Some are more useful than others. A financial magazine might rank the best cities in which to start a business. A medical magazine might rank which cities are the best for new doctors. And there are dozens and dozens of publications which try to rate the best places to live.
One of the more respected publications is the Financial Times of London. Since 1888 it has done a very good job of reporting news, features, and more to its mainly upper-class business-minded global-traveling readers.
In the last few years it's also taken on the challenge of ranking the best places to live.
This year the list was published on June 13th. The top three are:
- Zurich
- Copenhagen
- Tokyo
Chicago is not in the top three. Nor is it in the top ten. Nor the top 50. Chicago doesn't rank at all. But that doesn't mean Chicago was absent from consideration. In fact, the second paragraph of the article was all about Chicago. Here it is, responding to the question, "Could you live here?":
On the train to Chicago's O'Hare: "No way. It's neither one thing nor the other and just look at this sad excuse of a train to the airport."It's easy to take umbrage at such a comment. But those of us who have taken the train to O'Hare, then taken a train from a foreign airport to our hotel know this is entirely true. Even third world countries have better subway systems than Chicago, and better connectivity from airports to downtowns.
Mayor Daley has made half-hearted attempts at improving the link between O'Hare and the city center. His Block 37 super station was the latest. Also the express train plan which he came up with after a trip to Asia and seeing how one of the poorest countries in the world kick Chicago's butt when it comes to things like mass transit, cleanliness, and city services all while maintaining far lower taxes than we enjoy in the Windy City.
It's something I haven't been able to figure out yet. The mayor knows that mass transit is one of the most important points that the International Olympic Committee is looking at in awarding the 2016 Games. The mayor is de facto in charge of the CTA. Yet, except for when there is a serious crisis, he keeps his hands off of the transit agency in a way that mayors in New York, London, Los Angeles, and elsewhere don't.
If the mayor wants Chicago to stop its descent into backwater status, then this is something he has to seriously address. The Financial Times calls Chicago "sad" in the second paragraph of its story -- A story that has been read by hundreds of thousands of decision makers and opinion leaders around the world. A story that they will repeat to other influential people. One paragraph that is the start of global recognition that Chicago isn't everything it should be.
It should also be an internal alarm for the city to recognize that no one outside the hayseed flyover states gives a crap about whether the Sox or the Cubs win the "Crosstown Classic." If Chicago wants to be a global player, which is something its mayor claims, then it's time to start acting like it. Like all races, if you're not leading, you're losing. This ranking is yet another indication of the beer-addled naval gazing that for generations has eroded the city's global presence from world innovator to historic also-ran.
I am not exactly sure why I am posting this comment due to a suspicion that not very many people read your blog,.....but, well, I have no doubt to the accuracy of your reporting on the FT story, it's just that the best (and only)reason YOU could come up with for our 'sad' rating was to compare airport trains and subways? really?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I harped on Chicago's pathetic transit situation was to build upon the point being made by the Financial Times article. I, and most other residents, could probably put together 20 pages on other ways Chicago is failing its citizens. Anyone who can't isn't paying attention or lives in the suburbs.
As for the blog's readership, I think you might be surprised how many thousand people read this blog each day. I know that every time I check, I am.
Here is a link to the article...just copy and paste it in your web browser.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/766d1c92-561e-11de-ab7e-00144feabdc0.html
Anyway, you the author of this blog know that you way over exaggerated that article for the purpose of getting your points across. Btw, no American city was anywhere in the top 25 and New York's transportation got roasted just as bad but that doesn't make it any less of a city. Even London was way down on that list mostly for the same reasons many American cities were. If transportation in general and/or transportation to the airport was your reason for rating Chicago "sad" then you should take a hard look at the rest of this country. You shouldn't just be putting all the blame on Daley, you should be blaming the government because this whole country is "sad" when comparing its transportation to other countries. Now, I do think Daley could and should have done way more for this city's transportaion but I also think we should also count our blessings and stop making things seem worse than they really are.
Btw, wtf does the "Crosstown Classic" have to do with anything? Chicagoans don't care if the world knows about it, it's almost an inclusive Chicago tradition celebrated by Chicagoans and whoever else from the "flyover states" wants to attend. It's not some phony show put together to impress the world, it's what Chicagoans do and there's nothing wrong with that.
Honestly, I think you're just trying to find an excuse to bash Chicago (it deserves some bashing every now and then)for whatever reasons so you used this article to mask your true agenda. There are several things in this city to complain about but making things up or exaggerating what's not really there just make you seem desperate or maybe even bitter.
