Talk:Chicago metropolitan area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Illinois (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana.
WikiProject Iowa (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iowa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Iowa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Wisconsin (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Chicagoland" and "Chicago Metropolitan Area": Two Different Terms[edit]

The term "Chicagoland" is commonly used by residents of Chicago and surrounding counties in Illiois to refer to the geographical area around Chicago. In common practice among residents of the region, the term "Chicagoland" basically includes Cook County, Lake County (Illinois), DuPage County and portions of Will and Kane Counties. In recent years, due to urban sprawl, the term "Chicagoland" has been occasionally "stretched" to include Illinois counties that do not border Cook such as DeKalb, Kankakee, McHenry, Kendall and Grundy. However, the the "Chicagoland" does NOT include any adjacent counties in Indiana or Wisconsin.

Northwest Indiana is part of the Chicago Metropolitan Area according to the U.S. census bureau but it has never been referred to by the term "Chicagoland". In fact, there is always a distinction on television and in the media between "Chicagoland" and "Northwest Indiana". Commercials always state "see your Chicagoland or Northwest Indiana Chevy Dealer". Harris Bank, a major Chicago bank recently acquired Mercantile Bank of Hammond, Indiana. They consider this their first expansion outside of the "Chicagoland" area. People in Northwest Indiana seldom say that they are from Chicago. They simply say they are from Northwest Indiana or just Indiana, if a particular geographical reference is needed people usually reference "Gary".

The reasons the term "Chicagoland" excludes Northwest Indiana are many. Geographically, there is an extensive area of steel mills and gasoline refineries separating Indiana from Illinois. There is also a strong regional pride as Northwest Indiana has its own uniqueness apart from Chicago and its suburbs. There is a different state lottery. Laws regarding fireworks and firearms are much more liberal than Illinois laws. There are strong ties to long standing Indiana institutions such as Purdue University, Indiana University, and Notre Dame. Important decisions affecting ther region are made in Indianapolis and not Chicago. Gary is the birthplace of Michael Jackson and well know throughout the U.S., it is in itself a large urban area that can be used as a reference point by Northwest Indiana residents. Northwest Indiana has its own Newspapers, a couple of radio stations and residents can receive NBC and CBS affiliates from both South Bend and Chicago via cable or antenna.

That's a big speech considering you're wrong. I grew up in Hammond and we always considered ourselves part of Chicagoland. Commercials on Chicago TV, consider NW Indidan as part of Chicagoland (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Bea Bryant

Kenosha County Wisconsin is by U.S. Census Bureau definition, part of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Area. Other than that, it is probably not considered "Chicagoland" for the same reasons as Northwest Indiana. There is a term basically used in transportation--"GCM Corridor" or "Gary Chicago Milwaukee Corridor". It does refer to expressways and transit between those areas. "The Weather Channel" refers to Northwest Indiana as "Gary Metro".

Wrong again. Kenosha is part of the Milwaukee Radio and TV DMA but IS NOT part of the Milwaukee Metro area (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Bea Bryant

I'm not sure if I agree with a single line of that at all. It's nice to paint all that into a broad stroke, but it's simply not true. I've lived here all my life, and I can say, many people around here like to disconnect themselves with Gary, and boast about their proximity to Chicago in many of the white collar areas. Not sure where this "Northwest Indiana" pride is coming from. Not only that, but many urban areas, on the IL side and IN side have their own unique quirks. It's not just relegated to this one area; that goes for newspapers and media outlets as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Official and Preferred title of area[edit]

Does anyone else take issue with the tone of the first paragraph. Chicagoland seems to be the name of the area that is preferred the most, but its somewhat arbitrary to call it the "preferred" title. Who prefers it? And "Official" is factually wrong, even according to the definition in the article, so why mince words. I have watched TV broadcasts of the Lake County board meetings (I get bored sometimes :) ), and their planners used the term "Chicago metropolitan area". I've lived in the Chicago area for 2.5 years now, and honestly the only people who actively use this term are news broadcasters and advertisers.

Agree with previous one[edit]

Chicagoland is certainly a familiar term, but it's hardly as though people don't use or fully understand other terms, such as Chicago metropolitan area. I agree with the above poster, and I've lived here for 20 years. It would be odd for someone to say to someone from a different locale, "I live in Chicagoland." The person would say "I live in XYZ suburb" or "I live in the northern / western / southern suburbs of Chicago." Frankly, I don't even think Chicagoland deserves a Wikipedia entry.

I see that the Chicagoland page has been changed to Chicago metropolitan area. Thank God; I always hated that word.

"Zones" graphic[edit]

Chicagoland Radius Map Showing Zones.
The file File:Chicagoland.jpg has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

The "Zones" graphic at right is included in the article but has no explanation, e.g. what the zones represent or who designated them. You get a little more information by clicking through to the full image, but not much. Anyone care to explain the graphic in the article, or should it be removed? InterruptorJones 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Zones Graphic[edit]

I created the zones image based roughly on the image found at The image zones as are follows:

  • 1 - Downtown Chicago
  • 2 - Chicago
  • 3 - Outer Chicago City Limits and Inner Suburbs
  • 4 - Ring Suburbs
  • 5 - Newly Developing Suburbs
  • 6 - Possible Future Development in Chicagoland

Obviously this is debatable on what zones could be defined as.

It was hard for me to define what they were in the image caption's box. If you click on the image and find details, it will explain what the zones are, but this is harder to get to.

--Isipeoria 06:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the rings are described at [[1]] but I'm not really sure they are anything but a system that the wild onions website uses. 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can these rings be explained in the article? It's a neat graphic, but the article needs to explain context, otherwise its just eye-candy.Bridesmill 14:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree: while pretty, the map is just eye candy. Zone 5 is "newly developing suburbs"?? C'mon now. Out in Zone 5 you get cities like Michigan City, Indiana, and Plainfield, Libertyville and Zion, Illinois. These are hardly "newly developing suburbs". While I appreciate the work that has gone into the map, I think it is misleading at best and think it should be removed from the article. MrHarman 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say this about your hard work, Isipeoria, because I like the presentation -- but it's perilously close to original research. If you could provide some external source for this division, i.e. if your map were only presenting a disntinction drawn by some other source, then it would be more WP-appropriate. It's a shame, because I think it's a well-done graphic and I like the zone concept you're promoting, but probably doesn't belong in WP. Cheers, PhilipR 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
drawing circles on a map is not the kind of original research that worries Wiki. It's fine. Of course it repeats the zones theory of the Chicago school of sociology which had similar maps in the 1920s. Rjensen 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inferring that you're asserting that this sort of OR doesn't worry Wikipedia (not other wikis or wiki software). Wikipedia is a heterogeneous community and I question your authority (or that of any individual) to speak for it in its entirety, so instead I turn to the published standards. I'm not exactly losing sleep over it, but the inclusion of graphical elements that represent an arbitrary division determined by the author does appear to fall under WP:NOR's injunction against a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." If the Chicago School drew similar maps to indicate some variable, why don't we recreate one of those, or at least try to cite whatever variable they were indicating on their maps? Even if they just drew arbitrary lines, their lines are more worthy of inclusion in WP by virtue of their stature as sociologists. Or if the source is and that site has some claim to authority in interpreting the divisions of Chicagoland, then cite it in the article. All this is not to say that I don't appreciate the author's work involved, and perhaps with a clearer definition of "ring suburbs" etc. or better sourcing it could become encyclopedic. - PhilipR 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "novel" interpretation to say someplace is 50 miles from the Loop. Drawing the 50-mile line is pretty uncontroversial--the variable is simply distance. The theory for zones has been standard in sociology for 80 years (using Chicago zone maps): "Ernest W. Burgess's famous map of the concentric zones of city development, probably the most famous single visual document in the history of sociology."[2]. Rjensen 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt of the soundness of the idea, nor of its clear relation to earlier work. This is not a crackpot theory, which is what NOR was originally designed to combat, but, absent a source for those zones and their labelling, I am afraid it does count as OR here. This sort of concentric zone analysis is commonplace now. If the idea and those distances are described anywhere, then we are on solid ground, and the original graphic is a GFDL thing, not an OR thing. Failing that, I am afraid it is the sort of thing we need to avoid doing in order not to tempt people to do the things we really don't want them to do. Robert A.West (Talk) 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Further Afield[edit]

