We’re No. 1 (for now, at least)!

I can remember being a kid some several decades ago in Chicago – listening to the boasts that the civic-minded of us used to tell about our home city. 

From back in the day when O'Hare really was No. 1!!!

We had both the World’s Tallest Building and the World’s Busiest Airport.

NEITHER OF WHICH is true any longer. Particularly with the “tallest building” claim, as the one-time Sears Tower now bears a non-descript moniker and is surpassed by structures in New York, along with the Middle East.

But as for the “airport” claim, we were sort of able to reclaim that title for O’Hare International Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration this week reported there were 903,000 arrivals and departures that passed through our city’s airport named for the aviation war hero son of an attorney who ultimately cooperated with ‘G-men’ in the busting of gangster Al Capone.

That total is more than the number of people who passed through Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport – the facility that has been number one for the past two decades.

Does this mean Chicago has “reclaimed” its “rightful” position atop the nation’s aviation routes? That more people are choosing Chicago instead of that overgrown Southern hick town that hosted the Super Bowl game that left so much of the nation’s football fans in a funk (be honest, nobody with sense roots for New England).

NOT REALLY!

For one thing, this figure is just for the number of flights that used the airport – not the number of people. By that standard, Atlanta still passed Chicago O’Hare in terms of individuals who passed through their facility last year. Some 83.4 million for O’Hare, compared to 104 million through Atlanta.

Plus, there’s also the fact that Chicago’s figures throughout the years that O’Hare was atop the airport rankings were always inflated because of the fact that airlines were creatures of travel habit.

O'HARE: The reason it's not still known as Orchard Field

Just as Chicago was a national transit hub when passenger trains were the common mode of travel and all routes passed through the Second City, the airlines tended to think of Chicago in the same way.

AS IN THEIR flights all converged on Chicago

So many people traveling from one part of the country to another found they had to make a stopover in Chicago before transferring to a connecting flight to take them to the place they really wanted to get to.

Now, with routes determined less by planted train track, other airports have served that same “connecting route” purpose – with the airport for Dallas/Fort Worth in particular taking on much of that “transferring flight” role.

Which is kind of a relief. I’d hate to think there were actually growing numbers of people in our society who felt some need to actually spend some time in Texas. In all honesty, if not for the fact I have an aunt and cousins who live in San Antonio, I doubt I’d give the “Lone Star State” a second thought.

JUST AS I’M sure there are generations past for whom the only time they ever spent in Chicago was during the time they were overcharged at airport concessions while waiting for a connecting flight.

They probably never saw any more of Chicago than the terminal used by whichever airline they chose for their particular flight.

It's still "tallest" in Chicago

Although considering that airlines tack on a fee to the price of tickets to cover the cost of the fees the airports charge for use, it means Chicago gained some tax income from all those travelers who never had the common sense to make Chicago their final destination.

With this 4.2 percent increase for the past year, we in Chicago can once again claim (for however a short a time period until the FAA issues updated statistics) that we’re “Number One!” atop the number of flights. Now if we can only figure out a way to add on a few dozen more stories to the tragically-named Willis Tower, we could go about reclaiming that “tallest building” title for Chicago as well.

  -30-

EXTRA: O’Hare to Atlanta Hartsfield – We beat you!!! (For now, at least)

Chicago Aviation Department officials seem to be enjoying themselves these days – statistics released this week show that O’Hare International Airport had more flights during 2014 than any other airport in the world.

Including Hartsfield/Jackson airport in Atlanta – which for the past decade has acted as though having the “world’s busiest airport” title somehow makes their city more significant than it truly is.

OF COURSE, I’M old enough to remember when it was just a standing statement that O’Hare was the “world’s busiest” by whatever standard was used for measuring such things.

There are those Chicagoans who think the loss of that title to Atlanta hurts just as much as New York City being able to claim the “nation’s tallest building” title away from the one-time Sears Tower.

For the record, the Federal Aviation Administration reported that there were just over 881,000 flights to and from O’Hare last year, compared to 868,000 to and from Atlanta’s airport.

If one prefers to use the standard of the number of passengers who pass through the airport, then Hartsfield remains atop O’Hare.

PERSONALLY, I THINK it is important to keep in mind that this “busiest airport” standard really shouldn’t reflect upon the cities themselves.

