http://globalmidwest.typepad.com/global-midwest/2012/06/milwaukee-and-chicago-one-city-or-two.html I found an article that talks about Milwaukee and Chicago being one metro area because people from Milwaukee drive to Chicago for work or play. Their suburbs are close together like Lake county in Il and Kenosha county in Wi. Even if they are 90 miles apart.
I spotted similar discussions on Skyscraperpage http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198688 and City-Data http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1573252-when-will-chicago-csa-include-milwaukee.html who talk about if Milwaukee will be part of Chicago CSA?
What we would call the future big metropolis/megalopolis: "Chilwaukee", "Chicalwaukee","Milcago", "Milwaucago"?
To a certain extent, they have been merged for years, but they will never be one area. I think Kenosha County is tied more closely to Chicagoland than Milwaukee. Northwest Indiana is similar, but is a lot closer to Chicago than Milwaukee is. It still retains its own identity in many ways so it is difficult to see how Milwaukee and Chicago would ever consider themselves one area. Things like the distinct media outlets, sports teams, and demographics will make it really difficult - more so than NW Indiana.
You might as well as you have all suburban and bedroom communities in between both cities. It seems to be a lot like Baltimore and Washington with a lot of development between the two and well populated.
for a name, i would come up with a neutral name, like how we may refer to boston-NYC-philadelphia-baltimore-washington simply the 'northeast', and the entire los angeles area-san diego is simply 'southern california', i might call chicago-milwaukee area something to do with lake michigan. lake metro, Lakeside, lakeside metro, something to that effect.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on July 04, 2012, 08:03:18 AM
I spotted similar discussions on Skyscraperpage http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198688 and City-Data http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1573252-when-will-chicago-csa-include-milwaukee.html who talk about if Milwaukee will be part of Chicago CSA?
What we would call the future big metropolis/megalopolis: "Chilwaukee", "Chicalwaukee","Milcago", "Milwaucago"?
Milwaucago sounds halfway like it should already exist somewhere on the shores of Lake Michigan–perhaps not far from Manitowoc.
I favor Chicalwaukee, just because it's fun to say. My pronunciation is
'tʃɪkəɫwɔ:ki:
Quote from: mukade on July 04, 2012, 08:26:22 AM
To a certain extent, they have been merged for years, but they will never be one area. I think Kenosha County is tied more closely to Chicagoland than Milwaukee.
Surprisingly to me, that seems true. I remember being disappointed that I couldn't get a train from Kenosha to Milwaukee when I was visiting the former without a car. But I could get Metra to Chicago!
Chicaukee.
Imagining what that area would be like now had the state line been drawn where it was originally planned, roughly where I-80 runs now....
:hmmm:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Naaaah, Illinois can keep Chicago!
:nod:
Mike
For a name, I'd vote for Cheesecago.
I think the closest example of what a Chicago-Milwaukee metro area would be like is more like the relationship between Los Angeles (Chicago) and San Diego (Milwaukee). Each are their own distinct cities with their own suburbs with a smaller area of common communities like Oceanside/Escondido/San Clemente (Racine/Kenosha) or a similar relationship between Tampa and Orlando with Lakeland in the middle.
I would go with either Chicaukee, Lakeland Metro, or Chiwaukee for the area names.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2012, 02:47:05 PM
I think the closest example of what a Chicago-Milwaukee metro area would be like is more like the relationship between Los Angeles (Chicago) and San Diego (Milwaukee). Each are their own distinct cities with their own suburbs with a smaller area of common communities like Oceanside/Escondido/San Clemente (Racine/Kenosha) or a similar relationship between Tampa and Orlando with Lakeland in the middle.
I would go with either Chicaukee, Lakeland Metro, or Chiwaukee for the area names.
Besides Chicago-Milwaukee, Los Angeles-San Diego. I also taught of one megalopolis in the Great White North around Lake Ontario: Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo and we could extend it to a latter extent to the WKC area (Waterloo-Kitchener-Cambridge) and it also spread north slowly surely to Barrie.
One more name idea: Wisilliana (Wisconsin-Illinois-Indiana).
