pretty much everything in one neighborhood, whereas in chicago you're best off in terms of food/culture/music when you move around.
The other burroughs are getting on with the business of turning bland too. Whole swaths of Brooklyn are going Lincoln Park. Williamsburg? People who want all the convenience of the city without any of the soul.
I have to say, I don't get what you're saying. What things can you do in every neighborhood in New York that require you to move around in Chicago? And how does this make Chicago the better, less Disnified option.
And of course, every city is going to have its Disney segments. You say yourself, Chicago has them. I don't see New York as having any greater proportion of them, though. For every Disney neighborhood (whatever that means) you say, I can give you five that would meet any definition of "real" you could come up with.
Ah fuck New York and everyone who lives in New York. Forbes is in New York, and all this hipster bullshit emanates from there too. You want a debate about the disney bullshit and how chicago is more spread out and blah blah fucking blah.
You want to defend it so bad, move there. I lived there, it was goddawful.
It's 64 degrees, the lake is beautiful and I'm riding the brown line chasing the sunset tonight. Fuck New York.
Heh. You win another one with your biting wit.
It's 64 and beautiful, how can you be so angry? I grew up in NY, I love it. I also love Chicago, where I currently live. I hate Gary, Indiana though.
I'm not angry. I'm happily typing outside, killing time until I can go do something else.
My basic point is that I think it's funny the way all these Chicago people will run the city into the ground most days, but the minute some outsider says anything against the place they'll counter every argument they've ever made in the past in order to defend it. I get a kick out of it. Why do other people have to be running the city down in order for these folks to support it?
And we're together on Gary.
Criticizing the city for not living up to its potential and lumping it among the most miserable in the country are two very different things. What's so hard for you to understand about that?
The criticize about New York is totally misplaced. It was four on the list last year.
My basic point is that I think it's funny the way all these Chicago people will run the city into the ground most days, but the minute some outsider says anything against the place they'll counter every argument they've ever made in the past in order to defend it.
And I can call my brother an idiot, a dummy and a moron, but if some outsider does it we might be fighting (and I assumed you'd do the same for some member of your famiy that is being maligned by a stranger). Apparently this city means something to a lot of people, warts and all. It's fine by me. I don't find it funny or strange. This city is the sum of a lot of different parts. Apparently some people find a large number of those parts acceptible. Maybe even loveable.
Yeah, I know, strange...
I was talking about the other posters, I agree with your points.
Can we stop hating on NY and start hating on another city, really, it's getting old. LA, Miami, Des Moines...
Who's hating on NY?
Sorry, I was a bit early, it's coming
Chicagoans always get so defensive and prickly when they think they have to defend their city.
I have never seen that attitude in any of the native New Yorkers I know. That, to me, is the biggest difference between the two.
But one of the things I like best about life in NYC is not just the city itself, which I like so much more than Chicago, I love the access to the whole east coast, upstate New York, etc., Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chesapeake Bay, the OCEAN, the history, and the list goes on forever.
There is so much more to do and see in that area.
It's all just a matter of preference. There is nothing to be debated. Apples and oranges.
If you like Chicago better, that's ok. You don't have to defend your choice.
Hopefully you'll be able to move back some day.
So, when someone has an opinion that differs from yours you get nasty?
If you like Chicago better than New York why is that ok? And it's not ok for me to like it the other way around? Jeez. I never said anything to knock Chicago, I'm just giving the reasons why I like New York better...it doesn't mean I think Chicago sucks.
Prickly, prickly!!
Not nasty. Just feel free to leave any time.
I love this city. I love it's ugly winters, it's mean summers. I love the way Andersonville feels like a ghosttown at 4am. I love the Jefferson Park bus turnaround. I love sitting by the lake with a cold drink on a hot day. I love my corrupt politicians, comedy gold. I love this city and fuck every other city that isn't chicago. You don't like it, make like a tree and get out of here.
Here we go again.
You don't agree with Albany and you have to make like a tree and leave.
I guess I'll go and get some aloe for that burn.
Oh freaking Christ. Comedy gold?
See, it's people like you--who can actually giggle at the theft of our tax dollars, the incompetence of our officials as they enrich themselves and their seven circles of cousins--that enables them to keep ruling over us. Frankly, I'm not too much into the "love it or leave it" mentality--that's for drunken country singers and John Birchers and the like--but Chicago would be better off if sheep like you left. I've never known a more docile group of subjects as Chicago natives. And so many of them are freaking proud of getting ripped off.