Keep in mind that Chicago has so many flights in and out of O’Hare because this is a big nation and people needing to get from coast to coast have to transfer from one plane to another in order to make that trip.

Chicago had the busiest airport for so many years for the same reason that Chicago is the nation’s railroad hub and a center for transportation in general – our centralized location.

Which could have just as easily wound up in St. Louis – if our municipal neighbors to the south had had enough ambition to develop a sizable airport for themselves.

THERE ARE MANY generations of people who traveled by flight whose only “sight” of Chicago was the terminals of O’Hare in between flights.

Just as I’m sure there also are many people who now only pass through Atlanta – I still remember my nephew taking a flight last year from Midway Airport to Washington, D.C., that had a connection in Atlanta.

Which still strikes me as a ridiculous route to take – but I’m sure (at least I hope) some money was saved in the process.

So for now, Chicago gets to claim “Number One” status in airports. Although it won’t shock me to learn that numbers released next year for 2015 show the two airports flip-flopping back again.

I'M SURE THERE are some people who will use whichever title fits their needs at the moment -- such as one newsroom quarrel from over a decade ago back when I was with United Press International.

A Washington-based reporter wrote a story saying that Atlanta's airport was busiest. When Chicago-based correspondents challenged the accuracy, the D.C.-type said his story's premise was based on Atlanta having the title, and he didn't want to be bothered with any outside facts.

That doesn't make Atlanta superior to Chicago by any means.

Heck, even though one-time pitcher Greg Maddux ditched the Cubs for the Atlanta Braves for the bulk of his all-star baseball career, he couldn’t bring himself to pick the Southern City over the Second City when it came time for his cap "logo" for the Baseball Hall of Fame induction last year!

  -30-

Most segregated, Chicago is? Or as close to integration as exists in U.S.?

One of my pet peeves is those people who always try to tag a label of “most segregated” when it comes to Chicago’s population.

Diverse or segregated?: Mexican Independence ...

They’re usually people who come from communities that are so overwhelmingly white (with people who like to say they’re “American” and not make any other reference to their ethnic origins) that the issue just doesn’t come up.

WHEREAS CHICAGO LITERALLY is a place where just about every ethnicity on Planet Earth can be found. And the city’s historic character has always been one of various neighborhoods representing ethnic states – of sorts.

The late newspaper columnist Mike Royko may have put it best in “Boss,” his biography of one-time Mayor Richard J. Daley, when he stated that the ethnic state-neighborhoods got along with each other about as well as they did back in the old country.

And in some cases, he wrote, they developed new prejudices to go along with the ones they already had.

I’m not denying the truthfulness of any of this back then, or the fact that it continues to exist to a degree in 21^st Century Chicago.

BUT I COULDN’T help notice a study done by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia. They literally compiled a map of the United States that can show you the racial breakdown of just about every community across the mainland (no Alaska or Hawaii).

It confirms a Chicago with a predominant white north lakefront and Northwest Side, with predominantly black West and South Sides. As for the southwest and northwest, there are strips that separate the white from the black comprised of the growing Latino population.

And all throughout, but usually not in the black portions of Chicago, there are visible dots that indicates pockets of people of Asian ethnic origins.

... South Side Irish, or ...

But to what degree is an ethnic enclave an example of racism and segregation – except to those people who would prefer that the particular group in a given neighborhood didn’t even exist!

THE COOPER CENTER map for Chicago was very predictable to someone who was born here (in the South Chicago neighborhood, and lived at various points in Pullman, the East Side, Belmont Heights, Ravenswood and even a summer on the Near North Side) and has lived his life moving back and forth from other cities.

Although looking at maps of places like Detroit (where 8 Mile Road is literally the dividing line between black and white) or Atlanta (where it seems like the majority is African-American, with Latino and Asian pockets mixed in with white people who live separately), Chicago comes across as having quite a variety of people.

Even Sacramento, Calif. – the capital city that the study calls a “well-integrated large city” – seems to be integrated because the Asian population mixes in with both white and Latino neighborhoods; while having a lack of black people overall.

Chicago definitely isn’t a black or white place like some other cities (such as St. Louis, where it appears black people are grouped on the north side and white people are to the south – Chicago’s negative image, so to speak) in our nation appear to be.

IN FACT, LOOKING at the United States as a whole (rather than zeroing in on specific cities), the nation comes across as a mass of blue (for white people) in the eastern half, with multicolored dots that pretty much indicate cities of significance.

