I'm in the rare position of defending Chicago, but here goes...
I'm skeptical of the closed-network argument. Chicago is simply too large, too globalized, and too economically diversified. There are nearly 500,000 businesses in the metro area (and by definition - 500,000 owners or leaders of businesses). There are perhaps 100 private country clubs and 100 separate social networks linked to these clubs.
The CEO of a multinational manufacturer in suburban Chicago, a Northwestern cancer researcher, a Citadel executive, and a logistics executive at O'Hare may all be part of Chicago's economy, but their most important professional networks are likely national or international. Those networks often have far greater influence on their work than any local civic establishment.
To be sure, a relatively closed network may exist within certain civic, philanthropic, political, or development circles. But that is very different from saying that Chicago itself operates as a closed network.
Another consideration is the size of Chicago's immigrant population. Roughly half of the city's residents are first- or second-generation Americans. By definition, many are connected to communities and institutions that extend well beyond Chicago. These residents often participate in national and international networks that are independent of any long-established local power structure.
In terms of influence (or at least positive influence), I would also push back on the idea that Chicago is becoming less relevant. Chicago can credibly claim as its home both Barack Obama and Pope Leo. Regardless of one's politics, Obama was arguably the most influential American political figure of the early 21st century. Pope Leo may well become the most influential American in the world over the coming decade (if not already at that level). A city that continues to produce figures of that stature is difficult to characterize as lacking influence.
Renn is a neo-liberal hack pretending to care about Chicago's success. A new Chicago is being built along the lake. The challenge is supporting it. Renn will chronicle every problem with Chicago but he will not identify the birth of its new economy because his ideological commitments won't let him see it.
I don't think this is particularly complicated; there are exactly three cold weather cities that have had lots of forward momentum in this century: NY and Boston, and Minneapolis. NY is too unique in scale to really compare to any other city in America. Boston has a natural backstop from higher ed and research that is similarly unique. Minneapolis is worthy of much more study than it gets.
Every other cold weather city lost out, big time, as air conditioning and cheap land pulled folks south and then as growth in the south allowed for low taxes there. Chicago has done great from where I stand and has battled enormous headwinds. It's a great place despite all of the challenges laid before it over the last 30 years.
Read Donald Miller’s book about Chicago in 1870. Culturally little has changed. Political machines intertwine with business. When it became the Daley Machine in 1950, the corruption did not disrupt the business. Corruption grew, and business left. Now corruption is overwhelming business. Chicago is still a Very Closed Network and people like JB strive to keep it that way.
I was first introduced to Chicago in 2012 as a naive 13 year-old from Ohio who begged his parents to take him to the “big city” for the first time. I was floored, and for the next several years I was hellbent on moving to Chicago. That’s just what I did for college, and I’ve stayed ever since.
Living here (as with any other city) exposes the many flaws and scars that persist, particularly the city’s segregated nature and derelict political leadership; but, I still enjoy and see the global city underneath it all.
Chicago is certainly not living up to its full potential. I’ve recently gotten involved in some civic groups locally to help change that; however, I do not believe the city’s best days are behind it.
Make no mistake, Chicago had some more upward momentum in the 2010s than it does now. The pandemic stifled much of this as well as two subpar mayoral administrations. I believe we can regain this momentum.
As your article states, the city itself is an untapped geyser of potential. We simply need to unlock it.
I was recently describing Boston as a closed network. During his re-election run for Mayor in 1979, Kevin White vowed to meet individually with each of the 200+ precinct captains working for his organization. When I was shown into his City Hall office he was ending an angry phone call with his Chief of Staff. He looked up and asked "Who the hell are you?" He went on to ask where I was born. I answered "Fort Wayne, Indiana". He then said "Why the f*** are they sending me precinct captains from Indiana?" The audience ended shortly after that. He had a point, but despite having a non-native precinct captain, he won my Dorchester precinct handily.
Yes, Boston is one of the most prosperous metro areas in the U.S. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/acsbr-025.pdf
Last time I was in Chicago I was impressed. To me it seemed to have gotten much bigger and more prosperous compared to a decade ago, when I went and remembered being disappointed.
Ehhh....a single 80-year-old anecdote from a 50-year-old memoir is hardly compelling evidence about today. Particularly in a place where the leadership demographics are as enormously different as Chicago 2020s compared to 1940s.
Based on a steady amount of time in the Bay Area over the past 30 years, it seems culturally much more of a closed-network place today than Chicago or NYC. Couldn't say regarding the tech sector in particular though.
NYC seems to have shifted in that regard, become less closed-network than it used to be. Chicago seems today more or less indistinguishable from NYC on this particular dimension.
As a society I don't believe we acknowledge the depth of historical and cultural influences on how we live in our world today. One might say that NYC's roots in commerce and finance had their start in the 1600s when it was New Amsterdam, not New York. How much Dutch is spoken there now?
It doesn't take much to see how a city economy and culture that grows as a result of strong business leaders -- and even stronger political leaders, looking for their cut -- would produce leadership that would exert control over how the city grows, and make certain that ambitious people show them the proper deference.
I'm in the rare position of defending Chicago, but here goes...
