DOCSLIB.ORG

Pollution of Illinois and Mississippi Rivers by Chicago Sewage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pollution of Illinois and Mississippi Rivers by Chicago Sewage LIBRARY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WASHINGTON, D. C. Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 194 Series L, Quality of Tater, 20 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ! jf CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR POLLUTION OF ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS BY CHICAGO SEWAGE A DIGEST OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE CASE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI V. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO Bureau of Reclamattea Files, MARSHALL O. LEIGHTON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1907 T<i *» -«1 xsswn. CONTENTS. Page. Introduction.............................................................. 5 Object of the paper.................................................... 5 Statements of parties to the suit......................................... 6 Bill of complaint.................................................. 6 Answer of the defendants.......................................... 7 Witnesses and counsel................................................... 9 Typhoid fever in the Mississippi Valley.................................. 10 Testimony for plaintiff...................................................... 11 Benezette Williams..................................................... 11 J. L. Van Ornum...................................................... 16 Amand Nicholas Ravold............................................... 19 William C. Teichmann................................................. 47 Edward H. Keiser..................................................... 74 George Chandler Whipple.............................................. 92 Alien Hazen........................................................... 103 William Thompson Sedgwick........................................... 106 George W. Fuller.................................................:.... 124 Gardner S. Williams.................................................... 133 Testimony for defendants................................................... 143 C. G. Herget............................................................ 144 Peter Casey............................................................ 144 Adolph Woolner, jr..................................................... 145 Isham Randolph........................................................ 145 Rudolph Hering....................................................... 152 Jacob A. Harman...................................................... 158 John H. Long.......................................................... 158 Adolph Gehrmann..................................................... 181 Arthur W. Palmer...................................................... 187 Thomas J. Burrill...................................................... 203 Edwin Oakes Jordan................................................ '... 207 Ludwig Hektoen....................................................... 246 H. L. Russell........................................................... 246 E. G. Hastings...............................................'.......... 258 F. Robert Zeit........................................................ " 259 Robert Spurr Weston................................................... 271 William Pitt Mason..................................................... 275 Leonard P. Kinnicutt................................................. 283 Theobald Smith....................................................... 288 Erastus G. Smith...................................................... 290 George Dock.......................................................... 296 Lewellys F. Barker.................................................... 301 Victor C. Vaughan..................................................... 303 William S. Thayer..................................................... 305 JohnW. Hill........................................................... 306 CONTENTS. Page. Testimony in rebuttal for plaintiff..................................... 318 Edward W. Saunders................................................... 318 Washington E. Fischel.................................................. 319 Ludwig Bremer, Albert E. Taussig, and C. H. Goodman................. 321 Herbert Smith........................................................ 321 John W. Alvord....................................................... 330 E. E. Lochridge........................................................ 339 .William Thompson Sedgwiok........................................... 347 Decision of the Supreme Court............................................. 351 Index.................................................................... 357 ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATE I. Diagram showing stage of Mississippi and Missouri rivers at St. Louis, percentage of Mississippi River water flowing into intake, and number of typhoid-fever cases at St. Louis, in 1900............ 44 II. Profile of waterway along the Chicago drainage canal, Desplaines River, Illinois River, and Mississippi River, from Lake Michigan to St. Louis, Mo................................................ 150 FIG. 1. Diagram showing average chlorine in Desplaines and Illinois rivers, May and June, 1899 and 1900..................................... 214 2. Diagram showing average albuminoid ammonia in DespJaines and Illinois rivers, May and June, 1899 and 1900............'............ 215 3. Diagram showing average free ammonia in Desplaines and Illinois rivers, May and June, 1899 and 1900................................ 215 4. Diagram showing average bacteria in Desplaines and Illirois rivers, May and June, 1899 and 1900..................................... 216 5. Diagram showing bacteria in Mississippi and Illinois rivers at Grafton, 111., May 24, 1899, to June 29, 1900................................ 