Ronny,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to the article. I read it in the dead tree edition and didn't think to look for it online.
You're right, no American city made the top 25. As a point of interest, Honolulu made 26th, though.
I didn't rate Chicago "sad." As stated twice in the blog entry, that is a quote from the second paragraph of the print article. "Sad" was not my word. For some reason both you and Steven chose to ignore that point.
You are correct that much of the rest of the country is also "sad." But Chicago is the third largest city in America. Comparing Chicago to smaller cities is not relevant. But if you want to go that way, then fine -- Washington, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Portland and dozens of other smaller cities have better airport to downtown connections.
However, you are correct -- the state of mass transit in most cities in this nation is pathetic. We can blame generations of American political leaders who took money from construction companies and car companies instead of putting their constituents needs first.
But the FT is not an American publication -- it is a global publication, so it makes more sense to compare Chicago to cities in other nations in this context. In doing so, it is important to note that Chicago is decades behind dozens -- maybe hundreds -- of other cities. Many of them in third world countries.
But the reason I posted about this was because it was in the FT. I merely elaborated on it.
I blame Daley because he is the mayor. He is responsible for what goes on in this city. The buck stops with him. If he can take credit for various agencies successes, then he should also take the blame for the failures. He's been in office long enough to have made a greater impact on the CTA than he has.
Personally, I like the CTA. I moved to Chicago from a city that had virtually no transit. Growing up in New York City, I was so happy to once again live in a place where I didn't need a car anymore.
I don't currently have an agenda. I don't have time for such things. I merely call things as I see them, and write what I think. Sometimes its praise, sometimes it's not.
In this case I believe that on a global level, Chicago's transit is pathetic. That doesn't mean I'm not happy to have it. But the point is that if Mayor Daley wants to make Chicago a global city (and he does), then he's got to address some of its fundamental flaws, like the CTA. The fact that an international publication like the FT can call us out on it is embarrassing.
I wasn't comparing Chicago to smaller cities. I was comparing it mostly to the nation's 5 largest cities. Also, New York's supposedly great transport system was labeled "abysmal" in that article and that's the best this country has to offer which is why I said this country as a whole is sad when comparing its transportation to other countries but I wouln't trade it for any place else. I highly doubt those cities you listed have better airport to downtown transportation than Chicago, at least not public transportation. Anyway, I decided to say reply because this isn't the first time I've seen you written something that lacks substance or that's overly exaggerated which is why I said you had an agenda. Btw, Chicago is a global city, it might not be in the same league with Tokyo, Paris, London or New York but don't underestimate its status. Again, I agree that Daley is to blame but the blame shouldn't fall on him alone. Also, I'm aware of this city's flaws but over exaggerating them and/or finding ones that aren't there only makes you sound bitter and desperate for something to whine about.
ReplyDeleteRonny,
ReplyDeleteI won't deny that I sometimes whine, either about Chicago or something else. Sometimes Chicago deserves praise. Sometimes it doesn't. Perhaps I should work harder to take a more even-handed tone in these postings. But remember, there is a big difference between the internet and journalism; and an even bigger gulf between blogging and journalism.
Still, your criticism is well taken and I'll endeavor to take more deep breaths before I start foaming at the mouth about something in the future.
And since you inquired, here is a list of cities where I have personally taken public transit from the airport to downtown where the quality, speed, reliability, and/or price were far superior to what we have here in Chicago:
New York
Washington, DC
London
Hong Kong
Atlanta
Pittsburgh (via a dedicated busway, not train)
Minneapolis
Seoul
Tokyo
Portland
Vienna
Amsterdam
Istanbul
Brussels
Enjoying the brouhaha, thought I'd jump in while the water's still warm.
ReplyDeleteI've experienced public transportation to the airport in five of the cities you mentioned above and am a little puzzled by your assessment. While PT to JFK is good these days, there is no direct rail link to Laguardia or Newark. In DC, Reagan National is accessible by the Metro but Dulles is not.
I've found the service in Minneapolis, Tokyo and Istanbul to be a tossup at best.
The only public transportation to the airport that I've experienced that is far more convenient than Chicago's is the M to Logan Airport which is really a function of the airport's location just across the harbor from downtown Boston.
I've been to scads of cities around the world where PT to the airport is much worse or non existent.