I mean, you can still laugh from afar, can't you?
Play victim elsewhere. It's a sincere hope, and I think its realization would lead to a better quality of life for all parties involved.
I'm not sure why New York was even brought up in the first place. I imagine most of the complaints Forbes levies against Chicago could likewise by made about its hometown. Again, it had no qualms listing it last year, which just underscores the sheer ridiculousness of the whole thing. (Would anyone really argue that New York is not one of if not the best city in the world?)
But the fact is, Ingrid, there is a long history of contempt for Chicago and the region from both coasts. Its place in culture and history goes under-appreciated even among residents: self-loathing natives and overly-critical transplants. The defensive crouch might not be attractive but its a natural consequence, and, IMO, still more appealing than the center-of-the-universe parochialism you find in other, seaboard megalopoleis.
Oh good lord...get over yourself. Where did I show any contempt for Chicago? And if someone actually does have contempt for Chicago, why does it get you into such a twist?
Just because people like other cities better should be no skin off your sensitive little nose.
I am here, so I find things to enjoy about the area. I am a productive citizen and you have no right to tell me to leave. Heaven forbid someone should have a differing opinion here!
Ingrid, I've got my emotions in check; you seem to be the one falling into histrionics and reading something into nothing.
Oh....go put ketchup on your hot dog.
Ingrid, I spent a semester in Manhattan in college. Had a fantastic time. Grew up near Philly and miss it.
But I tell you ... I encountered numerous people who had NO IDEA where Indiana was, much less any cities in it. I eventually started saying "Do you know where Chicago is?" And that sparked some recognition... but no real geographical understanding.
It's impossible to generalize all New Yorkers. But there are a decent chunk who are completely oblivious that the rest of the country even exists.
It's a sad fact that Americans, in general, are not keen on geography.
True, but at least people in the midwest tend to know where New York is... I mean, ignorant of global geography is one thing, but ignorant of our own freakin' country's?
Everybody knows where New York is.
And I can't even count the people I know who don't know the geography of their own country. Seemingly educated people, private prep schools, good colleges...it's pathetic.
My ex husband is not from this country and he knows the U.S. backwards and forwards because in other countries the kids learn their geography. He was appalled at how little the people here know about their own country. He knows a lot more than me about it, I can tell you that. But he does have an advantage in that he travels constantly.
I am from the midwest originally. When I moved to Maryland, people from back home were constantly thinking I lived in Massachusetts. "M" words get confusing I guess.
But they literally had NO idea where Maryland was.
It's not just people from one area, it's people from all over the country. Our education system just doesn't have a focus on geography.
Funny, I never thought my husband and I were such weirdos in that regard. I mean, sure, we're smarter than the average bear, but I thought most people could find Iowa or Nevada or South Carolina on a map. Guess the childhood state puzzle I played with paid off. :)
Man-f*ck'n -well
Look at all these Chicagoist posters wit dey draws all in a bunch caused Forbes called their Midwest
City misérable!
Boooooy Howdy!
Well dry your eyes natives! In a couple of months it will be warm and yall will be able to show off yer ChiTown pride by stuffing yer fat faces with turkey legs and wipping the BBQ sauce off on your his & hers
Cubs jerseys
(or should I say MooMoos?) at the
Tasteless Chicago Fest. But until then why don't you teach your Mayor how to speak English! It would make his 20 year crime spree a skosh more palatable. Now
go get yer shine boxes cause city hall just let out for the day! Suckas, Ya gets nothing from me!
Speaking of 'shine' and the 'mayor'...every time I see this guy on the tv, I wonder why he doesn't carry a ream of blotting papers to mop up that shiny, oily skin.
It's all I can focus on when I see him...the message gets lost in the glare.
*I know this was off topic...but those two words just jumped out at me and gave me a non sequiturian moment.
I dare say, spook, the percentage of actual Chicago residents who attend Taste of Chicago is much lower than you imagine. Perhaps for the occasion worthwhile free Taste concert (which lately have been few and far between) or the teens and thugs that stream down there to see the fireworks, that miserable (yes, I said miserable) festival is strictly touristaville...