"....More ambitiously, by mid-century, Chicago may find itself anchoring a largely unbroken urban horseshoe shaped metro area spanning from Green Bay, Wisconsin to Grand Rapids, Michigan..."

Hold your horses, partner. It's more likely that L.A. Riverside and San Diego will grow to one conurbation or BosWash will become the Megalopolis than Chicagoland will come creeping from Green Bay to Grand Rapids.

I agree completely. Green Bay? Grand Rapids? I don't mean at all to be rude, but "Idiot" would be the first word coming into my mind to describe the person who wrote that.


There should be some information on demographics? Is there an easy way to acquire the knowledge?SenorAnderson 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Less Prescription[edit]

The quote "While you sometimes see the word used in redundant phrases like "the Chicagoland area," "metro Chicagoland" or even "the greater metropolitan Chicagoland area," the correct usage is simply "Chicagoland" to mean the city of Chicago and its surrounding communities. Sometimes the term is employed to mean the suburbs only, but that is also incorrect" needs work. Who cares if its redundant? If local people use the above-described expressions, it is your job to describe them, and avoid commentary of what they "should" say---this is an online encyclopedia, not a grammar manual. Kemet 12 April 2006

That's ridiculous -- if you're definining a term, its correct usage is part of its definition. Anyway, the point is that locals don't use it that way. New York ad copywriters do.

Defining Chicagoland[edit]

As a non-resident of chicago I notice that the description of Chicagoland and the first graphic on the page do not indicate the same area, it would be nice if someone could make the two match or give some explanation as to why the graphic is different.Stardust8212 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they're different. Sort of confusing, I would agree. --Isipeoria 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They differ (in part?) because the Census Bureau definition of its statistical area will, over time, include more counties. (I think it has to do with things like the percentage of workers who commute out of their own county to work.) Thus DeKalb county was added a few years ago -- apparently after the graphic was made. (I notice it's also outside this "zone map", which I have to say is pretty silly -- apart from a discussion of the effects of disaster there is no reason to lump regions together based solely on radial distance from the Loop.) I live in DeKalb county and cannot imagine anyone saying they live in "Chicagoland". Maybe if they were talking to someone from thousands of miles away they would say their town is "near Chicago". But the inclusion of this county in a statistical reporting unit does not match the perception of the residents that their county is culturally part of the Chicago metro area.

Like I've said many times in other parts of Wikipedia, Chicagoland is simply a conceptual idea. For purposes of uniformity I think we at Wikipedia should come to a consensus on what we believe is a good metric for membership into Chicagoland. Personally, I think it should have to do with more variables than the percentage of residents that commute to the city of Chicago for work. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The second pic, in my opinion, is far more accurate. The Person Who Is Strange 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

People: I decided to "be bold" and copyedit the lead paragraph of this article to:

  • Eliminate 1 of the 2 mentions of "Chicago metropolitan area".
  • State that there is no formal definition to the term "Chicagoland"
  • State that the 15 county area is the maximum extent of "Chicagoland".