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2012, 02:47:05 PM
I think the closest example of what a Chicago-Milwaukee metro area would be like is more like the relationship between Los Angeles (Chicago) and San Diego (Milwaukee). Each are their own distinct cities with their own suburbs with a smaller area of common communities like Oceanside/Escondido/San Clemente (Racine/Kenosha) or a similar relationship between Tampa and Orlando with Lakeland in the middle.
I would go with either Chicaukee, Lakeland Metro, or Chiwaukee for the area names.
This brings up an interesting point, that some metro areas share cities between them.
You have Chicago-Milwaukee, Detroit-Toledo, New York-Philadelphia, Cincinnati-Dayton, Washington-Baltimore, Philadelphia-Baltimore, and others.
Quote from: mukade on July 04, 2012, 02:19:06 PM
For a name, I'd vote for Cheesecago.
That's pretty good.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2012, 02:47:05 PM
I think the closest example of what a Chicago-Milwaukee metro area would be like is more like the relationship between Los Angeles (Chicago) and San Diego (Milwaukee). Each are their own distinct cities with their own suburbs with a smaller area of common communities like Oceanside/Escondido/San Clemente (Racine/Kenosha)
In reality, this is a great comparison, and I have never heard a name for greater LA/San Diego. I think the Southland roughly consists of the LA metro area including the Inland Empire and Ventura County. The term Chicagoland corresponds to the Southland. For Chicagoland, there is debate on both sides of the border on whether or not Northwest Indiana is a part of Chicagoland - for marketing and media, it is, but not all people like to include NWI in it. So it is hard to imagine a city 70 miles away being a closer part of Chicagoland than an area that actually borders on the city of Chicago.
In reality, there probably never would be a name for greater Chicago/Milwaukee, but you can try. Here are two other entries:
- Left Lake region - Wisconsin is the birthplace of "Progressivism" and Chicago is the seat of power for it (and their both on the left side of Lake Michigan)
- Doritoland - where cheese country and corn country meet to form a tasty treat
As for the Los Angeles-San Diego metro area, which I traveled via train last April from LA to San Diego and back, does Southern California count?
I don't think Chicago and Milwaukee will ever be their own metro area, though if the Census Bureau were to invent a new catagory that goes above the metro area (both MSAs and CMSAs) that would be considered for regional purposes, then the whole Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary-Michigan City-Benton Harbor area could be considered, to extend it even further into Michigan, but that may be another debate for another time.
Back to Indiana (as always,) I remember with Anderson was considered a part of the Indianapolis metro area, and then Anderson broke off to form their own metro area. Regardless, INDOT must think that Anderson is part of the Indy Metro area since they are now installing traffic cameras along I-69 from Hamilton County up through Exit 26.
They may not be in the same metro area, but my impression of Milwaukee (one of my favorite cities, btw) is that it does owe some of its character to Chicago's proximity. Milwaukee might have a rather different vibe if it were the largest city for hundreds of miles around; it is quite a large city in its own right (compare to Seattle or Boston), but it neither can, nor does it try, to out-muscle its larger neighbor for regional "supremacy". (If anyone's interested, here's a short blog post I wrote on the topic some years ago–warning: little bit of Boston-bashing in there. ;-) http://tumbleweedsheldon.blogspot.com/2008/01/ever-so-humble.html)
Quote from: tdindy88 on July 04, 2012, 08:07:17 PM
Back to Indiana (as always,) I remember with Anderson was considered a part of the Indianapolis metro area, and then Anderson broke off to form their own metro area. Regardless, INDOT must think that Anderson is part of the Indy Metro area since they are now installing traffic cameras along I-69 from Hamilton County up through Exit 26.
They are part of the same CSA. Given its proximity, I'm surprised the Muncie MSA isn't yet a part of it, although at some point I highly suspect most of Central Indiana will be included, especially if there's increased growth along I-69 between Bloomington and Indy.
Quote from: mukade on July 04, 2012, 07:47:16 PM
- Left Lake region - Wisconsin is the birthplace of "Progressivism" and Chicago is the seat of power for it (and their both on the left side of Lake Michigan)
- Doritoland - where cheese country and corn country meet to form a tasty treat
Those are good, but Frito-Lay or its competitors might have an issue with a reference to the Doritos brand. Nacholand would have to do.
Quote from: vtk on July 05, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
Quote from: mukade on July 04, 2012, 07:47:16 PM
- Left Lake region - Wisconsin is the birthplace of "Progressivism" and Chicago is the seat of power for it (and their both on the left side of Lake Michigan)
- Doritoland - where cheese country and corn country meet to form a tasty treat
Those are good, but Frito-Lay or its competitors might have an issue with a reference to the Doritos brand. Nacholand would have to do.
Hey, get outta here, man! That's nacho land!
Quote from: Brandon on July 04, 2012, 05:27:51 PM
This brings up an interesting point, that some metro areas share cities between them.
You have Chicago-Milwaukee, Detroit-Toledo, New York-Philadelphia, Cincinnati-Dayton, Washington-Baltimore, Philadelphia-Baltimore, and others.
This thread reminded me of an article I read a little while ago: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0409merge0409.html
Phoenix keeps creeping southward and Tuscon keeps creeping northward along I-10. While a crummy economy might have slowed this down a bit, it'll probably happen sooner or later. As you pointed out, even more metro areas are crawling slowly towards each other. I think Wilmington and Philly are pretty damn close as it is, since there's really no point where the Philly suburbs end and the Wilmington suburbs begin (along I-95, anyway).
Oh, and when Philly and NYC merge, they have a name for that already. It's called New Jersey :P
-From the son of a mother from Philly and a father from NYC
QuoteAs for the Los Angeles-San Diego metro area, which I traveled via train last April from LA to San Diego and back, does Southern California count?
I'm thinking a good name would be Los San Diegoles :-P
Another one in California I see running together eventually would be Sacramento and the Bay Area bedroom communities along I-80. Cities like Sacramento and Stockton were referred to as "exurbs" of SF during the real estate boom, and though it'll be a while, I eventually see SacraOaklaCisco.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on July 06, 2012, 10:35:30 AM
QuoteAs for the Los Angeles-San Diego metro area, which I traveled via train last April from LA to San Diego and back, does Southern California count?
I'm thinking a good name would be Los San Diegoles :-P
IIRC, hasn't this been done in
Demolition Man as San Angeles?
Quote from: Brandon on July 06, 2012, 04:15:03 PM
IIRC, hasn't this been done in Demolition Man as San Angeles?
Indeed it was. Which is funny because that translates to "Saint Angels".
If one examines the municipal boundaries between Milwaukee and Chicago, you will find a continuous puzzle board of incorporated places with only one gap; the Kenosha County township of Somers. If/when Somers incorporates (to avoid losing land to Kenosha), there will be a solid mass of cities and villages from SE Wisconsin, through NE Illinois and into NW Indiana.
Then Nacholand will be a reality.
There already exists a good name for this megalopolis at a failed-subdivision-turned-nature-preserve in Kenosha County:
Chiwaukee
as in Chiwaukee Prairie:
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.50096,-87.80479&z=13&t=T (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.50096,-87.80479&z=13&t=T)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 11, 2012, 07:40:07 PM
...there will be a solid mass of cities and villages from SE Wisconsin, through NE Illinois and into NW Indiana...
And into Michigan... barely. There is a town called Michiana that would be in the blob of incorporated areas. There is a small gap to Grand Beach, MI from Michiana. This assumes my Rand McNally NW Indiana street guide is correct and not outdated.
The City of Kenosha and Somers Twp. have a boundary agreement in place.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2012, 10:26:13 PM
The City of Kenosha and Somers Twp. have a boundary agreement in place.
Still, they might jump on the incorporation bandwagon that swept SE Wisconsin in the last decade or so.
Mt. Pleasant, Caledonia, Bristol, Rochester, Richfield, Summit, the duplicate Pewaukee...
For now Somers is still pretty rural, though, except where it buts up against Kenosha. They do have UW-middle-of-nowhere. (UW school with no bars anywhere nearby? That ain't right!)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 13, 2012, 05:55:06 PM
(UW school with no bars anywhere nearby? That ain't right!)
good thing im going to Sloshkosh! :cheers:
Quote from: Brandon on July 06, 2012, 04:15:03 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on July 06, 2012, 10:35:30 AM
QuoteAs for the Los Angeles-San Diego metro area, which I traveled via train last April from LA to San Diego and back, does Southern California count?
