What is the real difference between Chicago and Detroit?

Detroit's main problems seem to be because of an undiversified econimic base - reliance on a troubled auto-industry.

Chicago is better suited as a crossroads for national economy while Detroit is international.

Chicago has a better park system, though Detroit has some pretty big parks, they are not dispersed regularly.

They both have crappy public schools.

Chicago's Trading Floors gives it an advantage over Detroit in drawing financial jobs.

Chicago still has auto jobs, there are sizable plants in Calumet and Belvedere with many plants located withing a short driving Distance such as Kenosha, Normal....

Detroit does have an advantage when it comes to engineering, but not much else.

Now I'm depressed.

Chicago's financial institutions help diversify its economy to a far greater degree than Detroit. The city has more Headquarters from various industries, while Detroit is pretty much limited to the auto industry.

As far as the built environment goes, Chicago matured as a major city before Detroit, as benefits from that today, particularly in the form of mass transit. Chicago's core neighborhoods are more dense than Detroit's predominantly single family home fabric.

Chicago is also a major transportation hub- O'Hare, major interstates, right on Lake Michigan, canal access eventually to the Mississippi.

I think there are so many other benefits Chicago has over Detroit- excellent universities, access to big agriculture, arts, financial, etc... I'm sure there are many, many more.

Did you forget Pizza Chains? :-D
In terms of maturing early, that could be seen as a subjective point. I do agree with your outcomes, am impressed with how you worded your statement, but Detroit has been a major trading post for well over 300 years and ties with St Augustine for the oldest Catholic Parish in the United States (Ste Anne's). Look at Lincoln Park's orginal density and compare it to Corktown of today you won't find much difference.

Cities cycle. My forst trip to Chicago in the early 90's I found River North to be nearly deserted with lots of vacant land, (with lots of free parking available along the street) and found that State Street was nearly a carbon copy of Woodward. Since then, State has slightly decreased while Woodward went down the Tubes, and Michigan Ave really has taken off.

Green, have you been to Detroit? We have the same agriculture, some phenomenal museums, an opera house, a symphony hall, even Motown, Eminem, Kid Rock and Madonna (the Rock and Roll hall of fame is full of Detroiters an expats). We may not have U of C, but we do have schools that compete well with DePaul, UIC, and we have U of M not too far away.

Chicago:

• 2,800,000 pop.
• Beautiful extensive lakefront park system
• A very diverse economy
• Survived the urban exodus of the 1960s & 1970s quite well
• A much more diverse housing stock
• Developed quickly and for a "long" period (1860s-1930)
• The #1 immigrant destination in the Midwest
• Highly developed mass transit (rapid and heavy rail commuter)
• People move to Chicago

• 950,000 pop
• Mostly ignores waterfront
• Economy isolated to a handful of large entities in the very small downtown(s)
• Barely survived the urban exodus of the 1960s & 1970s
• Housing stock overwhelmingly single family detached
• Quite old, by Midwest standards (est. 1701), but didn't start large scale expansion until ~1900.
• 2nd or 3rd destination for immigrants
• Mass transit is a joke
• People move from Detroit

I was speaking more towards the industrial and economic maturity of these respective cities. Both have been established for a long time due to their key locations, but Chicago emerged as a center of commerce, finance and industry prior to Detroit, IMO. Detroit's rise primarily focused on rail manufacturing, then dominated by auto manufacturing.

Basically, Chicago got bigger earlier. Looking at long term trends and large scale events, the economy is what separates Chicago from Detroit, and the rest of the Midwest. It's the primary city for the region, and has been for a very long time. The diversity that comes with that primacy has helped Chicago, where Detroit's singular focus on one sector of the manufacturing industry both brought great prosperity and great pain.

I've never been to Detroit, but my perception is that Chicago is billed as a "cooler" place to live. It is particularly better at attracting young people because of all the attractions, including the lakefront. And you can live car-free in Chicago. Not sure if you can do that in Detroit. There is such a wide range of professional jobs in Chicago, too. Seems a lot of corporate offices are there, for publishing, insurance, banking and things like that... sectors that are not losing steam.

You can live without a car in Detroit, its tough some days but it is possible. I know lots of folks doing it because the cost of insuring a car is so high.

In terms of ignoring the Waterfront, you need to come take a look someday. This ain't your father's waterfront. The factories are gone and parks are being developed surrounded by some impressive condo and historic loft developments.

Riverfront Conservancy:
http://www.detroitriverfront.org/

Stroh Riverplace (surrounded by Condos, Hotels iand apartments built in the Old Park Davis (now Pfiezer) factory
http://strohriverplace.com/gallery/aerial4.php

Habortown Development
http://www.harbortowncondos.com/Views/index.html

Well people may move from Detroit, but at least we have a people mover to help them! ;)

Getting away from auto industry dependance is a tough nut to crack. Detroit is still sited to do well when the auto industry does well, however increasing competition from outside markets have made Detroit much less competitive. I don't think all of the new facilities being built in Detroit by Hyundi, Toyota, Honda are really helping the cause in the long run. It may even end up making it more dominated by the auto sector. Also there are a lot of fixed costs in having 100,000's of thousands retirees that the competition from elsewhere does not absorb the same costs.

After college, I looked at living in both metro areas.

To me, Chicago just had more energy. To me, you could drop someone on earth from outer space, and they'd know they were in Chicago. There's a unique feel to the city that you don't find anywhere else.

There is a great downtown and other vibrant urban areas. At the same time, there are fast-growing, modern suburbs.

Detroit.. and don't get me wrong, I like Detroit. But the downtown is largely uninspiring as far as having much energy. Greektown is nice, but it's small. The hockey fans are great, and there's much to enjoy. But when I look at it... to me, the Detroit area is for families who want large suburban lots. For a true urban experience, that's a few years away from going to the point where it's mainstream.

Meanwhile, Chicago is all about urban experience.

In other words, once the slide starts, or the growth starts, it's hard to turn either around. I hope -- and believe -- Detroit is well on its way, however!

Detroit, while amazingly resilient, is facing huge challenges. Foreclosures at at a high rathe throughout the metro, people are walking away from homes. Mendalman is right on when he says there is no reason to move here (right now). Jobs are drying up, and we are not projecting an increase for another couple of years. The best we can do is to try and spur economic development through 'new deal' type programs. Sometimes I feel like I am stuck here. I'd love to sell my house and buy either a condo downtown or a half a duplex in a nicer streetcar suburb, but I am terrified that I coould be trading one good yet now money losing investment for one where I could lose even more money (my house's net worth probably dropped 25 percent over the last year :-c, but I bought cheap and its nearly paid off (would have been by now if it was not for the cabin) just imagine what starting with a higher mortgage could lead to)

I think one of the major problems for Detroit (as has already been mentioned above) is its geography... it is sort of out of the way for rail lines and interstates for businesses trying to move goods around the Midwest. It could be a major freshwater port for goods coming into the U.S. from northern Canada or the Atlantic through the St. Lawrence, but again, being out of the way once the goods reach the port could be standing in the way of that.

In my opinion, another mark against Detroit is its history before its decline: While the auto industry began to boom and the population in the city was growing by leaps and bounds, the citizens were able to afford larger housing which lead to the abundance of single family detached homes throughout the city. One could argue that outside of a few pockets of real urban density, the city of Detroit has been a suburban city ever since its zenith. Driving from Detroit north into its inner ring suburbs (and in many cases, even the next ring out), there really isn't much difference in density and this isn't because the suburbs are so dense, but because the city lacks density (actually, now in many parts, the suburbs have much more density than particular areas of Detroit).

As for Detroit ignoring its waterfront, I don't know if I would really call that the case. For many years, the waterfront was used for industry which is what was working in Detroit (let's face it, Detroit has never been one of the World's great financial powerhouses). Its easy to look back now and say where we went wrong and what we should have done, but there is some progress happening along the waterfront with the construction of the River Walk and new residential development underway... If somebody wants to get a waterfront view in a major American city, Detroit may be their most affordable choice!

One last thing that I think has hurt Detroit is that the city council is voted in "at large." Chicago is well known for its neighborhood associations and community cohesiveness and I think that this could have something to do with the fact that their aldermen are voted in on a district level and not a city-wide level. Detroit's City Clowncil members have no accountability to particular neighborhoods and the members of a single neighborhood do not have the recourse that they would have if they did picked their own council members (I do admit that politics is politics and there is strife in any system and that corruption and cronyism are just as common in Chicago as they are in Detroit).

Because my hometown, Toledo, OH, is only 50 miles from Detroit, I have watched The Motor City as if it was my home. I would certainly agree that Detroit seemed built specifically for the autocar they (nearly) invented and perfected (for awhile, anyway). Look at the Detroit map.....spokes blowing-out from the central city, such as Woodward, Grand River, Gratiot, Michigan.....even as a kid I remember being in 1950s awe of such wide main streets.

When the expressways were plotted they did it again, giving Detroiters an easy (albiet often bumpy) e-way commute to (at first) the inner-ring suburbs, then the middle ring suburbs, then a third ring, and on to more suburban rings than Frodo's pals.

BUT.....I believe the "defining moment" was the urban riot of 1967. Sure, there were numerous race riots in the USA during the 1960s.....but the length, severity, and COVERAGE of the "12th Street Riot" dominated the news. Law-abiding and scared Detroiters (of any color, any nationality) began to move away from the central city. Detroit neighborhoods that were close to the inner-ring suburbs experienced some growth related to central city folks moving outward. But even those areas slid in population as new expressways (I-275, I-696) made it even easier to move to third and fourth ring suburbs.

(Side note: I dated a girl from Birmingham Seaholm High School, so I spent a ton of time in that area, circa 1965.)

Add-in the development of the area in and around Northland Center. Decisions made by department store wonks led to the end of department store shopping in downtown Detroit. "Hey, I am in my car. I can drive anywhere in town in a relatively quick period of time, because of these super highways. I can park in a free lot, next to the big mall that has all these stores. Why would I want to go downtown?" (Side-note again.....I paid 19.9-cents for a gallon of gas in suburban Detroit back in the mid-1960s.)

One of the life bloods of downtown, movie theaters, withered away in both Chicago and Detroit. But Chicago still had a strong regional dramatic theater focus. Chicago's museums in the downtown area made more of an impact than Detrroit's museums in the downtown area. (Often a museum trip to Detroit involved a SUBURB.....Dearborn.)

BTW.....hats off to Mike Illitch and his willingness to put his money in central Detroit. Yes, he makes a bunch of money selling pizza.....but he seems very willing to invest in his city.

Bear

I was born and raised in Detroit, and occasionally go back. I've lived in Chicago for the last 20 years. I think there are some very clear reasons why Chicago has prospered and Detroit has not:

1) Chicago's futures markets. The CBOT and the MERC gave Chicago a head start over Detroit in the financial markets that would later play a bigger part in the nation's -- and world's -- economy.

2) The nation's transportation hub. Chicago's geography and rail network kept it part of the mix of the national economy in a way that Detroit was not.

3) Public transit. Public transit -- in particular commuter rail -- kept downtown Chicago viable to suburbanites long after Detroit's downtown began to wane.

4) Mayor Daley I. Chicago was every bit as rocked by riots in 1968 as Detroit was in 1967 -- and TWICE (MLK riots in April '68, Democratic Convention beat-down in July '68). But Chicago had political continuity and stability that kept widespread white flight from happening (trust me, if a Coleman Young had been elected in Chicago, it would have experienced the same result).

5) Mayor Daley II. He made it safe for the business community to invest in Chicago again, once again bringing political continuity and stability. Does anyone else remember the "Council Wars" during the Harold Washington years? There was a real reticence to invest in Chicago during much of the '80s. Dennis Archer had a chance to be a similar type of mayor for Detroit, but he probably left too early.

I think these points distinguish Chicago from Detroit. But let's also be clear -- Chicago really picked itself up off the mat beginning in the early 1990's, and very little was different between Chicago and Detroit up until then. In fact, Chicago is closer to being like Detroit, economically and demographically, than one might think. If one were to look at the 2000 U.S. Census housing, social and demographic data for Chicago -- south of the Stevenson Expressway-- and all the attendant south and southwest suburbs, you would find that its profile is almost identical to metro Detroit. Nearly identical in every way -- similar populations, similar densities, similar household incomes, similar poverty levels, similar demographic breakdowns, similar housing stock. It is Chicago's North and Northwest Sides and adjacent suburbs, and the economy that created it, that really distinguishes Chicago from Detroit.