Hope you like it. MrHarman 04:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now it's 16 counties? Is Rockford in Chicagoland now? Are we sure? It is just this sort of confusion that leads me to urge that we move most of this page to a Chicago Metropolitan Area article, and leave Chicagoland as a nickname page. Other metro areas have taken this more encyclopedic route; I refer you to Talk:Greater Los Angeles Area where they debated calling the article The Southland like their traffic reporters do. Wisely, they choose Greater Los Angeles Area. Perhaps the following points need to be made again: Using Chicagoland encourages laziness on the part of article writers who cannot be bothered to look up where something actually happened. Chicagoland is ill-defined. Chicagoland is used ahistorically when refering to the Chicago area prior to the popularization of the term by a few traffic reporters and advertizing copywriters. Some people use Chicagoland to refer to the suburbs sans the City, and/or as a sort of mental White flight from the scary city. As evidence, note that they have segregated the African-American suburbs into the Chicago Southland. Chicagoland is not a term that is well known outside of the Chicago area, and is especially not well known to people outside the US. Wikipedia's mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to rub other people's noses in our insider knowledge. Speciate 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the time that it took me to write the above, it changed again to 14 counties. Unbelievable. Speciate 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kenosha and K County[edit]

Kenosha County is not a part of Chicagoland, contrary to what many Chicagoans would like to be true and what many Californians and NYC ppl researchers will say with absolutely zero visits to the area. I personally live in Kenosha County and it is not a part of Chicagoland. Not in any metro areas at all. Wonder who thought of that. And I am going to change the text "Suburbs" to "Towns and Cities", because not all of those cities are suburbs of Chicago. Hardly any are. And don't argue with this if you don't live in Kenosha County or a similar location that is not in Chicagoland, at least by de facto. The Person Who Is Strange 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

After living in Lake County, Illinois in the 1990's, I never considered Kenosha County to be part of Chicagoland. Rather, I looked at it as a buffer between Milwaukee and Chicago. Would you consider Kenosha County part of the Milwaukee metro area? --Isipeoria 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oswego is part of Chicagoland, and it is in Kendall County. Obviously, this fact doesn't render all of Kendall in Chicago, just a little bit of it. — goethean 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Your point being? K County is not part of Chicagoland. We have more in common with the Milwaukee metro than the Chicagoland. Chicago is a great place, but Kenosha isn't part of it. The Person Who Is Strange 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Kenosha County is officially included as part of the Chicago Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the U.S. Census. Their designations are based largely on commuting patterns. This article is the only article about the Chicago metro area, so I think it's fair to include it, as it is part of the official metro area. Abog 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anchor cities[edit]

The top of the infobox: Chicago, Naperville, Michigan City The infobox itself: Chicago, Gary, Naperville The article text: Chicago, Gary, Kenosha

Someone want to pick three and keep them standard? OzLawyer 11:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that that we can precisely define the term "Chicagoland". In fact, I believe it would be somewhat presumptuous of us to even try since the definition varies from user to user. Fr'instnace, there are 7.7 million Google hits for the term. One of the first usages precisely refers to the seven-county area, but most of the others very vaguely use the term instead of "Chicago area". MrHarman 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the Census often picks weird cities to represent the anchor cities of the metro area. They limit it to Naperville and Michigan City. I don't know why. Why they don't include larger, more established cities like Aurora, Joliet, Gary, Elgin, Kenosha, and Waukegan is beyond me, yet they all can be considered anchor cities, as they are large, well-established industrial centers, somewhat equally positioned on the peripheral edge of Chicagoland. Abog 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Chicagoland[edit]

Hi! Can someone please give me a link where I can find many pictures about Chicagoland? Benok 16:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Memories of Chicagoland Maps[edit]

I was born in 1954 and grew up just outside of Chicago. I think the term Chicagoland was used on the Tribune map that was published. This was similar to the size of a large highway map for a state but it included the city and the surrounding area. I always thought that Chicagoland was a word the Tribune kind of made up in the same way it wanted to change the language to have "through" become "thru" and "though" become "tho". This would also be consistent with use by television newscasters and weathercasters since WGN was a Chicago Tribune station.

Article for the Northwest Suburbs?[edit]

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to offer an article on the northwest suburbs as a specific region within Chicagoland, similar to those offered for the North Shore and Chicago Southland. In fact, it might be a better idea to represent all parts of Chicagoland in this manner. Brackenborough 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Brackenborough

Absolutely. I strongly dislike the nebulous term Chicagoland being used in an encyclopedia, both because it has no precise definition and because it encourages laziness on the part of article writers who cannot be bothered to find out what suburb something happened in. Chicago's suburbs deserve better treatment than to be lumped together into "Chicagoland." Speciate 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So "North Shore", "Chicago Southland" and all other possible subdivisions of what I call Chicagoland can be strictly defined? Chicagoland tends to be a more accessible term to readers in articles; either that, or rely on extensive wikilinking. —Rob (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. I created the Golden Corridor article, which is about the area of commerce along the Northwest Tollway. So, that's a start, as far as coverage of the NW burbs goes. But I think a general Northwest Suburbs article could be created.
Western Suburbs and Southwestern Suburbs articles could also be created, I guess. Also, for the Western Suburbs, there's the Illinois Technology and Research Corridor article and comprehensive DuPage County, Illinois article which are starting points. Abog 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ChicagolandChicago Metropolitan Area — Chicagoland is a folk definition, and is disliked by many Chicagoans, not just me. Cf the Greater Los Angeles (vs "The Southland") article for a similar debate. (comment copied from an edit summary by User:Speciate) --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since this is not a vote, please explain the reasons for your recommendation.
  • Support My reasons are in the Discussion below. I would prefer that a Chicagoland page remain, with the informal nature and conflicting definitions of the term carefully and fairly spelled out. Speciate 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I lived in Chicago for 10 years and loved it, except for the weather. Chicago Metro Area sounds much more like the kind of language an encyclopedia should use. Steve Dufour 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, also Merge; I don't see both pages co-existing if we're to be scientific about it. —Rob (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Chicago metropolitan area which matches the category Category:Chicago metropolitan area. Vegaswikian 02:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, just so long as Chicagoland redirects there and there's a small section on the term Chicagoland, which is widely used to refer to the region in advertisements, the media, businesses, etc. Keep in mind there are similar informal terms to refer to U.S. metropolitan areas such as the Metroplex (Dallas-Ft. Worth), Valley of the Sun (Phoenix metro), Bay Area (San Fran), Puget Sound (Seattle), Tri-State Area (NY-NJ-CT), etc. Even though they are informal or could be considered slang, they are widely used and I think they deserve a place (but not necessarily a title of an article) in Wikipedia. Abog 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Divide This is two articles; one about the expansive, not to say vague, term invented by the Chicago Tribune, which does need an article under this title (possibly at Wiktionary); and the other on the Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City Consolidated Statistical Area, invented by the Census. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:

I will list as many of my objections to the term Chicagoland as I can remember:

  • Chicagoland is ill-defined, but the Census bureau has a tried and tested statistical system for defining metro areas.
  • People from Kenosha took the time to write (above) that they feel that Kenosha is not in Chicagoland.
  • People have stated that it sounds like Disneyland, which to them is part of the Disneyfication of America.
  • It is ahistorical to mention Chicagoland in articles which are about events that happened before the term was invented.
  • People from outside the US don't know what Chicagoland is, and as can been seen from the competing definitions in the first two paragraphs, we don't either.
  • Nobody has provided a more reliable definition since this page was created.
  • The constant revisions to the page adding and deleting counties from the definition are more evidence for its weakness.
  • We don't even use the right map--Michigan City and three counties in Indiana are left out. I take this as evidence that the most expansive definition is not believed by even the promoters of the Chicagoland page. But we would have to use the most expansive definition to be concordant with the Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City Combined Statistical Area as it is currently redirected.
  • I signed all my comments, so all the other comments on this talk page objecting to the term are from other people. Please read what they have to say.
  • The Template:Chicagoland had the awful title "Metropolitan area of Chicagoland." It is difficult for people to avoid using the redundant (and ugly) turn of phrase "the Chicagoland area" when writing an article. Having wikipedia's imprimatur on Chicagoland will only encourage them.
  • Worse yet, people end up saying a town is "a suburb of Chicagoland", which would mean it is the suburb of a suburb. Ugh.
  • As I and other editors have put in the article, there is a strong tendency for the term to be used in commercial speech. I (and I am sure others) view the term as crass for this reason.
  • Using the term allows for laziness on the part of article writers who cannot be bothered to look up the actual town in which an event occured.
  • If one enters the term into the Chicago Sun-Times search page, only 8 hits occur, consistent with the term being a Tribune invention. Their editors must be trying to avoid its use.
  • The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (the largest CC in the Midwest) has as very restrictive defintion, and they have it as part of their name.
  • The Illinois Department of Tourism's definition is relevatory, since it excludes the city and the outlying counties. (I put the links in the article.)
  • Until recently, the article for the 708 area code stated that the 708 was Chicagoland, consistent with some people considering Chicagoland as the suburbs only.
  • Some people use Chicagoland to refer to the suburbs sans the City, and/or as a sort of mental White flight from the scary city. As evidence, note that they have segregated the African-American suburbs into the Chicago Southland.
  • Wikipedia's mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to rub other people's noses in our insider knowledge.

There is one anonymous user who has a problem with me who has been reverting all my efforts to create a more encyclopedic definition of the Chicago metro area. I realize that some people may have a fondnesss for the term, but I am not proposing its elimination, merely that its use be limited to the informal. I have a fondness for the term Chi-town, but I would not like to see it all over Wikipedia. Both "Chicagoland" and "Chi-town" are unencyclopedic.

Please take a look (in the history) at how I redesigned the Chicagoland page. I think it looks good. If you like, take a look at my other efforts on behalf of WikiProject Chicago; I have always tried to be a good editor. Speciate 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It probably would be a good idea to move the informative data found in this article to an article(s) named for the Chicago area rather than Chicagoland. Since the Chicago urban area, metropolitan area, and combined statistical area are three different entities with three different boundaries as defined by the Census Bureau, it is tempting for data pertaining to all three entities to be channeled here in the "Chicagoland" article. The previously mentioned conflicting maps in this article are evidence of that. Marathone 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is evidently a will to move the page away from Chicagoland. Whether the term "Chicagoland" is dealt with in a separate section or a separate article are beyond the scope of a move request. I have also taken the liberty of converting the proposed title to lower case, in line with the majority of United States metropolitan areas. This article has been renamed from Chicagoland to Chicago metropolitan area as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DeKalb County, Illinois[edit]

Well, I have been looking and looking at this article. Can it be explained to me when DeKalb County was included into this area? I guess, living in Ogle County, I have never viewed our neighbor county as part of the Chicago metropolitan area. When and where was this added in? No only that, but your map doesn't even include DeKalb as being red.--Kranar drogin 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above, our map is wrong. I lack teh skillz to fix it. The debate (above) about how to define metro areas was settled in favor of using the Federal Gov't definition, which includes DeKalb: [[3]]. I think it was included in the 2000 or 1990 Census. Speciate 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Political demographic[edit]

Is it true chicago area is the most conservative major metropolitan in the u.s.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talkcontribs) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. I would think L.A.-Santa Ana-Riverside, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, San Diego, and Phoenix are more conservative. If you have a source that says otherwise though, please do share. Abog (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt it. The city has a strong history of politically liberal traditions, particularly regarding economic issues. I would agree with the above user that many of the other metro areas mentioned are probably far more conservative. It is a hard thing to measure, generally studies defer to Democrat/Republican vote. It is well known that Cook County gives Democrats some of their largest winning margins, and the suburbs have been trending more and more Democratic as well. If you are talking about social liberalism/conservatism, I would also find that very, very unlikely. The Chicago metro area dominates politics in the state, and the state is generally very liberal (although gay marriage is not legal).
When I was a student of Political Science at the University of Illinois, Former Republican Governor Jim Edgar occasionally spoke in a couple classes and he regularly pointed out that Illinois Republicans seeking statewide office had to run very moderate campaigns- to the left of their party platform - to be successful, due to the political views of the Chicago area. I don't know that his word is golden, but I would argue that both the common understanding and general political understanding of Chicago metro is that it is somewhat liberal. Contrast that to a metro area like Dallas, Houston, San Diego, etc.
Petchboo, could you please follow up and cite where you are getting that information? Rob Shepard (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the New Image?[edit]

I appreciate the effort, and I don't want to come across as overly hostile... but the new image (Chicagoland Area Update.GIF) we're using to define "zones" of Chicagoland doesn't really do justice to the situation. In one sense, it actually is fairly accurate. However, it seems like a violation of the "DO NOT include original research" rule. It is obvious someone just took a map of the area- went on MS paint.. and drew what they thought made sense.

More importantly, Algonquin / Crystal Lake are not "suburbs" on the map, but Joliet is. I know we are trying to reconcile reality with the zones theory - but realistically the Northwest suburbs stretch further. Suburban sprawl is pretty constant to about Route 47 in southwestern McHenry County - so I don't know why that should fall into the same "zone" as Kankakee (which is clearly more disconnected from the city, development-wise). If we are doing this (arbitrarily drawing lines on a printable map) from now on, I suggest we move the suburbs circle a bit to fit in line better with all the suburban sprawl, and then you can save the metro area line to cover the surrounding towns and villages. That way, you don't have the "suburbs" line cutting through densely populated Elgin (clearly a suburb) in the northwest... and simultaneously passing south of Mokena through a big rural area.

A box would almost fit it all better, as most of the suburban sprawl terminates just west of the Fox River - from Oswego in the south to Crystal Lake in the north.

What I actually suggest we do is leave this map or that previous zone map up, but also include a POPULATION DENSITY map. Or, maybe layer a zones map with a population density map. People should be able to look at an image and say, oh, I see how that development is all connected.

Thoughts?Rob Shepard (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Rob Shepard (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


I think the south-east section needs improvement. No mention of the major moraine there is mentioned (See article on the dunes park for info). Also, it is said there are no bluffs or such, yet I know it is a steep walk down to the shore in some places. I don't think these are dunes, but some-one familiar with the park or with a good reference should check. Kdammers (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Are you talking about the ancient reef of Stony Island Ridge? The Calumet basin? Or features in Indiana? Speciate (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm just recalling my visits, so I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it was at the Indiana Dunes State park.Kdammers (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction Needed[edit]

That image in blue that shows about 16 counties over Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana with the statement "Chicagoland -as defined by Construction Data Company" needs to be removed and replaced with an image hat shows the actual counties of metropolitan Chicago. What is Construction Data Company?... just some company that does conmstruction work? It doesn't matter what they define as Chicagoland because they are not a government entity. There should be two images, both defined by the federal government. The first: the counties that make up the CSA. The second: the counties that make up the MSA. This should be defined in print under the images with their respective populations. -Likewie, if it is decided that the graph by Construction Data Comapny will remain (which I do not see why it should since they are a construction company) then the article MUST mention the population of that area defined by them, which would be over the 9.8 million people the article states is in the CSA. Otherwise, Wikipedia is doing a disservice to its readers because it is making readers believe there are 9.8 million people in those entire 16 counties when there are actually more people in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering why the population density in the article is somewhere in the 500 person/km2 when if you take the population stated in the article and divide it by the area in the article it comes up in the 300+ person/km2 range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


There is a discussion that may be of interest to this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Suburban Faith Based Peace Coalition. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chicago metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)