Chicago has direct rapid transit service to both of its commercial airports which is unusual to say the least. While it is not express service and you have to ride with the rest of us plebes, it still is reasonably convenient and very cheap considering the options. Certainly the CTA has huge problems but I'd say transportation to the airports is the least of them.
The fact that the Mr. Brûlé, the author of the Financial Times article chose to single out Chicago at the outset of his article is indeed unfortunate for us. But let's be reasonable, it's one person's opinion. Judging by his list of most desirable cities, I'd say his tastes run toward wealthy burgs with little ethnic diversity, close to the ski slopes.
By those standards Chicago can't possibly measure up, at least to the last two.
Best regards from one of the many thousands who read your blog!
Jamesiska,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input. It's good to hear another perspective from someone who's traveled beyond the confines of Chicagoland.
You're right about Mr. Brule's inclinations. I thought the list was unusual compared to others. Tokyo rarely ranks so high on lists because of its pollution and congestion. And I don't get the inclusion of all those alpine and Scandinavian cities which are quite nice, but ultimately provincial and boring if you have to live there more than six months.
In Tokyo I used to always take the Limousine Bus service into town, but on my last trip switched to the train. There's a new (I'm pretty sure it's new in the last six months or so) express service that gets you to Tokyo Station in about 30 minutes.
In Istanbul I didn't take the train both ways. My hotel provided pick-up from the airport, so I only took the train back. I thought it was great.
The real star in my travels has been the Hong Kong airport train. Mayor Daley has taken this at least once that I know of, and he was very impressed.
As for Newark, yes there is a rail link from the airport to New York. Follow the signs for the AirTrain Station. Once there, you can take either New Jersey Transit or Amtrak into Penn Station. I've done it a few times with NJT and it costs $11 each way. In theory, it should be possible to also get to Philadelphia and Boston this way, but I haven't tried either.
You're right that DC is only accessible by train from DCA. But when I'm going to DC for business, I always fly into DCA rather than sit in a rental car commuting in from Dulles, which is practically in West Virginia.
I haven't flown into Boston yet, so I have no opinion on its service to Logan. You called it "M." I thought Boston was called "T?" Or perhaps I'm misinformed.
You're right -- there are lots of cities around the world where public transit to the airport is horrible. Houston stands out in my mind, along with Bangkok, Seoul, and Rome. But at least Seoul and Bangkok (and Houston... sort of) are working on it.
Thanks for reading. Let me know if there's any ways I can improve things around here: editor@chicagoarchitecture.info
I know I've stated it before, but for the record I am a CTA rider. I came to Chicago with two cars and sold both of them. The auto-reload feature of my Chicago Card Plus can attest to the fact that I have a keen interest in the future of Chicago's public transportation.
As an aside, I just checked the visitor statistics (provided by Google Analytics, FWIW) and there doesn't seem to be an uptick in the number of readers of the blog this week. I guess all the comments here are just evidence that I touched a nerve.
Dear Editor:
ReplyDelete....and why don't you go ahead and tell me what transit experience of JFK or LaGuardia to Manhattan are like?
Let me answer that--neither airport has direct rail service to Manhattan.
The L certainly is pathetic compared to European and Asian systems, but give Chicago some credit....sheesh
City Observer:
ReplyDeleteSo fly into Newark like most people do. Newark is the primary passenger airport for New York City. LaGuardia is designated primarily for freight. Kennedy for international. Newark is 20% closer to Manhattan than Kennedy.
You seem to indicate that if all of a city's airports don't have direct rail service to the downtown, then all connections are worthless. By your logic then Chicago was worthless until the Orange Line went into service in the 90's. Now everything is rainbows and ponies.
But thanks for backing me up on the actual point of the article I referenced -- Chicago's transit is pathetic compared to European and Asian systems. Possibly South American, too, but I've never been to South America.
I'm not sure what it is that you think I should give Chicago credit for. Falling behind? Being complacent? Failing to hold its leaders accountable for providing adequate services? Allowing a once great city to rapidly approach backwater status?
Editor,
ReplyDeleteYou took quite a liberty in your last post. How you concluded that I was implying that by "my logic Chicago was worthless until the Orange Line went into service in the 90's" completely baffles me. If you want to argue then argue against another person's point, not against what you are hoping he's trying to say.