I'd add another feature that distinguishes Chicago from Detroit (brought up by Greenescapist, if not others as well):

6) Top notch universities. I think the presence of Northwestern and the University of Chicago helped Chicago to better withstand the Post-WWII decline, at least in the sense that they continued to expose many of the world's "best and brightest" to the city. Some of them actually chose to stay here. In addition to those two, there's DePaul, Loyola-Chicago, Illinois-Chicago, IIT, and a host of smaller commuter-type schools. There are fine universities in Detroit (University of Detroit-Mercy, Wayne State), but they don't compare to Chicago's collection of schools.

You forgot about Mopar and Henry Ford Community College! ;) University of Michigan was born in Detroit, but moved to Ann Arbor quite some time ago. Just imagine what would have happened if it never moved. No need for U of M Dearborn, Probably another nice campus environment within the City Limits, lots of college kids running amok.

I personally feel that those who have not spent a great amount of time here have underestimated Detroit's Cultural attractions. The Opera House was built around an old movie palace (with additions for a deep stage) and is true spectacular. The Orchestra plays out of a nearly accoustically perfect hall that was built in the 1920's and is attached to smaller performance rooms, as well as the High School for Fine Arts. Just imagine the leg up some of these inner city kids get by being able to jam with professional classically trained musicians. The Art Institute is pretty darned nice and is about to unviela $300 million addition. In fact when I went to the Chicago Museum, I was not too impressed as I was expecting it to be a show stopper compared to Detroit and Toledo and it wasn't. The Detroit Zoo is also a great place these days with a giant polar exibit where seals and bears swim around you and you can play among the Kangaroos.

Folks just think of Detroit as being sprawl surrounding rusted, broken, crap. While that is partially true, it is not a full picture.

Great conversation about two cities that have long fascinated many people, including myself.

It seems things in metro Detroit have dipped the past couple of years. When I spent more time there in the early part of the decade, it seemed there was a sense of optimism. But if housing is dropping that quick... ouch. Not a good sign -- but perhaps looking at the incredible costs of many coastal cities, there is a market there. True, jobs are needed, but cost of living is key. San Diego has great weather, a seemingly fine economy (city council not withstanding), yet out-migration has outpaced in-migration in the past few years. The reason? People don't want to pay $1 million-plus for a typical new suburban home.

My first visit to Chicago actually came in 2000. I've heard several people say that Chicago was on the same path as Detroit from the late 60s through sometime in the 1990s. What was Chicago like during that time? Was downtown still dynamic? Was the metro area still growing as a whole? Was the crime rate a significant issue -- more so than today?

And also, how did the Chicago area turn things around? Was it just more young people looking for urban environments and the related cultural, social, etc. events -- things that, in my opinion, are more important to young people today than 30 years ago? Or were there tangible differences in economic policy, planning, etc?

I would say in 1990 Chicago did have a more lively feel. Most of the reasons were mentioned earlier, it had a lot to do with a certain stability that comes with the trading floor, the fact that Downtown was the central part of the transit network, many stromg neighborhoods, and investment in newer buildings downtown that included housing.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I tried to publish an article a few years ago that says that Detroit is America's whipping boy and boogeyman rolled into one. Whipping boy -- everyone likes to badmouth it and its (very real) problems. But they're problems that EVERY major city has to some extent. Boogeyman -- so many urbanistas continue to scare people by saying that if some political or urban policy action is not taken, your fair city could end up like... DETROIT!!!:-c

So in a weird way, Americans need Detroit to hold onto its gritty industrial past, full of crime, racial unrest, and wholesale abandonment, so we can collectively nurse our guilt for leaving cities.

Hey! There is a new reason for me to work even harder! If I accomplish more cool stuff then I can just put more pressure on the 'Fake Liberals' out in the burbs! ;-)

I will add another of the many reasons that Chicago is vibrant. The decisions to build The Sears Tower and John Hancock Center guaranteed a steady stream of tourists AND seemed to ignite a race along the lakefront to build numerous new skyscrapers.

Yes, they are office buildings.....but those two structures draw thousands of tourists to Chicago.

In 1966, when my friend, Fred, was living in Chicago (near Wrigley Field), the area in and around John Hancock Center was dead. We even had a Chicago cop "shake us down" for a cash handout in that area, next to an old warehouse.

