On Apr 26, 10:14 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 10:43 pm, darsiau...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 11:48 am, MTRP=99 <Mir.Topol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >http://counterpunch.org/moses04262008.html
>
> > Sure, Chicago is a city of almost 4 million people. There is crime.
> > There is poverty. There are alot of guns. There is also alot of
> > prosperity, expansive public space, excellent public trans****tation
> > and a vibrant cultural life.
>
> > But in the end - it's safer here than pretty much anywhere in Brazil.
>
> > Vidas
>
> Actually Chicago is somewhat Brazil-like (I am basing this, of course,
> on my second-hand knowledge of Brazil), with segregated ghettoes and
> prosperous neighborhoods. The prosperous areas are about as safe as
> Europe; the ghettoes are probably reminiscent of, though not nearly as
> bad as, City of God.
Problem is, BM, its not 1972 anymore. The possibility of seeing a
boarded up home a few doors down from a million dollar newly
constructed home exist in pretty much any Chicago neighborhood. As far
as segregation goes - its more economic than ethnic or racial.
Peteris' favorite Pilsen is undergoing gentrification in a big way.
South and west loop factory districts are now urban loft centers.
Unlike Brazil - I would challenge you to point out even one Chicago
shanty village of dirt poor residents with open ditch based sewers
flowing with human waste and no running water or reliable electricity.
Brazil has literally millions who live under those conditions.
Homes in even the lousiest Chicago neighborhoods have heat and air
conditioning, safe, clean running water and underground sanitary
sewers. This is Brazil like to you ? Are you serious ?
>
> The author's call to provide recreation in the ghettoes is laughable;
> the swimming pools placed in the Cabrini Green housing project were
> shut down within weeks because the nihilistic residents shattered
> glass bottles inthem.
The article was laughable as it ignores the gang issue and gang
culture.
>
> Chicago's business-oriented culture was shocking by civilized Europe's
> standards but has long been eclipsed in that way by American-
> society.
Business oriented ? What city anywhere isnt business oriented ?
Chicago is also very much labor oriented and takes many cues from the
european labor movements - natural given that much of the Chicago
union labor forces have recent emmigre European roots.
Chicago remains the last and youngest American (and
> therefore Western) real city - after Chicago it's all uniform,
> standard, interchangeable utalitarian suburbia, whether it's called
> L.A., the New South, Denver, etc. etc.
>
Given that Chicago as an urban center is older than any of the
examples you cite - are we talking about the same Chicago ?
Chicago - incor****ated 1837 - population over a million after 1888
Denver - incor****ated 1861 - but Denvers growth has been marginal
since 1950.
Los Angeles - Incor****ated 1850 but didnt experience much growth until
after the first quarter of the 20th century.
New south ? Like Atlanta ?
Incor****ated 1847 as a railroad town of 2500. City growth is largely
post WW2.
Vidas
|
