Talk:North Shore (Chicago)

message: I don't know that much about Orange County, but I'm skeptical of the North Shore–O.C. comparison. The North Shore is old money, and the municipalities were all incorporated before World War II; the nouveaux riches boom burbs are mostly in DuPage County, to the west. I think DuPage County is probably the better analogue for Orange County. The North Shore is more like Beverly Hills. Or, better yet, Westchester County, N.Y.
Agree with this sentiment. As a transplant from both Boston and New York the north shore is similar to Westchester and specifically Wellesley/Newton/Brookline corridor in Massachusetts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.234.77 (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Orange County comparison

message: "Affluent" is used four times in the course of this article, including twice in the first paragraph.  It's not that I don't know that the North Shore is primarily (though not exclusively) populated by people with high incomes (duh!), but it seems to me that the word is being used as a baseball bat rather than as an explanatory device. That is, it stretches the bounds of NPOV, especially since there is no hard data in the article to support this claim (though there is in the articles on the individual communities). So. . .what do I want done? I'm enough of a newbie to not feel comfortable rewriting the article, but as the article grows, I'd like to see a move away from the focus on that adjective. --Nufftin 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some census data to support the claim: In 2000, Evanston's median household income was $56,335; Wilmette's, $106,773; Kenilworth's, more than $200,000 (that's where the census stops counting); Winnetka's, $167,458; Glencoe's, $164,432; Highland Park's, $100,687; Lake Forest's, $136,462; Lake Bluff's, $114,521. (The odd burb out is Highwood, with a MHI of $42,993.) In 2000, an income of $55,331 or higher put a U.S. household in one of the top two earning quintiles, and $88,030 or more put it in the top quintile (see here. You're right, though, that if the term is repeatedly used in the article, it should be backed up. I'll add some text. --Mr. A. 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the word "affluent"

message: A while back someone reordered the list of communities to run north-to-south, because this visually resembles how they appear on a map. However, it makes more sense to me to restore them to their original south-to-north order, beginning with Evanston -- the community closest to Chicago -- and proceeding away from the city. It seems silly to start the list with communities whose distance from the city makes their inclusion debatable and to end it with those that have the strongest "North Shore" associations. The strongest associations, it seems to me, should come first. If there's no objection, I'll go ahead and change it back in a few days. --Mr. A. 03:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand your desire to not list the questionable ones first, but the reverse order flies in the face of convention. Sorry for ranting when I changed it back, I figured it was one of those people who slap anything into the article. I would prefer to label somehow that Winthrop Harbor, Zion, and maybe Waukegan and North Chicago are not really in the North Shore. But may I point out that the railroad was founded in Waukegan, and that concepts change over time. Even as a kid, I considered Waukegan through Evanston as the North Shore, and also the Illinois Beach State Park. That pretty much includes everything from the Wisconsin border to Juneway Terrace. It's hard enough to keep people from including Arlington Heights or whatever in the North Shore, so let's work together on this. Speciate 07:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oo oo, check out this old (1930) timetable for the North Shore Line. They had stops all over Zion and Winthrop Harbor. Speciate 07:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really that important that the list of names match a map? You say going south-to-north "flies in the face of convention," but I'm not sure that we've really established what convention is, in this case. Suppose the article dealt with a string of suburbs that extended outward from the city along a rail line toward the southwest. Should the cities then be listed inner-to-outer (so that they're in the "right" order vertically, north to south) or outer-to-inner (so that they're in the "right" order horizontally, west to east)? The best convention to establish as a precedent, I think, would be one that could apply equally to suburbs extending in any direction. To me, that's an argument for inner-to-outer, regardless of compass direction. --Mr. A. 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I got called out on this exact same issue on a couple of streets in Chicago, where historically it makes far more sense to start in Chicago and work outwards. But the convention on roads is quite clear, so I lost. In any case, since historically the train company started with Waukegan, I think going N-S is the best default. We could ditch the list of communities entirely. Better yet, include a clickable map, that would be cool. Speciate 19:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The timetable you posted is interesting.  I notice that it has different lines, the "Shore" line and the "Skokie Valley" line.  Some of the stops on the "Shore" line are the same stops on the existing CTA system, others relate to streetcar lines that once existed and are now gone.  (Kenosha, I think, still has its streetcar.)  The timetable from 1910 from your same website: http://www.northshoreline.com/cmeptt.html has more or less the same stops as the existing "Metra" line. Crypticfirefly 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it shows that the North Shore was defined by where the trains went, and by proximity to the Lake, of course. Train companies tend to come and go, but the train tracks outlast everything around them. Speciate 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Communities 