Today, the entire area is vibrant and hip.

Bear

And that tall building race is continuing at a TORRID pace, as there are two other buildings taller than 80 floors, the Aqua - 83 floors and Chicago Spire - 150 floors (will be the tallest free-standing structure in the western hemisphere upon completion), both residential, either under construction or about to start and oodles of shorter ones in various stages of planning or construction.

It is a fun time indeed to visit or live in Chicago if you're any kind of a construction geek!

Mike

I just returned to Detroit from Chicago for an extended weekend and will add another to the list of differences:

There are many more residential areas I feel safe walking through at 1:00 a.m. in Chicago than there are in Detroit. Now, I know that how one perceives a neighborhood might not always be reflect the facts about what goes on there, but keeping residential areas clean, well-lit, and maintained goes a long-way to making out-of-town visitors (and residents as well) feel welcome and safe.

I also understand that there are areas in Chicago that I probably would not want to venture to far into (day or night), but there are still many that I didn't mind walking through. Interestingly, as a friend and I were walking from the Red Line stop back to where we were staying one night at about 1:30 a.m. down a residential street, we came across a group of four of Chicago's Finest on bicycle patrol... This is something I would NEVER see in the middle of the night in Detroit (oddly, I see more Border Patrol agents on bicycle in Detroit than actual cops).

Chicago has been the hub of the midwest, historically, and currently. Detroit has not.

I think of it this way Detroit is to Chicago, what Philly is NYC. Stuck in the larger city's shadow. Historically both hve thrived, but NYC and Chicago were able to make it out of the 60-70's and revive, Detroit and Philly have not.

Detroit had cars and Ford, Chicago had the meat industry + Daley... ;-)

Detroit won't beat
Dick Daley's meat?

My reasons, in decreasing order of importance...

1. White Flight - as pete-rock has mentioned, Chicago handled the racial unrest of the 60s much better than Detroit. I can guarantee you that if the same % of affluent whites left the city of Chicago, it would be much more like present day Detroit. I still amazes me that so many people (not anyone here) are unwilling to discuss the issue that racism has played in the decline of Detroit. I have relatives who moved from the city and inner-ring suburbs who say things about "those people in Detroit (i.e. black people) that make me cringe. The level of racial undertones in comments made by suburbanites about the city of Detroit still amazes me.

2. Geography - although both are located on waterfronts, Chicago has always been more positioned as a "hub" of commercie.

3. Business Diversity - as mentioned previously, the financial markets in Chicago have given it a big leg up, especially in it's ability to attract young professionals.

4. Educational Institutions - Wayne State is no Northwestern

Interesting thread, with a lot of valid observations. I think to some degree, it was Detroit's prosperity in the pre- and post-WWII years that eventually did it in. As factory workers could afford better housing in the suburbs, they moved out where houses and yards were bigger. This was true of both middle and upper-middle class whites and blacks; and then the 1967 riot completed the migration of the middle and upper-middle class, leaving behind the poorest, mostly non-homeowners. There are still neighborhoods of prosperity, however, and many areas that were quite downtrodden only a few years ago are seeing a resurgence.

Downtown Detroit, along with the riverfront, is seeing a renaissance, and I challenge everyone who thinks of Detroit as the armpit of America to check it out. Buildings are being rehabbed, and new residential construction is everywhere. The ball parks and the Fox Theater have revitalized the northerly part of downtown, while CompuWare and Campus Martius have made central downtown as attractive as any urban area in America. Even the fortress-like Renaissance Center has been improved. Fifteen years ago, the only place to go downtown was Greektown; now most of downtown is vibrant, with new hotels, restaurants and nightclubs. And the People Mover, while perhaps the most expensive 2.5 miles of rail line ever built in America, is a fantastic ride that any planner would appreciate.

I love Chicago, and yes, it is much more vibrant with more happening, but Detroit is worth a look.

While we could argue for hours on end about who has the best culture, sports teams, parks, housing, and what-not, it really all comes down to size and population. Chicago has three times as many people as Detroit. Chicagoland has twice as many people as Metro Detroit.

Chicago has also made itself the capital of the Midwest, primarily due to its size and central location.