I'm thinking a good name would be Los San Diegoles :-P
IIRC, hasn't this been done in Demolition Man as San Angeles?
I thought that was referring to a combination of San Franciso/Los Angeles that occurred after a great earthquake in between drew them together.
Interesting Milwaukee JournalSentinel article on the topic: Inefficiency holds back Chicago-Milwaukee metroplex (http://www.jsonline.com/business/inefficiency-holds-back-chicagomilwaukee-metroplex-6j60qj8-162474476.html)
I think it is pretty clear there are way too many municipal governments in Chicagoland, NW Indiana, and SE Wisconsin. That said, with all the corruption in Illinois and Lake County, Indiana (not sure about Wisconsin), I can understand the desire to get away from the machine politics. OTOH, the way it is is pretty inefficient and contributes toward the polarization that exists (or at least used to exist) in the area. If there were more visionary leadership and less corrupt leadership the future would be a lot brighter for that whole region.
Quote from: mukade on July 15, 2012, 10:09:55 AM
I think it is pretty clear there are way too many municipal governments in Chicagoland, NW Indiana, and SE Wisconsin. That said, with all the corruption in Illinois and Lake County, Indiana (not sure about Wisconsin), I can understand the desire to get away from the machine politics. OTOH, the way it is is pretty inefficient and contributes toward the polarization that exists (or at least used to exist) in the area. If there were more visionary leadership and less corrupt leadership the future would be a lot brighter for that whole region.
There is a very bitter, mufti-generational city v. suburb divide in metro Milwaukee that, IMHO, would not be there if the metro area was one city. The Wisconsin legislature slammed the annexation door on Milwaukee in the mid-late 1950s and it has been downhill on that ever since.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 15, 2012, 12:57:10 PM
Quote from: mukade on July 15, 2012, 10:09:55 AM
I think it is pretty clear there are way too many municipal governments in Chicagoland, NW Indiana, and SE Wisconsin. That said, with all the corruption in Illinois and Lake County, Indiana (not sure about Wisconsin), I can understand the desire to get away from the machine politics. OTOH, the way it is is pretty inefficient and contributes toward the polarization that exists (or at least used to exist) in the area. If there were more visionary leadership and less corrupt leadership the future would be a lot brighter for that whole region.
There is a very bitter, mufti-generational city v. suburb divide in metro Milwaukee that, IMHO, would not be there if the metro area was one city. The Wisconsin legislature slammed the annexation door on Milwaukee in the mid-late 1950s and it has been downhill on that ever since.
Mike
In addition, it is very easy to incorporate a village in Illinois (oddly, a bit more difficult to incorporate a city). Hence, there are many, many villages in the Chicagoland area (even as big as Bolingbrook and Arlington Heights, both over 70,000 in population). Many villages are incorporated because the locals do not want to be subject to the whims of a surrounding municipality, i.e. Homer Glen. Homer Glen incorporated to control their area (about 2/3rds of Homer Township, Will County) in opposition to Lockport and Orland Park.
Annexation laws are fairly lax as well. Some municipalities have annexed large swaths of land to be developed (Joliet, Minooka) with border agreements far outside the current incorporation limits. Then, you also have the ability to annex land on the other side of a forest preserve. However, the forest preserve is
not a part of the municipality. Ditto with railroad rights of way.
Yeah I always found it strange that Joliet know goes well into Kendall County when even just 15 years ago it was not west of Route 59. Plainfield has been doing this too. But the most egregious offender in the last couple decades in Chicagoland IMO is the village of Woodridge. Prior to the annexations of the late 90s, the village was completely north of 87th St/Boughton Rd. Then when the land grabs between Bolingbrook, Plainfield, Romeoville and Woodridge occurred, Woodridge jumped the annexing gun on Bolingbrook by 3 weeks to get land that would later become the Internationale Pkwy Business Park (Pro Logis Woodridge) and connecting it with about a mile long strip along Woodward Ave to get south of I-55. Realistically, Romeoville should have been the village to claim it because of it being closer to their limits (Bluff Rd) than Bolingbrook or Woodridge. Woodridge has since filled in the area south of 87th and north of I-55 with a subdivision.