I was specifically replying to a tone in your post that suggests that the transit experience between Chicago and its airports is so pathetic that it merits such harsh condemnation such as yours. Fine, you have a right to your opinion, yet you then went on to say:
"And since you inquired, here is a list of cities where I have personally taken public transit from the airport to downtown where the quality, speed, reliability, and/or price were far superior to what we have here in Chicago:
New York
Washington, DC"
What you conveniently omit is the fact that as long as one is lucky to be flying into Newark or Reagan, sure--expect a train ride into the city. All I'm saying is that perhaps Chicago should get just a little bit of credit for providing direct rail service to ALL of its major airports.
Having lived 3 years in New York City (where I currently live) and 3 years in Washington, DC (where I lived just before this) I can tell you that I've always have envied Chicago's transit access to both airports (which I have also ridden). I spend hundreds of dollars a year on cab rides to/from LaGuardia and JFK--not everyone lives in Manhattan, after all, and getting to Newark is just way too much of a hassle. On the same token, flying from Dulles was an even bigger pain in the rear for me.
The L is far from perfect, but it wouldn't hurt to get a bit of perspective here, and not to get so defensive when somebody disagrees with you. Perhaps you're just fed up with Chicago or something, but maybe you should consider sticking to just discussing architecture.
I guess I just don't understand. Somehow I'm the bad guy for pointing out a slam about Chicago in an international publication. Somehow I'm the bad guy for wanting better things for Chicago. Somehow I'm the bad guy for thinking that Chicago should aspire to greater things.
ReplyDeleteOh well, I'll be the bad guy then. Better than being a defender of mediocrity.
Such spirited debate! I love it. Don't let some of the fierce comments let you down, Editor. You have a great thing going in this blog. This is the first time I have come across this blog and quickly I have become a big fan. Please keep up the great work.
ReplyDeleteChicago is a great city. Its triumphs should be celebrated and its failures sharply critiqued, both of which this blog manages to do.
I think it odd that the editor of an architectural rag is more interested in the Chicago rail system than in its buildings. Even stranger is the meanderings around the world. Comparing apples to oranges reminds me an awful lot of the same trite Apple vs PC debate. It not only gets old after awhile, the experts knew the answer 20 years ago - just like the engineers then understood the aging road and rail system in Ameria.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is Chicago is an old city that is not a "Johnny come lately" in a third-world country. It has just as many problems as any other old city. Comparisons aside, what seems to be ignored is the vast size of a developed America when compared to other countries.
As a whole the American transportaion system is aging, yet trains, buses, cars and planes manage to travel coast to coast on a daily basis and arrive safely. The same can be said of the busiest airport in America - where a plane lands or leaves every 10 seconds.
Lets not shortchange hayseed Chicago while ignoring its attributes and contributions to the world. If you want to be teken seriously try promoting the town that "Billy Sunday cound not shut down."
Most disturbing is your low opinion of agricultural America. When the farms and ranches disappear, what country will be feeding your children and at what cost? IF you cannot trust the toothpaste, baby food, dog food or drywall from China now, what make you think you can trust imported Chinese milk, meat or produce? You need to get out and -- forget it. You don't have a car and you live in the largest convenient store in the mid-America.
ReplyDelete"And since you inquired, here is a list of cities where I have personally taken public transit from the airport to downtown where the quality, speed, reliability, and/or price were far superior to what we have here in Chicago:"
ReplyDeleteWas this a joke? LaGuardia and Kennedy don't even HAVE direct access, Pitts is a BUS, London's is expensive, takes forever and is no better than the CTA, Atlanta? Brussels? Vienna? I've taken them all multiple times and there's nothing about them that's so much better than the CTA. CTA runs 24 hours a day for $2.25. You make it sound like those other cities have some ultra modern high speed train that glides you around. Some of the cities do, but places like Brussels, Vienna, etc? LOL.
Duke,
ReplyDeleteI'd respond to your post, but there's nothing to respond to. You attacked the messenger, not the message. Lame.
Ditto for BabyDitten -- You're flaming sentences in the comments section, not the actual Financial Times article. I guess you're OK with Chicago being called "sad" since you decided not to quibble with that. LOL.
And both of you are weak for getting your panties in a bunch over an article that's four months old. The rest of the world has moved on. Try to keep up.
All I have to say that Oslo is on the list, and even though I'm part Norwegian and have Norwegian relatives all over Norway, Oslo is really boring. Yeah, it has an AWESOME train to the airport, but overall it can't even be reasonably compared to cities I'd rather live in. In contrast, Stockholm is genuinely a great city and I'd enjoy living there.
ReplyDelete