message: I've added some colour coding to the key of the map, and tidied it up a bit. However, the image itself isn't the best - looks like someone whipped it up in paint. Does someone have, or could someone make, a more respectable image? --Danny252 (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area Map 

message: I have modified the second intro sentence in the article to not merely state that there are wealthy communities (in reality, it's more wealthy census tracts within the towns, with the exception of Kenilworth), but that there are aspects of society and culture that  have come to be associated with the term. One aspect of "North Shore" is simply geography. Another is the cachet.
The cachet began practically before much of the area was even populated, because it was a getaway from the teeming density of Chicago. That was part of the reason the railroad stops came to be.
As several of the discussions and repeated attempted edits show, to be "North Shore" is generally considered desirable. Quite natural when an area has a reputation of affluence, good schools, low crime, etc. And so, as with many brands, the term tends to be subject to expansion pressures. The real estate industry in particular tends to market nearby properties by reference to a desirable area, and so terms properties as "North Shore" even though they aren't. Upwardly mobile homeowners and community leaders want to think of their towns and schools as having the same desirable characteristics associated with the North Shore, and some businesses use the name even if they are not located strictly in the North Shore. Meanwhile, those within the original meaning of the North Shore seek to "protect their brand" against dilution.
I don't think it makes a bit of difference what North Shore Magazine (which no longer exists) did. They could have marketed a special edition to Kankakee for all I care, that wouldn't make Kankakee North Shore.
As a side note, some in egalitarian-minded Evanston don't want to think of themselves as North Shore to the extent that the term connotes elitism, inequality, or snobbery. :)
So:  A lot of the discussion on this page could go into the main article, but not at this raw, unsourced, very opinionated stage. What this article needs is considerably more fleshing out on the History side, including the first usages of the term, the important aspects of railroads, and real estate subdivision development and speculation, and then some well-referenced, carefully worded discussion on the sociological side.
And, by the way, please everybody SIGN your posts here?Ouilmette (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement needed to reflect sociocultural aspects 

message: I have undertaken a reorg of this article in part because it was a mess and in part to deal with the socioeconomic aspect which has also spawned some of the discussion on this Talk page.  My main reorg is to start with the history, then I placed some of the socioeconomic aspects. This creates context for discussion of the term's origin and meaning which otherwise left a reader scratching their head.
I condensed a number of lists which were awkward to read and not encyclopedic in format. 
I renamed the "What Does the North Shore Refer To?" section to a heading without a question mark. I created a subsection there to deal with the wannabe, aspirational aspect -- which makes sense once one has read about the history and socioeconomics.
It now reads a lot more cleanly. It also is apparent that the history is sketchy and a lot better sourcing and fleshing out of the facts would be nice. Also, some discussion and sourcing of North Shore "attitude" and what the cachet refers to. This, to be accurate, would include some negatives as well.
I suspect that, actually, North Shore Magazine may have played a significant part in popularizing the term esp. for RE purposes. Some research would be necessary to check this out.
It is just simple fact that there are a bunch of businesses etc. that now use the term "North Shore" even tho they;re in non-traditional NS communities. Some of these used to be further east but moved inland because land on the Shore is so pricy. Again, some research would bear this out. This article still needs a lot of help.Ouilmette (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization