Global city

Global city

A global city or world city is a concept promoted by the geography department at Loughborough University which postulates that globalisation can be broken down in terms of strategic geographic locales that see global processes being created, facilitated and enacted. The most complex of these entities is the "global city," whereby the linkages binding a city have a direct and tangible effect on global affairs through more than just socio-economic means, with influence in terms of culture, or politics.[1] The terminology of "global city", as opposed to megacity, is thought to have been first coined by Saskia Sassen in reference to London, New York and Tokyo in her 1991 work The Global City.[2]

General characteristics

International, first-name familiarity; whereby a city is recognised without the need for a political subdivision. For example, although there are numerous cities and other political entities with the name Paris or variations on it, one would say "Paris", not "Paris, France".

Active influence on and participation in international events and world affairs; for example, New York City is home to the United Nations headquarters complex and consequently contains a vast majority of the permanent missions to the UN.[3]
A fairly large population (the centre of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million).

A major international airport that serves as an established hub for several international airlines.
An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation (rapid transit, light rail, regional rail, ferry, or bus).

In the West, several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities). In other parts of the world, cities which attract large foreign businesses and related expatriate communities; for example, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Moscow.

International financial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters, international conglomerates, and stock exchanges (for example the World Bank, or the London Stock Exchange) that have influence over the world economy.
An advanced communications infrastructure on which modern trans-national corporations rely, such as fiberoptics, Wi-Fi networks, cellular phone services, and other high-speed lines of communications.

World-renowned cultural institutions, such as museums and universities.
A lively cultural scene, including film festivals, premieres, a thriving music or theatre scene (for example, West End theatre and Broadway); an orchestra, an opera company, art galleries, and street performers.

Several powerful and influential media outlets with an international reach, such as the BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, or Agence France-Presse.
A strong sporting community, including major sports facilities, home teams in major league sports, and the ability and historical experience to host international sporting events such as the Olympic Games, Football World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events.

To some, London, New York City, Paris, and Tokyo have been traditionally considered the 'big four' world cities – not coincidentally, they also serve as symbols of global capitalism.[citation needed] However, many people have their own personal lists, and any two lists are likely to differ based on cultural background, values, and experience.

GaWC Inventory of World Cities, 1999

An attempt to define and categorise world cities was made in 1999 by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC), based primarily at Loughborough University in Loughborough, Leicestershire, England. The roster was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5[4] and ranked cities based on provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law, by international corporations. The GaWC inventory identifies three levels of world cities and several sub-ranks.

Note that this roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational companies providing financial and consulting services rather than other cultural, political, and economic centres. There is a schematic map of GaWC cities at their website.[5]

Alpha world cities / full service world cities[6]

12 points: London, New York City, Paris, Tokyo

10 points: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore

Beta world cities / major world cities

9 points: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zürich

8 points: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, São Paulo

7 points: Moscow, Seoul


Gamma world cities / minor world cities

6 points: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Düsseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington, D.C.

5 points: Bangkok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw

4 points: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai


Evidence of world city formation

Strong evidence


3 points: Athens, Auckland, Dublin, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Lyon, Mumbai, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Tel Aviv, Vienna

Some evidence

2 points: Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Birmingham (UK), Bogotá, Bratislava, Brisbane, Bucharest, Cairo, Cleveland, Cologne, Detroit, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kiev, Lima, Lisbon, Manchester (UK), Montevideo, Oslo, Riyadh, Rotterdam, Seattle, Stuttgart, The Hague, Vancouver

Minimal evidence

1 point: Adelaide, Antwerp, Aarhus, Baltimore, Bangalore, Bologna, Brasília, Calgary, Cape Town, Colombo, Columbus, Dresden, Edinburgh, Genoa, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Kansas City, Leeds, Lille, Marseille, Richmond, St. Petersburg, Tashkent, Tehran, Tijuana, Turin, Utrecht, Wellington

GaWC Leading World Cities, 2004

An attempt to redefine and recategorise leading world cities was made by PJ Taylor at GaWC in 2004.

Global Cities [7]

Well rounded global cities


Very large contribution: London and New York City.
Smaller contribution and with cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.
Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto.

Global niche cities - specialised global contributions

Financial: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo.
Political and social: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, D.C.


World Cities


Subnet articulator cities

Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm.Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna.
Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa.


Worldwide leading cities

Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami,Mumbai, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich

Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basel, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, New Delhi, Shanghai.


Other criteria

The GaWC list is based on specific criteria and, thus, may not include other cities of global significance or elsewhere on the spectrum. For example, cities with the following:

• Large populations, proper and agglomerated
  
• Diverse demographic constituencies[8]
  
• Based on various indicators:[9]
  
• Population, habitat,[10] mobility,[11] and urbanisation[12]
  
• Significant financial capacity/output:
  
• city/regional[13] GDP[14]
  
• Stock market indices[15]/market capitalisation
  
• Headquarters for multinational corporations
  
• Financial service provision;[16] e.g., banks, accountancy
  
• Employment
  
• Based on quality of life[17] or city development[18]
  
• Based on costs of living[19]
  
• Based on personal wealth; e.g., number of billionaires[20]
  
• Significant transport infrastructure:
  
• Airports with significant passenger traffic[21] or cargo movements
  
• Extensive and popular[22] mass transit systems
  
• Prominent rail usage[23]
  
• Road vehicle usage[24]
  
• Major seaports[25]

• Significant technological capabilities/infrastructure:
  
• Prominent skylines/skyscrapers[26]
  
• Significant institutions:
  
• Educational institutions; e.g., universities,[27] international student attendance[28]
  
• Research facilities
  
• Health facilities; e.g. hospitals, medical laboratories
  
• Sites of pilgrimage for world religions
  
• Hosting headquarters for international organizations
  
• Cities containing World Heritage Sites of historical and cultural significance[29]
  
• High endowments of cultural facilities:
  
• Notable museums and galleries
  
• Notable opera
  
• Notable orchestras
  
• Notable film centres and film festivals
  
• Notable theatre centres
  
• Sites of major international sports events; e.g., Olympic Games sites[30]
  
• Tourism throughput:
  
• Visitors
  
• Economy
  
• Events
  
• Site or subject in Arts and Media
  
• TV, Film, Video Games, Music
  
• Literature, Magazines, Articles, Documentary
  
• Historic Reference, Showcase

Global Cities Program

In 2007, a new trilateral "Global Cities" Program is created between Northwestern University (Chicago), Universidad Panamericana (Mexico City) and Sciences Po (Paris).
This program is designed to introduce students to the common issues faced by global cities and to engage them in research projects in a range of transnational issues of relevance to globalized cities and countries, such as migration, integration, environmental degradation, global culture and national identity.

Students are integrated into a program consisting of ten or so students from each institution and spend the whole year as part of this group, sharing culture, learning and conducting research in the three countries. The program begins at Northwestern in the Fall quarter, continues at Panamericana in the Winter quarter, and ends at Sciences Po in the Spring quarter.
This program offers a new perspective on international student exchanges and could be defined as the symbol of a new "global education", focusing on contemporary issues and multiculturalism.

External links

Repository of Links Relating to Urban Places
World Cities article by Jennifer Curtis of Charles Sturt University
The World-System’s City System: A Research Agenda by Jeffrey Kentor and Michael Timberlake of the University of Utah and David Smith of University of California, Irvine
The State of the World's Cities, 2001, UN Human Settlements Programme
"U.S. Cities in the 'World City Network'", by Peter J. Taylor and Robert E. Lang, February 2005 (Full Report in PDF)

Urban area

Urban area

An urban area is an area with an increased density of human-created structures in comparison to the areas surrounding it. This term is at one end of the spectrum of suburban and rural areas. An urban area is more frequently called a city or town.

Urban areas are created and further developed by the process of urbanization. Measuring the extent of an urbanized area helps in analyzing population density and urban sprawl, and in determining urban and rural populations(Cubillas 2007).

Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land that is socio-economically connected to the urban core city, typically by employment ties through commuting, with the urban core city being the primary labor market. This makes metropolitan areas a less relevant statistic for determining per capita land usage and densities(Dumlao & Felizmenio 1976).

Definitions

Definitions vary somewhat amongst different nations. The minimum density requirement is generally 400 persons per square kilometer[citation needed]. In Australia, urban areas are referred to as "urban centres" and are defined as population clusters of 1000 or more people, with a density of 200 or more persons per square kilometre.[1] In Japan urbanized areas are defined as contiguous areas of densely inhabited districts (DIDs) using census enumeration districts as units with a density requirement of 4,000 people per square kilometer. European countries define urbanized areas on the basis of urban-type land use, not allowing any gaps of typically more than 200 meters, and use satellite photos instead of census blocks to determine the boundaries of the urban area. In less developed countries, in addition to land use and density requirements, a requirement that a large majority of the population, typically 75%, is not engaged in agriculture and/or fishing is sometimes used. Statistics New Zealand defines New Zealand urban areas for statistical purposes as a settlement with a population of a thousand people or more.

United States

In the United States there are two categories of urban area. The term urbanized area denotes an urban area of 50,000 or more people. Urban areas under 50,000 people are called urban clusters. Urbanized areas were first delineated in the United States in the 1950 census, while urban clusters were added in the 2000 census. There are 1371 United States Urban Areas & Urban Clusters with more than 10,000 people.

The US Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)."

The concept of Urbanized Areas as defined by the US Census Bureau are often used as a more accurate gauge of the size of a city, since in different cities and states the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. For example, the city of Greenville, South Carolina has a city population under 60,000 but an urbanized area over 300,000, while Greensboro, North Carolina has a city population over 200,000 but an urbanized area population of around 270,000--meaning that Greenville is actually "larger" for some intents and purposes, but not for others, such as taxation, local elections, etc.

External links

United Nations Statistics Division (UNSTAT): Definition of "urban"
World Urban Areas All identified world urbanized areas 500,000+ and others: Population & Density. Author seeks advice on any that appear to be missing: wcox@demographia.com
United States Urbanized Areas All 452 urbanized areas from 2000 census: Population, Land Area & Density
U.S. Census Bureau: Maps of urban areas
U.S. Census Bureau: Maps of urban clusters
U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification
Geopolis research group at the University of Avignon, France for European urban areas
Gridded Population of the World - contains links to urban area definitions and maps for over 230 countries/territories
City Mayors - The World's Largest Urban Areas in 2006
City Mayors - The World's Largest Urban Areas Projected for 2020

Metropolitan planning organization

Metropolitan planning organization

A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a transportation policy-making organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. In the early 1970s, the United States Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an MPO for any Urbanized Area (UZA) with a population greater than 50,000. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (“3-C”) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. As of 2005, there are 385 MPOs in the U.S.

Why congress created MPOs

In creating the requirements for MPOs and a metropolitan planning process, Congress identified several key reasons MPOs are essential:

Transportation investment means allocating scarce federal and other transportation funding resources appropriately;

Planning needs to reflect the region’s shared vision for its future;

Adequate transportation planning requires a comprehensive examination of the region’s future and investment alternatives; and

An MPO is needed to facilitate collaboration of governments, interested parties and residents in the planning process.

In other words, the federal government wishes to see federal transportation funds spent in a manner that has a basis in metropolitan regionwide plans developed through inter-governmental collaboration, rational analysis and consensus-based decision-making.

Governance of MPOs

An MPO governance structure typically includes a variety of committees as well as a professional staff. The “Policy Committee” is the top-level decision-making body for the organization. In most MPOs, the Policy Committee comprises:

Elected and/or appointed officials from local municipalities;
Representatives of different transportation modes (e.g., public transit, freight, bicycle/pedestrian); and
State agency officials (e.g., state Department of Transportation, environmental agency, etc.).

With only a few unique exceptions nationwide, MPO Policy Committee members are not directly citizen-elected. Rather, a Policy Committee member is typically an elected or appointed official of one of the MPO’s constituent local jurisdictions. The Policy Committee member thus has legitimate authority to speak and act on behalf of that jurisdiction in the MPO setting.

The Policy Committee’s responsibilities include debating and making decisions on key MPO actions and issues, including adoption of the metropolitan Long-range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, annual planning work program and budget and other policy documents. The Policy Committee may also play an active role in key decision points or milestones associated with MPO studies and plans and conduct public hearings and meetings.

Most MPOs also establish a Technical Committee to act as an advisory body to the Policy Committee for transportation issues that are primarily technical in nature. The Technical Committee interacts with the MPO’s professional staff on technical matters related to planning and analysis tasks and projects. Through this work, the Technical Committee develops recommendations on projects and programs for Policy Committee consideration. The Technical Committee is typically comprising staff-level officials of local, state & federal agencies. In addition, a Technical Committee may include representatives of interest groups, various transportation modes and, in some cases, local citizens.

MPOs usually also retain a core professional staff in order to ensure the ability to carry out the required metropolitan planning process in an effective and expeditious manner. The size and qualifications of this staff may vary by MPO since no two metropolitan areas are the same nor have the same planning needs. However, most MPOs require at least some staff dedicated solely to MPO process oversight and management because of the complexity of the process and need to ensure requirements are being addressed properly.

An MPO's core functions

There are five core functions of an MPO:


Establish a setting:
Establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the metropolitan area.

Evaluate alternatives:
Evaluate transportation alternatives, scaled to the size and complexity of the region, to the nature of its transportation issues, and to the realistically available options.

Maintain a Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP):
Develop and update a fiscally-constrained long-range transportation plan for the metropolitan area covering a planning horizon of at least 20 years that fosters mobility and access for people and goods, efficient system performance and preservation, and quality of life.

Develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):
Develop a fiscally-constrained program based on the long-range transportation plan and designed to serve the area’s goals, using spending, regulating, operating, management, and financial tools.

Involve the public:
Involve the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups in the four essential functions listed above.

Presently, most MPOs have no authority to raise revenues (e.g., levy taxes) on their own; rather, they are designed to allow local officials to collaboratively decide how available federal and non-federal transportation funds should be spent in urbanized areas. The funding for the operations of the MPO agency itself comes from a combination of federal transportation funds and required matching funds from state and local governments.

It is also important to note that a metropolitan area’s designation as an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area creates additional requirements for transportation planning. Most significantly, transportation plans, programs, and projects must conform with the air quality plan, known as the “state implementation plan” (SIP), for the state within which the UZA lies.

A changing MPO role

The enactment of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) ushered in a “renaissance” for MPOs. After a decade or more of being consigned to a minimal role in transportation planning, ISTEA directed additional funding to MPOs, expanded their authority to select projects and mandated new metropolitan planning initiatives. State transportation officials, for the first time, were required to seriously consult with local representatives on MPO governing boards on matters of project prioritization and decision-making. These changes had their roots in the need to address increasingly difficult transportation problems – in particular, the more complicated patterns of traffic congestion that arose with the suburban development boom in the previous decades. Many recognized that the problems could only be effectively addressed through a stronger federal commitment to regional planning.

The legislation that emerged, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), was signed into law by the president in December 1991. It focused on improving transportation not as end in itself but as the means to achieve important national goals including economic progress, cleaner air, energy conservation and social equity. ISTEA promoted a transportation system in which different modes and facilities – highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, aviation and marine -- were integrated to allow a "seamless" movement of both goods and people. New funding programs provided greater flexibility in the use of funds, particularly regarding using previously restricted highway funds for transit development, supported improved "intermodal" connections and emphasized upgrades to existing facilities over building new capacity – particularly roadway capacity.

To accomplish more serious metropolitan planning, ISTEA doubled funding for MPO operations and required the agencies to evaluate a variety of multimodal solutions to roadway congestion and other transportation problems. MPOs were also required to broaden public participation in the planning process and see that investment decisions contributed to meeting the air quality standards of the Clean Air Act Amendments.

In addition, ISTEA placed a new requirement on MPOs to conduct “fiscally-constrained planning,” and ensure that long range transportation plans and short-term transportation improvement programs were fiscally-constrained; in other words, adopted plans and programs cannot include more projects than can be reasonably expected to be funded through existing or projected sources of revenues. This new requirement represented a major conceptual shift for many MPOs (and others in the planning community), since the imposition of fiscal discipline on plans now required not only understanding how much money might be available but how to prioritize investment needs and make hard choices between competing needs. Adding to this complexity is the need to plan across transportation modes and develop approaches for multimodal investment prioritization and decision-making. It is in this context of greater prominence, funding and requirements that MPOs function today.

MPOs differ greatly in various parts of the country and even within states. Some have large staffs, while others may include only a director and a transportation planner. Sometimes MPOs are staffed by a county or a council of government. In many urban areas existing organizations like counties or councils of government also function as MPOs. The MPO role can also be played by an independent organization or a regional government. In the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area, for example, the Metro is the MPO. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Council is the MPO. An example of a medium sized MPO is the Lexington Area MPO in the Lexington, Kentucky region.

External links

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
History of MPOs
History of MPOs at njtpa.org
FHWA's Page on Metropolitan Transportation Planning (includes searchable database of MPOs)

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is an agency that integrates land use planning and transportation planning for the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will in northeastern Illinois. CMAP and its partners aim to remove barriers to cooperation across geographical boundaries and subject areas such as land use, transportation, natural resources, housing, and economic development.

CMAP's goal is to coordinate the efforts of the multitude of local governmental agencies and supply them with the best technical assistance and analysis to improve land use and transportation decision-making for the region.

History

Public Act 094-0510, signed by Governor Rod Blagojevich in the summer of 2005,[1] called for the merger of the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) and the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). CATS was the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Chicago region, responsible for regional transportation planning. NIPC was the comprehensive planning agency for the six county region. [2]

Responsibilities

The legislation that created CMAP gave the agency the task of integrating the previously separate topics of land use and transportation into one agency that would protect natural resources, improve mobility, and minimize traffic congestion in the seven-county region. Under SAFETEA-LU legislation, CMAP is responsible for creating a regional comprehensive plan by fall of 2010 that integrates land use, transportation, and economic development. This plan must be updated every four years, use visualization techniques, engage the general public, and include a separate Transportation Improvement Program document.[3]

External links

Official website
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Chicago Area Transportation Study

Chicago metropolitan area

Chicago metropolitan area

The Chicago metropolitan area is the metropolitan area associated with the city of Chicago in the United States. It is the area that is closely linked to the city through social, economic, and cultural ties. There are several definitions of the area, the two most common being the area under the jursidiction of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (a metropolitan planning organization), and the area defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

The metropolitan area is also informally known by residents as Chicagoland, a term which may include areas outside the MSA as part of the broader Combined Statistical Area (CSA).
The Chicago metropolitan area is sometimes grouped together with Milwaukee and Racine in Wisconsin, creating a megalopolis, gradually spreading toward nearby urban centers like Rockford, South Bend, and Madison in southern Wisconsin.

Definitions

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is responsible for transportation infrastructure, land use, and long term economic development planning for the areas under its jurisdiction.[1] The area has a population of 8.15 million (as of the 2000 Census).[2] It consists of seven counties in the state of Illinois:

Cook County
DuPage County
Kane County
Kendall County
Lake County
McHenry County
Will County

Metropolitan statistical area

The Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was originally designated by the United States Census Bureau in 1950 and consisted of the Illinois counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, and Will along with Lake County in Indiana. As surrounding counties saw an increase in their population densities and the number of their residents employed within Cook County, they met Census criteria to be added to the MSA. The Chicago MSA is the third largest MSA by population in the United States with a population of 9,505,748 (2006 estimate).[3]

The MSA is further subdivided into the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division, corresponding roughly to the CMAP region, the Gary, IN Metropolitan Division surrounding the city of Gary, Indiana, and the Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division. These commuter flow-based definitions are sometimes at odds with people's feelings about their regional affiliations.[citation needed] The components of the MSA and their 2006 populations[3] are:

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division (7,929,775)
Cook County
DeKalb County
DuPage County
Grundy County (part of North Central Illinois region)
Kane County
Kendall County
McHenry County
Will County

Gary, IN Metropolitan Division (700,896)
Jasper County
Lake County, Indiana
Newton County
Porter County

Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division (875,077)
Lake County, Illinois
Kenosha County, Wisconsin

Combined statistical area

The OMB also defines a slightly larger region, the Combined Statistical Area (CSA), combining the metropolitan areas of Chicago, Michigan City (in Indiana), and Kankakee (in Illinois). This area represents the extent of the labor market pool for the entire region. The combined statistical area, of which the Chicago metropolitan area is part, has a population of 9,725,317 (as of 2006).[3]

Chicagoland

"Chicagoland" is an informal name for the Chicago metropolitan area, used primarily by copywriters, advertising agencies, and traffic reporters.[citation needed] There is no precise definition for the term "Chicagoland," which may be larger than the MSA and include portions of the greater CSA. The Chicago Tribune, which coined the term, includes the city of Chicago, the rest of Cook County, eight nearby Illinois counties; Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Grundy, Will and Kankakee, and two counties in Indiana; Lake and Porter.[4] The Illinois Department of Tourism defines Chicagoland as Cook County without the city of Chicago, and only Lake, DuPage, Kane and Will counties.[5] The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce defines it as all of Cook, and DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will counties. [6]

Colonel Robert R. McCormick, editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune, usually gets credit for placing the term in common use.[7][8] McCormick's conception of Chicagoland stretched all the way to nearby parts of Iowa and Michigan.[9] The first usage came on July 27, 1926 (page 1) with the headline: "Chicagoland's Shrines: A Tour of Discoveries" by reporter James O'Donnell Bennett. He claimed that Chicagoland comprised everything in a 200 mile radius in every direction and reported on many different places in the area. The Tribune was the dominant newspaper in a vast area stretching to the west of the city, and that hinterland was closely tied to the metropolis by rail lines and commercial links.[10]

Demographics

The suburbs, surrounded by easily annexed flat ground, have been expanding at a tremendous rate since the early 1960s. Naperville is noteworthy for being one of only a few boomburbs outside the Sunbelt, West Coast and Mountain States regions, and exurban Kendall County ranked as the third fastest-growing county in the United States with a population greater than 10,000 between 2004 and 2005.[1]

Settlement patterns in the Chicago metropolitan area tend to follow those in the city proper: the northern suburbs along the shore of Lake Michigan are comparatively affluent, while the southern suburbs (sometimes known as Chicago Southland) are less so, with lower median incomes and a lower cost of living. However, there is a major exception to this. While Chicago's west side is the poorest section of the city, the western and northwestern suburbs contain many affluent areas. According to the 2000 Census, DuPage County had the highest median household income of any county in the Midwest. The regions third largest city, Naperville, had the lowest poverty rate of any U.S. city with a population greater than 100,000.[citation needed] In

October of 2007, Chicago Magazine's home prices of various towns are as follows:
(Data is from National Assoc of Realtors)

North suburbs (Cook/Lake)

Waukegan $162,000
North Chicago $142,000
Mundelein $322,000
Libertyville $566,000
Morton Grove $422,000
Lake Zurich $ 377,000
Skokie $428,000
Evanston $621,000
Zion $164,000

Northwest suburbs

Rolling Meadows $327,000
Wheeling $302,000
Antioch $273,000
Carpentersville $217,000
Des Plaines $354,000
Elk Grove $346,000
Mount Prospect $389,000
Schaumburg $379,000
Elgin $255,000

Dupage County

Burr Ridge $1,048,405
Clarendon Hills $813,796
Downers Grove $471,000
Elmhurst $549,000
Wheaton $441,000
Glen Ellyn $514,000
Naperville $511,371
Itasca $475,000
Oak Brook $1,172,729
Hinsdale $1,135,633

South suburbs

Calumet City $132,000
Evergreen Park $233,000
Hickory Hills $290,000
Chicago Ridge $243,000
Park Forest $121,000
Blue Island $161,000
Alsip $232,000
Lansing $167,000

According to the 2000 US Census, poverty rates of the largest counties from least poverty to most are as follows: McHenry 3.70%, Dupage 5.90%, Will 6.70%, Lake 6.90%, Kane 7.40%, Cook 14.50%.

In an in-depth historical analysis, Keating (2004, 2005) examined the origins of 233 settlements that by 1900 had become suburbs or city neighborhoods of the Chicago metropolitan area . The settlements began as farm centers (41%), industrial towns (30%), residential railroad suburbs (15%), and recreational/institutional centers (13%). Although relations between the different settlement types were at times contentious, there also was cooperation in such undertakings as the construction of high schools.

Largest Cities


1,000,000 or More

Chicago, Illinois (2,873,790)


100,000-1,000,000

Suburbs with over 100,000 people:

Aurora, Illinois
Gary, Indiana
Joliet, Illinois
Naperville, Illinois


60,000-99,999

Suburbs with over 60,000 people:

Arlington Heights, Illinois
Bolingbrook, Illinois
Cicero, Illinois
Elgin, Illinois
Evanston, Illinois
Hammond, Indiana
Kenosha, Wisconsin
Palatine, Illinois
Schaumburg, Illinois
Skokie, Illinois
Waukegan, Illinois


Urban areas and urban clusters within the Chicago CSA

Within the boundary of the 16-county Chicago Consolidated Statistical Area lies the Chicago urban area, as well as 27 smaller urban areas and clusters. Smallest gap indicates the shortest distance between the given urban area or cluster and the Chicago urban area.

Transportation

Major airports

Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW)
Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD)
Gary/Chicago International Airport (GYY)

Commuter rail

Chicago Transit Authority trains, locally referred to as "the L", (after "elevated train") serving Chicago and the near suburbs

Metra
4 lines serving southern Cook County and Will County
3 lines serving western Cook County, DuPage County, and Kane County
1 line serving northwestern Cook County and McHenry County
3 lines serving northern Cook County and Lake County, with 1 line extending up to Kenosha, Wisconsin

South Shore Line shares the Metra electric lines and connects Chicago to Gary, Michigan City, ending at South Bend, Indiana.

Major highways

Interstate 90, Interstate 290, Interstate 94, Interstate 294, Interstate 88, Interstate 65, Interstate 55, Interstate 355, Interstate 57, Interstate 80

Major corridors

In addition to the Chicago Loop, the metro area is home to a few important subregional corridors of commercial activities. Among them are:

Illinois Technology and Research Corridor, along the Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway (Interstate 88)
Golden Corridor, along the Northwest Tollway (Interstate 90)

Area codes

From 1947 until 1988, the Illinois portion of the Chicago metro area was served by a single area code, 312, which abutted the 815 area code. In 1988 the 708 area code was introduced and the 312 area code became exclusive to the city of Chicago.

It became common to call suburbanites "708'ers", in reference to their area code.

The 708 area code was partitioned in 1996 into three area codes, serving different portions of the metro area: 630, 708, and 847.

At the same time that the 708 area code was in trouble, the 312 area code in Chicago was also exhausting its supply of available numbers. As a result, the city was divided into two area codes, 312 and 773. Rather than divide the city by a north/south area code, the central business district retained the 312 area code, while the remainder of the city took the new 773 code.

In 2002, the 847 area code was supplemented with the overlay area code 224. In February 2007, the 815 area code (serving outlying portions of the metro area) was supplemented with the overlay area code 779. In October 2007, the 630 area code was supplemented with the overlay area code 331.

Plans are in place for overlay codes in the 708, 773, and 312 regions as those area codes become exhausted in the future.

312 Chicago - City (The Loop and central neighborhoods, e.g. the Near North Side)
773 Chicago - City (Everywhere else within the city limits, excluding central area)
847/224 (North and Northwest Suburbs)
630/331 (Western Suburbs)
708 (Near West and South Suburbs)
815/779 (Far Northwest/Southwest Suburbs; Joliet, DeKalb, Rockford)
219 (Northwest Indiana)
574 (North-central Indiana)
262 (Southeast Wisconsin surrounding Milwaukee County)

Proposed overlay area codes

464 overlay for 708 (no effective date)
872 overlay for 312 & 773 (no effective date)

External links

US Census' Urbanized Area Outline Map (2000)
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area (2003) map
U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts
U.S. Census Bureau population estimates
Cook County Jail
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas
About Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas
Historical Metropolitan Area Definitions
Northwest and Western Suburbs' Community Message Board

Chicago Public Schools

Chicago Public Schools

Chicago Public Schools, commonly abbreviated as CPS by local residents and politicians, is a school district that controls over 600 public elementary and high schools in Chicago, Illinois. Chicago Public Schools is currently the third largest school district in the United States, with more than 400,000 students enrolled in the school district. It is led by CEO Arne Duncan. The position of CEO of the CPS was created by Mayor Richard Daley after he successfully convinced the Illinois State Legislature to place CPS under the mayor's control.

Schools

CPS is a vast system of primary and secondary schools confined to Chicago's city limits. This system is the second largest employer in Chicago.[1] Some schools are new construction, some appear gothic in architecture, and others are deteriorating from years of lack of attention.
Most schools in the district, being K-8, elementary, middle, or secondary, have attendance boundaries, restricting student enrollment outside of any given residential area.
Attendance boundaries vary in shape and size, depending on how many schools are located within a neighborhood.

For example, Beverly has at least four public K-8 schools: Barnard, Clissold, Vanderpoel, and Sutherland. Each school restricts enrollment based on their individual attendance boundaries. A school may elect to enroll students outside their attendance boundaries if there is space, and or if it has a magnet cluster program. Full magnet schools, such as Gunsaulus Scholastic Academy, are open to student enrollment citywide, provided that applicants meet a level of high academic standards: living near a magnet school does not guarantee admission.

Budget

The annual budget for the CPS is in excess of $5 billion USD

2005 Teacher layoffs

School administrators issued advanced dismissal notices to approximately 1,116 untenured teachers between March and April 2005. A change in the 2003-2007 Agreement Between the Board of Education and Chicago Teachers Union allowed for a clause giving principals the power to dismiss untenured teachers without due process. Principals can login to a website, select a reason from six items listed on a drop-down menu, and click a submit button. At least fifty-percent of the dismissed teachers experienced difficulty controlling their classrooms. Other reasons for dismissal include poor communication skills and rapport with fellow teachers and parents. The fact that principals can simply choose "other" from the drop-down menu is a cause for controversy. This practice is questionable because it conceals reasons for dismissal that are not permissible under the contract, such as budget cuts. Other would mean reassons such as insubordination.

Performance

The April 21, 2006 issue of the Chicago Tribune revealed a study released by the Consortium on Chicago School Research that stated that 6 of every 100 CPS freshmen would earn a bachelor's degree by age 25. 3 in 100 black or Latino men would earn a bachelor's degree by age 25. The study tracked Chicago high school students who graduated in 1998 and 1999. 35% of CPS students who went to college earned their bachelor's degree within six years, below the national average of 64%.[2]

As announced on September 8, 2006, due to an ongoing series of campaigns and programs, including one which emphasized the importance of Fathers accompanying their children to the First Day of School, and parents picking up their children's report cards, First Day attendance rose from a previous year high of 92% in 2005 to 92.8% for the first day of classes, Tuesday, September 5, 2006.

CPS press release
CBS report
Chicago Sun-Times
NBC 5

See also

List of Chicago Public Schools
Chicago Public High School League
Local School Councils
Renaissance 2010
Middle School Cadet Corps

External links

Chicago Public Schools website

News and Commentary

1,116 City Teachers Flunk Out Article on FY 2005 teacher layoffs
CPS Blog
"CPS career program sends fashion students out of classroom and into business" Article on recent CPS vocational programs