^^ Yeah, that annexation by Woodridge pissed off Bolingbrook. The Community Development Department was planning on annexing that area until Woodridge pulled its sneak attack annexation maneuver. The CDD Director at the time (who I know very well) wanted to place a building just east of I-355 on Boughton that would look like a middle finger pointing directly into Woodridge.
I'm not surprised Brandon. I know Roger (Mayor Claar) was really pissed because he was hoping to have more commercial taxes coming into the village.
That is what happens when the state law is weak and there is no real regional master plan.
One thing Indiana did (though recent annexations around Hamilton and Hendricks Counties seem to ignore it) is that any annexation must have the contiguous border of that new area must be a certain percentage of the entire border of the new area. I think it was 20%. Therefore, for a while at least, any newly annexed area was usually a nice block. If a city or town could not prove they could service the area, the annexation could be rescinded so that added some sanity to the situation.
When it comes right down to it, why shouldn't Bolingbrook, Woodridge, and Romeoville be combined into a single city (and maybe Naperville, Lisle, Darien, etc.)? What is the benefit to the ridiculously high number of suburbs there? When I lived there, people did not really have allegiance to these new, artificial suburbs. Heck, you didn't even necessarily know what village a place was in because of the bizarre borders. I understand no one wants Chicago itself to annex any suburbs because of corruption and mismanagement. Wouldn't a goal of consolidating down to 50 (or some realistic number) of suburbs be good?
Quote from: mukade on July 21, 2012, 09:57:38 AM
That is what happens when the state law is weak and there is no real regional master plan.
One thing Indiana did (though recent annexations around Hamilton and Hendricks Counties seem to ignore it) is that any annexation must have the contiguous border of that new area must be a certain percentage of the entire border of the new area. I think it was 20%. Therefore, for a while at least, any newly annexed area was usually a nice block. If a city or town could not prove they could service the area, the annexation could be rescinded so that added some sanity to the situation.
When it comes right down to it, why shouldn't Bolingbrook, Woodridge, and Romeoville be combined into a single city (and maybe Naperville, Lisle, Darien, etc.)? What is the benefit to the ridiculously high number of suburbs there? When I lived there, people did not really have allegiance to these new, artificial suburbs. Heck, you didn't even necessarily know what village a place was in because of the bizarre borders. I understand no one wants Chicago itself to annex any suburbs because of corruption and mismanagement. Wouldn't a goal of consolidating down to 50 (or some realistic number) of suburbs be good?
Actually there are some well established "rivalries" between some of the suburbs you have mentioned. Just ask anyone from Naperville their opinion about Aurora and most will say something along the lines of it being a drug induced gang stricken city (which is not too far off base but better than back in the 80s.)People in Bolingbrook, myself included, up until about 10 years ago looked at people from Naperville as being rich snobs. Now we have some rich snobs in town too. As for your statement about not knowing where one suburb ends and another begins, that is more toward places closer into the city like Berwyn, Cicero, and Oak Park or Maywood, Bellwood and Hillside.
Back in the 1980s I lived in Woodridge. On the south side, Bolingbrook and Woodridge were tangled up while on the north side Lisle and to some extent Downers Grove were tangled up with Woodridge. By tangled up, I mean Bolingbrook went way up to 83rd and Woodridge went way south of there (now more so). It seemed like there was little planning. Back in the 1980s, Naperville and Aurora along Rt. 59 were getting all jumbled up. You never really knew which city you were in as Aurora began to annex land in DuPage County.
I know what you're saying about the inner suburbs - they all look the same, but I thought most of them were roughly rectangular in shape. You generally knew where the boundaries were.
The other thing that makes Chicagoland more confusing than cities in some states is the way annexations happen across County lines.
Just because a suburb is a perfect shape does not mean that those should be able to remain on their own. I side more on the feel of an area. Yes there are some entanglements the farther out you go but you can find those as well inside 294. Look at the boundaries for Forest View, Bridgeview, and Melrose Park. And let's not forget how oddly shaped the city of Chicago is.
I don't care about a perfect shape. I am just saying some Chicago suburbs have very convoluted, artificial borders. Look at Woodridge here (http://www.vil.woodridge.il.us/uploadedFiles/Departments/Planning/Street%20Map%202007.pdf).