I'm skeptical of the closed-network argument. Chicago is simply too large, too globalized, and too economically diversified. There are nearly 500,000 businesses in the metro area (and by definition - 500,000 owners or leaders of businesses). There are perhaps 100 private country clubs and 100 separate social networks linked to these clubs.
The CEO of a multinational manufacturer in suburban Chicago, a Northwestern cancer researcher, a Citadel executive, and a logistics executive at O'Hare may all be part of Chicago's economy, but their most important professional networks are likely national or international. Those networks often have far greater influence on their work than any local civic establishment.
To be sure, a relatively closed network may exist within certain civic, philanthropic, political, or development circles. But that is very different from saying that Chicago itself operates as a closed network.
Another consideration is the size of Chicago's immigrant population. Roughly half of the city's residents are first- or second-generation Americans. By definition, many are connected to communities and institutions that extend well beyond Chicago. These residents often participate in national and international networks that are independent of any long-established local power structure.
In terms of influence (or at least positive influence), I would also push back on the idea that Chicago is becoming less relevant. Chicago can credibly claim as its home both Barack Obama and Pope Leo. Regardless of one's politics, Obama was arguably the most influential American political figure of the early 21st century. Pope Leo may well become the most influential American in the world over the coming decade (if not already at that level). A city that continues to produce figures of that stature is difficult to characterize as lacking influence.
Renn is a neo-liberal hack pretending to care about Chicago's success. A new Chicago is being built along the lake. The challenge is supporting it. Renn will chronicle every problem with Chicago but he will not identify the birth of its new economy because his ideological commitments won't let him see it.
I don't think this is particularly complicated; there are exactly three cold weather cities that have had lots of forward momentum in this century: NY and Boston, and Minneapolis. NY is too unique in scale to really compare to any other city in America. Boston has a natural backstop from higher ed and research that is similarly unique. Minneapolis is worthy of much more study than it gets.
Every other cold weather city lost out, big time, as air conditioning and cheap land pulled folks south and then as growth in the south allowed for low taxes there. Chicago has done great from where I stand and has battled enormous headwinds. It's a great place despite all of the challenges laid before it over the last 30 years.
Read Donald Miller’s book about Chicago in 1870. Culturally little has changed. Political machines intertwine with business. When it became the Daley Machine in 1950, the corruption did not disrupt the business. Corruption grew, and business left. Now corruption is overwhelming business. Chicago is still a Very Closed Network and people like JB strive to keep it that way.
I was first introduced to Chicago in 2012 as a naive 13 year-old from Ohio who begged his parents to take him to the “big city” for the first time. I was floored, and for the next several years I was hellbent on moving to Chicago. That’s just what I did for college, and I’ve stayed ever since.
Living here (as with any other city) exposes the many flaws and scars that persist, particularly the city’s segregated nature and derelict political leadership; but, I still enjoy and see the global city underneath it all.
Chicago is certainly not living up to its full potential. I’ve recently gotten involved in some civic groups locally to help change that; however, I do not believe the city’s best days are behind it.
Make no mistake, Chicago had some more upward momentum in the 2010s than it does now. The pandemic stifled much of this as well as two subpar mayoral administrations. I believe we can regain this momentum.
As your article states, the city itself is an untapped geyser of potential. We simply need to unlock it.
???? Chicago produced Ye and Chief Keef and Drill music
I was recently describing Boston as a closed network. During his re-election run for Mayor in 1979, Kevin White vowed to meet individually with each of the 200+ precinct captains working for his organization. When I was shown into his City Hall office he was ending an angry phone call with his Chief of Staff. He looked up and asked "Who the hell are you?" He went on to ask where I was born. I answered "Fort Wayne, Indiana". He then said "Why the f*** are they sending me precinct captains from Indiana?" The audience ended shortly after that. He had a point, but despite having a non-native precinct captain, he won my Dorchester precinct handily.
Yes, Boston is one of the most prosperous metro areas in the U.S. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/acsbr-025.pdf
Last time I was in Chicago I was impressed. To me it seemed to have gotten much bigger and more prosperous compared to a decade ago, when I went and remembered being disappointed.
We aren't supposed to be acknowledging Chicago's reinvention. It doesn't fit the 'narrative.'
Ehhh....a single 80-year-old anecdote from a 50-year-old memoir is hardly compelling evidence about today. Particularly in a place where the leadership demographics are as enormously different as Chicago 2020s compared to 1940s.
Based on a steady amount of time in the Bay Area over the past 30 years, it seems culturally much more of a closed-network place today than Chicago or NYC. Couldn't say regarding the tech sector in particular though.
NYC seems to have shifted in that regard, become less closed-network than it used to be. Chicago seems today more or less indistinguishable from NYC on this particular dimension.
Compelling evidence, not hardly. Informing, yes.
As a society I don't believe we acknowledge the depth of historical and cultural influences on how we live in our world today. One might say that NYC's roots in commerce and finance had their start in the 1600s when it was New Amsterdam, not New York. How much Dutch is spoken there now?
It doesn't take much to see how a city economy and culture that grows as a result of strong business leaders -- and even stronger political leaders, looking for their cut -- would produce leadership that would exert control over how the city grows, and make certain that ambitious people show them the proper deference.
Okay....there's a whole lot of distance though between that motte and your original bailey.