216 POLLUTION OF ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS RY CHICAGO SEWAGE. By M. O. LEIGHTON. INTRODUCTION. OBJECT OF THE PAPER. ^ The testimony taken in the suit of the State of Missouri against the State of Illinois and the sanitary district of Chicago comprises the best symposium on river pollution, its biological and chemical aspects, and its general and special sanitary significance that has ever been assembled. The contentions of both parties to the suit' are supported by the most eminently qualified men in the United States. The evidence presented and the discussions recorded are therefore of unique importance. The final record of testimony occupies 8,000 printed pages, much of which is irrelevant. This digest of testimony is the result of an attempt to recover the valuable material and pre­ sent it in concise form. A consistent endeavor has been made by the reviewer to eliminate all personal opinions with reference to the issue and to make an impartial presentation of so much of the testi­ mony as in his opinion appears to be relevant and of scientific importance. It will be well to remember in this connection that any digest of so large a volume of testimony must be the result of a final exercise of personal opinion by the reviewer as to those parts which may best be excluded. Naturally opinions will differ o« this point; therefore it will be strange if many of those familiar with th e case do not find that certain portions of testimony which they consider most important are passed over in this digest without reference. Contro­ versies between counsel, objections to the admission of testimony, legal technicalities and quibbles, badgering cross-examinatic n, and in general all the testimony introduced for purposes of mere corrobora- .tion have been disregarded. The object has been to present a faithful statement of the scientific phases of the testimony to the exclusion, if need be, of the legal aspect of the case. Many of the averages contained in the tables of the official record appear to be incorrect. It does not appear whether this is due to 5 6 POLLUTION OF RIVERS BY CHICAGO SEWAGE. typographical errors or to mistakes by the original computers. Such tables as are reproduced in this digest are copied from the record without correction. STATEMENTS OF PARTIES TO THE SUIT. This is a proceeding in equity instituted by the State of Missouri on January 17, 1900, against the State of Illinois and the sanitary district of Chicago, praying for an injunction against the defendants from draining into Mississippi River the sewage and drainage of said sanitary district by way of the Chicago drainage caral and the channels of Desplaines and Illinois rivers. BILL OF COMPLAINT. The bill of complaint alleges in substance as follows: That the complainant is a State lying on the west bar k of Missis­ sippi River with a frontage thereon of over 400 miles; That the States of Illinois and Missouri have concurrent jurisdiction over the waters of Mississippi River, each having exclusive territorial jurisdiction over that portion adjacent to its shores, th°- boundary having been declared at the middle of the main channel; That Illinois River joins the Mississippi at a point above St. Louis; That on the banks of the Mississippi below its confluence is a large population that uses the water of the Mississippi for domestic, agri­ cultural, and manufacturing purposes; That the said water is indispensable to the life, health, and happi­ ness of many thousands of inhabitants in Missouri; That the construction of the Chicago drainage canal is such that its cdntents finally empty into Mississippi River about 43 miles above the city of St. Louis; That such construction was done under the sanction and authority of the State of Illinois; That the channel of said canal is cut through the natural watershed dividing the drainage
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Great Rivers Confidential Draft Draft
    greatriverschicago.com OUR GREAT RIVERS CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT DRAFT A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Our Great Rivers: A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers Letter from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel 4 A report of Great Rivers Chicago, a project of the City of Chicago, Metropolitan Planning Council, Friends of the Chicago River, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and Ross Barney Architects, through generous Letter from the Great Rivers Chicago team 5 support from ArcelorMittal, The Boeing Company, The Chicago Community Trust, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation and The Joyce Foundation. Executive summary 6 Published August 2016. Printed in Chicago by Mission Press, Inc. The Vision 8 greatriverschicago.com Inviting 11 Productive 29 PARTNERS Living 45 Vision in action 61 CONFIDENTIAL Des Plaines 63 Ashland 65 Collateral Channel 67 Goose Island 69 FUNDERS Riverdale 71 DRAFT DRAFT Moving forward 72 Our Great Rivers 75 Glossary 76 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT OUR GREAT RIVERS 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This vision and action agenda for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers was produced by the Metropolitan Planning RESOURCE GROUP METROPOLITAN PLANNING Council (MPC), in close partnership with the City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, Friends of the Chicago River and Chicago COUNCIL STAFF Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Margaret Frisbie, Friends of the Chicago River Brad McConnell, Chicago Dept. of Planning and Co-Chair Development Josh Ellis, Director The Great Rivers Chicago Leadership Commission, more than 100 focus groups and an online survey that Friends of the Chicago River brought people to the Aaron Koch, City of Chicago Office of the Mayor Peter Mulvaney, West Monroe Partners appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and a Resource more than 3,800 people responded to.