Me, I wait for the GOOD free shows at that Millennium Park bandshell thingy. Any city that gives you an Ozomatli show for FREE is far from miserable....
Stop talking about NYC you dorks,
Point is, regardless of all our complaining Chicago is in no way the third most miserable city in the country. I wont insult any cities by name but I've traveled the entire country by road many times and there are places that you don't want to spend 10 minutes in.
When I think of the twats who do these lists, I think of some 25 year olds who do whatever they have to do to keep their lame jobs.
Top Ten lists are so random and ridiculous. Who listens to them? They're so totally meaningless and who the hell gives them the right to sit in judgement of ANYTHING.
Even if they're naming the top ten sandwiches to eat I wouldn't a damn about their opinions.
And I won't be shy about naming cities. Detroit? Toledo? To name just two. I'd slit my wrists if I ever had to live in either.
Well, can we at least all agree that Memphis is truly miserable?
I've been to Memphis many, many times and have always had a pretty good time so I'd disagree. I've been to Toledo once and it was horrible but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as I know a few really cool people who live there.
yawn, they probably blindfolded someone and had him point at 10 random cities on the map. that list is about as relevant as my toenails.
This chain of postings is hysterical and very entertaining! Thank you for the entertainment!
I really think Forbes doesn't look at things that truly matter in a city, as evidenced by Chicago ranking worse than Detroit! Sure, we have more political corruption, higher taxes, and congestion, but in things like ability to walk to good restaurants/pubs from your home, a dense commercial district you don't have to drive to reach, and neighborhoods you feel safe raising a family, Chicago is still one of the best places in the country.
Go Memphis! The food alone makes that city great, regardless of anything else.
I like how the majority of Chicago posters look at issues from their own rose colored or plastic white hipster glasses. Yea Chicago is cool if you got cash, but if you don't have cash it sucks. New York has alot more free sh*t to do and its also not the most segregated city( like Chicago) in the whole freak'n United States of America! Maybe that's got some thing to do with it. And I've only been to the airport in Memphis, but at least thier Mayor isn't strangling its Blues Tradition like Daley has already done.
Until we admit that Chicago sucks, then can we can't change it.
Now again, your shine boxes ladies and gentlemen lets see those shine boxes. Yall got me feeling like Ice Cub back in the 90's when he was cool
If cash really is your concern, then Chicago has New York beat, easily, even with the hits to the financial industry and slightly decreasing rents and prices in Manhattan and the other boroughs. Certainly you must know this.
Until we admit that Chicago sucks, then can we can't change it.
Glad to hear New York, Paris, L.A., etc. are perfect and don't need changing.
I love NYC. I love LA. I love Chicago.
Unlike women, you can love all three!
Also here is the article where new york and la were in the top 10 - just last year!
http://gothamist.com/2008/01/31/new_york_in_top.php
I've lived in Flint, MI; I've lived in Detroit, MI; and I currently live in Chicago. I can say without question or hesitation that Flint and Detroit are each at least 20 times more miserable than Chicago.
Forbes is stupid. But hey, they got us talking about it!
Debates about which city > which other city are timeless and entertaining, but I'd like to get back to the obvious anti-urban slant of the Forbes content here. They're evidently having a hard time dealing with the fact that the next 25 years in America are going to be focused on redeveloping functional, integrated, innovative and energy-efficient cities.
I would submit to them (if I thought it would do any good) that there are a lot of exurbs with insufficient tax bases, empty big box lots, half-built subdivisions and underwater residents who are waaaaaay worse off than Chicago.
But yes, Chicagoans really do need to take a more aggressive stance against local corruption. That joke isn't funny anymore.
Instead of becoming so defensive take a good look at our city reflect on what we can do improve. I've lived here my whole 45 years. We need to ban together and figure out how we can make this place better. I would like to start with throwing out all the townies from Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Minnesota and any where else all these non-city folks are coming from to live here. They never learned how to look before crossing the street because the towns they come from didn't have cars.
We are located a prime a piece of real estate compared to the rest of the midwest, but that doesn't mean that we then let the politicians take care of all the problems because all they do is create more problems. Get out of your comfort zone, do service, help your neighbors, vote for the good guys, and take the mayor down. Who really cares how many flowers the city plants, we need more trees, more cops, neighborhoods cleaned up, more good guys.
For reals, L.A., NYC, Chicago, all awesome.