Also, just compare the downtowns and the skycrapers. Chicago's downtown and cooresponding skyline seems to stretch on forever, whereas Detroit's is concentrated in a very small area.

For those interested in seeing a bit of Detroit up-close and personal this weekend:

Somewhere in this forum I wrote a post that said Detroit had a last best chance to improve its economy and image in the mid to late '60s, before the riots. It was a missed opportunity -- Motown.

From the late '50s to the early '70s, through Motown, Detroit was the center of the growing R&B music industry, in the same way that Nashville has been the center of the country music industry. We all know about the artists who came from there -- the Supremes, the Temptations, the Four Tops, Smokie Robinson and the Miracles, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, etc. But there were also numerous producers and musicians, sound techs and other artists who could've expanded Detroit's hold on the R&B industry, with a little vision and support from business leaders and local government. Unfortunately, when Motown left Detroit in the early '70s, all hope of that vanished (of course, there have always been rumors that Motown's move had more to do with the Mob than with being in LA -- don't know how true that is).

Detroit had a legitimate hold on a big part of the entertainment industry, and was at the forefront of transitioning from a declining manufacturing to booming service economy -- and let it slip away.

Nice call pete-rock regarding Motown.

National Public Radio here in Michigan is doing a special on the '67 Detroit riots, being that it's the 40 year anniversary. Pretty interesting stuff.

http://www.michiganradio.org/ashestohope.html

Dont forget the School of the Art Institute of Chicago! brings many hipsters into the city. just kidding, im jst saying that because i went there.

In 1967, I was living in Ann Arbor and commuting to one of the burbs north of Detroit to see my girlfriend most weekends. That involved a Greyhound to downtown Detroit, then a Detroit city bus ride all the way up Woodward Ave and then a reverse trip on Sunday. That particular weekend, I was headed back down Woodward on the bus and large plumes of black smoke were visible near downtown. Not knowing what it was, and not having too many options, I stayed on the bus all the way downtown. It wasn't until I was down there that I found out what was happening. Needless to say, I stayed in the Greyhound terminal until the 1st bus back to Ann Arbor. I didn't make that commute again until well after the riots had subsided and never felt comfortable on the city bus again.

I've always felt safer in downtown Chicago than Detroit.

Detroit right now is at the cutting edge of the hip hop scene. Artists from Detroit are at the top of most of the underground hip hop playlists. Guys like Black Milk, Phat Kat, Loe Louis and Guilty Simpson.

In Detroit, all the Casinos are within or near the CBD. In chicago, they are in the suburbs (and like cul de sacs, I know because I am an expert that they cause sprawl) :-D

Da Bears vs the Lions 85-62-5
http://assets.chicagobears.com/assets/tradition/AllTimeSeriesRecords2006.pdf

TIgers vs White Sox 1901 - 2004
945 W - 911 L
www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/teamvsteam-al.shtml

To echo what some have said or hinted at, the transportation industry's decision to locate first rail, then roadways, then airway hubs in Chicago kept it more relevant to diverse commercial activity than Detroit.

To tell you guys the truth, I have only been to Chicago, but I would like to go and tour both Chicago and Detroit one of these days.

And not just the tourist areas, but the grittier, industrial side that gives us westerners the impressions they we have (or to dispell said impressions). I would also like to see the revitalized areas too.

And go to Flint.

Would I be allowed to drive my foreign-made pick-up truck through there? ;)

Uhh, you better rent a Chevy or Ford ;)

Honestly, I don't think there's the animosity toward foreign cars that there used to be. That being said, you still find a LOT fewer foreign cars in Detroit than you would elsewhere.

Sure why not? Just tell the drunk autoworker at the nudie bar next to you your name is Vincent Chin
http://modelminority.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1100

Its incredible the amount of change that can happen over 25 years. While domestic cars definitely rule the roost, it is becoming harder to determine just what is a domestic car. Your pick up may be more American than my Dad's Fusion.

Detroit was recently voted the #1 Sports Town in America by Sporting News. Eat it Chicago!!! :-p

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/video/brightside_8.html

PS. Detroit gives a much higher quality of living per price of a home than Chicago. You can by a home in Grosse Pointe for $500,000 that would cost 1,300,000 in Chicago and be near the water and have access to tons of private, well kept areas.