    [Show full text]
  • Streeterville Neighborhood Plan 2014 Update II August 18, 2014
    Streeterville Neighborhood Plan 2014 update II August 18, 2014 Dear Friends, The Streeterville Neighborhood Plan (“SNP”) was originally written in 2005 as a community plan written by a Chicago community group, SOAR, the Streeterville Organization of Active Resi- dents. SOAR was incorporated on May 28, 1975. Throughout our history, the organization has been a strong voice for conserving the historic character of the area and for development that enables divergent interests to live in harmony. SOAR’s mission is “To work on behalf of the residents of Streeterville by preserving, promoting and enhancing the quality of life and community.” SOAR’s vision is to see Streeterville as a unique, vibrant, beautiful neighborhood. In the past decade, since the initial SNP, there has been significant development throughout the neighborhood. Streeterville’s population has grown by 50% along with new hotels, restaurants, entertainment and institutional buildings creating a mix of uses no other neighborhood enjoys. The balance of all these uses is key to keeping the quality of life the highest possible. Each com- ponent is important and none should dominate the others. The impetus to revising the SNP is the City of Chicago’s many new initiatives, ideas and plans that SOAR wanted to incorporate into our planning document. From “The Pedestrian Plan for the City”, to “Chicago Forward”, to “Make Way for People” to “The Redevelopment of Lake Shore Drive” along with others, the City has changed its thinking of the downtown urban envi- ronment. If we support and include many of these plans into our SNP we feel that there is great- er potential for accomplishing them together.
    [Show full text]
  • The Physical and Economic Assessment
    CHAPTER 2 Physical & Economic Assessment CHAPTER 2 The Physical and Economic Assessment Final Report CHICAGO CENTRAL AREA PLAN DRAFT June 2003 9 CHAPTER 2 Physical & Economic Assessment Chicago River 300’ North Branch 360’ Chicago River Main Branch Lake Michigan Figure 2.2 The Street Grid extending in all directions allows Figure 2.3 The typical block within the Central Area covers the downtown to be remarkably open and accessible. a little less than 3 acres and is bisected by alleys that improve circulation and separate uses. Chicago River South Branch Figure 2.1 Natural Features - lake, river and land made Figure 2.4 The Block Pattern organizes all development. Figure 2.5 Density and diversity within each block Chicago a great city, and dictate its form. contribute to Chicago’s street level interest and its eco- Final Report nomic vitality. June 2003 DRAFT 10 CHAPTER 2 Physical & Economic Assessment The Defining Physical Features of Chicago's Central Area Chicago gains its special character from the combination of its natural setting on Lake Michigan and the Chicago River, its density, cultural diversity, economic vitality, variety of uses and extraordinary architecture - both old and new. NATURAL FEATURES: LAKE, RIVER AND LAND THE STREET GRID People who live, work, or visit the Central Area of Chicago know that it is one of the world’s great urban The traditional street grid of Chicago is a strong contributor to the city's urban character. As it runs places. The form of the Central Area is part of what makes Chicago a great city. This compact, north, south, and west from the Central Area, the rigor of the street grid binds the city together over walkable city center has traditionally been defined by its natural features: Lake Michigan on the east and many potential barriers including the Chicago River, the expressways and the rail corridors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Riverfront Open Space System 12 Planned, Proposed and Envisioned Riverfront Recommendations
    CHAPTER 4 Waterfronts and Open Spaces 10 The Riverfront Open Space System 12 Planned, proposed and envisioned riverfront recommendations. Figure 4.3.23 KEY CHICAGO RIVER RECOMMENDATIONS The riverfront will become a major new public amenity on a par with the lakefront. A continuous riverwalk will extend from 11 NEAR NORTH outlying neighborhoods through the 10. Add a new boat house, pedestrian bridge and river edge Central Area to Lake Michigan 13 landscape at the North Avenue turning basin 11. Enhance landscaping along the west side of Goose Island 12. Create a natural habitat and recreation opportunities along the 15 16 14 east side of Goose Island 17 13. Ensure continuous river access through the Montgomery Ward site to connect with parks at Hobbie and Erie Streets. 19 18 14. Create Du Sable Park at the mouth of the Chicago River 15. Create an active riverwalk with commercial uses along the north side of the Main Branch from the lake to Wolf Point. 16. Create new public space at the Sun Times-Trump Tower Chicago site. 20 17. Create a new public park at Wolf Point. 21 22 THE EXPANDED LOOP 18. Create a continuous pedestrian riverwalk along Wacker Drive on the Main Branch from Lake Street to the lakefront as part of the Wacker Drive improvements. 19. Develop a riverfront plaza on the west bank of the South Branch 25 23 between Randolph and Lake Streets. 20. Develop a public riverfront plaza at 310 South Wacker Drive. 21. Create new riverfront open space at the Old Main Post Office along with its redevelopment.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Great Rivers Vision
    greatriverschicago.com OUR GREAT RIVERS A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Our Great Rivers: A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers Letter from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel 4 A report of Great Rivers Chicago, a project of the City of Chicago, Metropolitan Planning Council, Friends of the Chicago River, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and Ross Barney Architects, through generous Letter from the Great Rivers Chicago team 5 support from ArcelorMittal, The Boeing Company, The Chicago Community Trust, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation and The Joyce Foundation. Executive summary 6 Published August 2016. Printed in Chicago by Mission Press, Inc. The Vision 8 greatriverschicago.com Inviting 11 Productive 29 PARTNERS Living 45 Vision in action 61 Des Plaines 63 Ashland 65 Collateral Channel 67 Goose Island 69 FUNDERS Riverdale 71 Moving forward 72 Our Great Rivers 75 Glossary 76 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT OUR GREAT RIVERS 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This vision and action agenda for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers was produced by the Metropolitan Planning RESOURCE GROUP METROPOLITAN PLANNING Council (MPC), in close partnership with the City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, Friends of the Chicago River and Chicago COUNCIL STAFF Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Margaret Frisbie, Friends of the Chicago River Brad McConnell, Chicago Dept. of Planning and Co-Chair Development Josh Ellis, Director The Great Rivers Chicago Leadership Commission, more than 100 focus groups and an online survey that Friends of the Chicago River brought people to the Aaron Koch, City of Chicago Office of the Mayor Peter Mulvaney, West Monroe Partners appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and a Resource more than 3,800 people responded to.
    [Show full text]
  • South West Loop
    Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts Page 4-35 August 2009 South West Loop The South West Loop is bounded on the north by Congress Parkway, on the south by 16th Street, on the east by the South Branch of the Chicago River and on the west by the Dan Ryan Expressway. The South West Loop contains light industrial and back office/service operation uses, with significant new retail development along the Roosevelt Road corridor. Zoning in the subdistrict is committed to protecting the existing non-residential uses, and as of 2007 fewer than 1,200 people lived in the South West Loop, mak- ing it the least populated subdistrict in the Central Area. Chicago Central Area ACTION Plan Page 4-36 Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts August 2009 SOUTH WEst LOOP Trends, 2000-2007 Clinton Street that provide direct Consistent with the 2003 Central service into the West Loop. Area Plan, Roosevelt Road has joined Michigan Avenue and State Street as a major retail corridor in the Central Policies & Actions Area. Whole Foods, DSW, Home Depot, Best Buy, Panera Bread, and Financial / Incentive Starbucks are among the new offer- • The Jefferson/Roosevelt TIF and ings along Roosevelt Road. Roosevelt/Canal TIF funds should continue to make a priority of ad- These projects have followed in the ditional River crossings and exten- example of South Loop Marketplace, sion of the grid system. anchored by a Dominick’s grocery store, which opened in 1998 and pro- Regulatory vided the first new shopping south of • Current zoning in South West Congress Boulevard.
    [Show full text]
  • 150 North Wacker Drive
    Click here to view a brief video featuring 150 North Wacker Drive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Holliday Fenoglio Fowler, L.P. (“HFF”) Holliday Fenoglio Fowler, L.P. (“HFF”) is pleased to present the sale of the 100% fee simple interest in 150 North Wacker Drive (the “Property”) located in the heart of Chicago’s Central Business District’s (“CBD”) most desirable submarket, the West Loop. The 31-story office tower is located one block east of Chicago’s Ogilvie Transportation Center on Wacker Drive – the home to many of Chicago’s most prestigious firms. The Property, consisting of 246,613 rentable square feet (“RSF”), is currently 91.9% leased and offers a significant mark to market opportunity in a best-in-class location on Wacker Drive. The Property is easily accessible via three major highways and the Chicago Transit Authority’s (“CTA”) transit and bus system, yet is still located in one of the most walkable areas of the city. Given the extensive common area renovations and recent leasing momentum, 150 North Wacker is a truly unique investment opportunity to acquire a rare asset with a premier Wacker Drive address and significant upside potential. KEY PROPERTY STATISTICS Location: 150 North Wacker Submarket: West Loop Total Rentable Area: 246,613 RSF Stories: 31 Percent Leased: 91.9% Weighted Average Lease Term: 4.0 Years Date Completed/Renovated: 1970/2002/2015 Average Floor Plates: 9,300 RSF Finished Ceiling Height: 8'9'' Slab to Slab Ceiling Height: 11'8'' Architect: Joel R. Hillman Parking: 134 Parking Stalls; Valet facilitates up to 160 Vehicles Transit Score: 100 Walk Score: 98 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS NO.
    [Show full text]
  • North Branch Chicago River Watershed-Based Plan
    CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER WATERSHED-BASED PLAN CONTENTS 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.1 What is a Watershed? ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.1.1 Why A Watershed-Based Plan? ....................................................................................... 1-4 1.2 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Planning Area .......................................................... 1-4 1.2.1 Chicago River Watershed................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.2 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Planning Area .................................................. 1-5 1.2.2.1 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Partnerships ............................................................. 1-8 1.2.2.2 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Planning .................................................................... 1-8 1.3 WATERSHED PLAN PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 1-9 1.4 Watershed Plan Requirements, Process, and Organization ................................................. 1-10 1.5 Previous and Related Studies and Plans ............................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Use of the Plan .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Are the Problems Facing the Chicago River Today?
    What are the problems facing the Chicago River today? 1. Loss of biodiversity/habitat Like many ecosystems, the Chicago River and its watershed was once home to a wide variety of organisms. Some of these organisms are no longer found in this area at all, while other are present in tiny numbers. For example, black bears once frolicked near the river while a wide variety of orchids inhabited the prairies and woodlands. This is no longer the case. The reduction in biodiversity is due mostly to habitat loss and the breaking up of large tracts of wilderness into small parcels of land (fragmentation). Habitat loss and fragmentation are a result of human population growth, agriculture and urbanization. Additional reasons for loss of biodiversity include invasive species (species, usually from another country, that invade ecosystems and displace native species) and over-harvesting of species by humans. Ways to address this problem include preservation of natural areas and restoration of natural areas, which includes the removal of invasive species and re-planting of native species. 2. Toxins in the water and sediment The Chicago River suffered much industrial dumping prior to the Clean Water Act of 1972. Though this law drastically reduced point-source pollution (pollution that comes from a specific physical source, such as a pipe), many toxins (including heavy metals and PCBs) persist in the river and especially the sediment. Toxins continue to enter the river through non-point source pollution (pollution that does not come from a specific source but from all over the watershed; such as the washing of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, oil etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The-Hows-Whats-And-Wows-Of-Willis
    There are enough impressive facts about the When you get back to your school, we hope Willis Tower to make even the most worldly your students will send us photos or write or among us say, “Wow!” So many things at the create artwork about their experiences and Willis Tower can be described by a share them with us (via email or the mailing superlative: biggest, fastest, and longest. But address at the end of this guide). there is more to the building than all these “wows”: 1,450 sky-scraping, cloud-bumping One photo will be selected as the “Photo of feet of glass and steel, 43,000 miles of the Day” and displayed on our Skydeck telephone cable, 25,000 miles of plumbing, monitors for all to see. Artwork and writing 4.56 million square feet of floor space and a will posted on bulletin boards in the view of four states. lunchroom area. We would also love to have you and your students post you Skydeck Behind the “wows” are lots of “hows” and Chicago photos to the Skydeck Chicago pages “whats” for you and your students to on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. explore. In this guide you will be introduced to the building—its beginnings as the Sears As you get ready for your trip, please call us Tower and its design, construction and place with any questions at (312) 875-9447. We aim in the pantheon of skyscrapers. Its name to make your visit your best school trip ever. was recently changed to the Willis Tower, proudly reflecting the name of the global insurance broker who makes the Tower its Chicago home.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Rights in Reclaimed Land and the Battle for Streeterville
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2013 Contested Shore: Property Rights in Reclaimed Land and the Battle for Streeterville Joseph D. Kearney Thomas W. Merrill Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill, Contested Shore: Property Rights in Reclaimed Land and the Battle for Streeterville, 107 NW. U. L. REV. 1057 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/383 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright 2013 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 107, No. 3 Articles CONTESTED SHORE: PROPERTY RIGHTS IN RECLAIMED LAND AND THE BATTLE FOR STREETERVILLE Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill ABSTRACT-Land reclaimed from navigable waters is a resource uniquely susceptible to conflict. The multiple reasons for this include traditional hostility to interference with navigable waterways and the weakness of rights in submerged land. In Illinois, title to land reclaimed from Lake Michigan was further clouded by a shift in judicial understanding in the late nineteenth century about who owned the submerged land, starting with an assumption of private ownership but eventually embracing state ownership. The potential for such legal uncertainty to produce conflict is vividly illustrated by the history of the area of Chicago known as Streeterville, the area of reclaimed land along Lake Michigan north of the Chicago River and east of Michigan Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to RMC & Chicago!
    Welcome to RMC & Chicago! New Student Guide to Chicago Welcome to Chicago and Rush Medical College! We are thrilled to have you join our Rush Family. This guide is meant to serve as a tool in your quest to find an off campus apartment, as well as find your way around Chicago successfully! Chicago is home to… 237 square miles of land An estimated 2,695,598 residents Dozens of cultural institutions, historical sites and museums More than 200 theaters Nearly 200 art galleries More than 7,300 restaurants 26 miles of lakefront 15 miles of beaches 36 annual parades 19 miles of lakefront bicycle paths 552 parks *The information contained in the following pages was adapted from the City of Chicago; RU Student Life and Engagement Housing Guide, Metra Rail, & Transit Chicago. Chicago Neighborhoods Which Chicago Neighborhood will fit your lifestyle best? Chicago is a city of neighborhoods, each with its own unique character. Rent and other costs of living will vary depending upon what neighborhood you choose. Generally, neighborhoods closer to the Loop will be cleaner, safer, and consequently more expensive. The next few pages are a few of the neighborhoods where Rush Medical College students typically live. Rush Medical College Bucktown/Wicker Park Often grouped together, these neighborhoods have long been considered home to budding artists and writers. The boundaries spread into neighboring Logan Square and Humboldt Park. A mixture of trendy, eclectic, and artsy neighborhoods are peppered with restaurants, bars, clubs, coffee houses and art galleries, each with its own appeal. Recently, the area has Commuting to Rush Blue Line or CTA Bus acquired many newer Approximately 15-30 minutes developments but a mixture of hip and affordable, chic and dive, has prevailed helping Bucktown and Wicker Park remain one of Chicago’s true cultural havens.
    [Show full text]