 

To the west, the map is largely colored in white; as in vast areas that are so sparsely populated that not enough people live there for any race to register.

 

So when I hear people argue that my wonderous home city is so segregated, I can’t help but wonder if they’re merely revealing their own hang-ups with regards to race.

 

We as a society have a long ways to go in terms of true integration -- and it's not helped by certain elements who are determined to thwart such efforts.

... Bud Billiken parades?

 

BUT I CAN'T help but think that a city well on its way to being 30 percent black, 30 percent white, 30 percent Latino and the bulk of the rest being Asian has already taken significant steps toward that direction.

 

Maybe it's the rest of the U.S. that has to catch up to us!

  -30-

When will we start hearing demands for a new stadium on the South Side?

Perhaps it’s just because I’m desperate to ignore the first snowfall that hit Chicago on Monday – more than a month before the official start of winter.

Already obsolete?

 

But I couldn’t help but be shaken up by wire service reports emanating from Atlanta; where the Braves plan to move their ball club from their city-based stadium to one based in the suburbs in just a couple of years.

THE EXISTING BALLPARK – Turner Field – came about in the wake of the 1996 Olympic Games staged in that southern city, then reconstructed into a modern ballpark beginning with the 1997 season.

Turner Field might not be among the stadia that gets people’s hearts all atwitter (like the ballparks in Baltimore and Pittsburgh). But it is among the modern round of construction – sports teams that saw themselves get new buildings in the 1990s and early 2000s that were meant to be more than just a place to sit while a ballgame is played in front of you.

There’s nothing structurally wrong with the current Braves’ building. It’s just that the officials in suburban Cobb County are willing to give more amenities to the ball club, if they can steal away some baseball business for themselves.

Now why should I care about this southern politicking taking place? It’s because these stadiums always seem to get built in groups. Which means that now that the current set-up of stadia can start to be thought of as obsolete, it makes me wonder how many more ball clubs are going to start screaming for new facilities from their home communities.

How soon will calls for "the Cell's" replacement start?

 

EVEN IF, IN some cases, those current facilities aren’t fully paid for yet.

And if that happens, how long will it be until our own city’s ball clubs start screaming.

Renovate Wrigley? This action by the Braves may convince the Cubs they’d be better off at a location in suburban Rosemont (since the Cubs could claim the same line of logic that the Braves are using to justify their move – it puts them closer to the geographic center of their fan base).

In need of replacement before it's rebuilt?

 

Or what about the White Sox? The building now known as U.S. Cellular Field cropped up in 1991. Making it possibly the oldest of these new-style ballparks.

BY THE BRAVES’ line of logic (Turner Field’s stint as a major league stadium will last exactly 20 years), the White Sox ballpark is an antique.

It’s also an antique that has never gotten much love from amateur architectural aficionados.

Will the White Sox get it into their heads that it’s time for them to get a building that will gain admiration – instead of mere functionality – from outsiders?

Now I realize the political reality locally is that the process leading to the construction of U.S. Cellular Field ate up a lot of political goodwill. There are people who are still bitter that the building was ever constructed and that they were unable to kill the bill that back in 1988 ensured that the 2005 World Series was played on the South Side – and NOT in St. Petersburg, Fla.!

BUT THE BUILDING is now part of an era that is being replaced. It’s just a matter of time before officials want to start talking up the replacement of “the Cell.”

I recently read an essay written by someone trying to have some fun – speculating about what professional baseball would be like in the year 2114. He guessed that the White Sox would have a new stadium by then – perhaps built across the street on the site of the old Comiskey Park – because the new building would last the same 80-year stint as the old.

Will the "Old Roman's" statue gather pigeon poop at another ballpark?

I doubt it! The cycle of replacement of the current stadia has now begun.

My guess is that U.S. Cellular will see its demise some time around the year 2030. By then, the demands to replace it with something “more modern” will just be too intense.

THE 2033 MAJOR League Baseball All-Star Game (the 100^th anniversary of the original All-Star game played at Comiskey Park) could well be the first moment of glory for a new White Sox stadium somewhere.

The real question is will 2005 be the only World Series championship won in the current building, or will there be a few more before its demise? A part of me thinks that is more likely than a championship at Wrigley any time soon!

  -30-