across the street from where i work is an entrance/exit to a Metra station. Metra is the regional rail system, connecting the city to the suburbs and other outlying regions. Metra is to the El as BART is to Muni in the Bay Area or LIRR and MetroNorth are to the Subway in New York. as part of the reconstruction of michigan avenue and the garage underneath it, the station entrance/exit appears to have had a facelift. a green ornate metal arch embracing a sign with METRA delicately lettered. just like those outside Paris Metro stations. get it? metrA, metrO. i didn't realize paris was a sister city. they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and sometimes, it seems that this is all that chicago has to offer.

generations as america's second city has obviously left some deep scars. examples abound of the constant campaign to prove cultural worth, to ensure status as a premier american city.

take "the picasso", an emormous steel sculpture situated in the heart of the loop, unveiled on august 15, 1967. whether this work has a name or not is irrelevant, as referring to it as such would undermine the cache of cultural credibility it imbues.

how about the art institute? it houses a collection that is unquestionably impressive in both breadth and depth. yet, the volume of works in each gallery is overwhelming, a presentation that feels cluttered and uncurated. which begs an important question. why is so much on the walls? is it to convince patrons, by sheer numbers, that this is an important collection and the institute is an important museum? witness the success of the recent van gogh/gauguin show as further evidence of chicago's preference for work that has been predigested and stamped with the approval of cultural elites elsewhere.

discussion of world class theater often revolves around shows gestated elsewhere that are working out the kinks before taking up residence on broadway. second city is a well-known breeding ground for talented comedic newcomers, providing a springboard to success in new york or los angeles.

i read an article recently in a local alternative monthly about an artist who had relocated from new york late last year. he had been disappointed to discover that there was little time, money or patience for anything new, interesting or challenging, for expressions outside the accepted norms. he opined that this lack of support inhibited a thriving community and prompted talent to flee to "the coasts". it was heartening to hear someone else express the same frustrations about chicago and exhilirating to know that others were determined to swim upstream as well.

back to my original point. chicago is growing, after four decades of decline. the opportunity this implies was one of the major reasons why i chose to move here. but as the city begins to reclaim, restore and rebuild neighborhoods and communities, it seems to lack a clear conception of what is being reclaimed, restored and rebuilt. what a pity it would be to squander this historic moment on pale imitation, instead of seizing this once-in-a-lifetime chance to redefine what chicago means. given the content of this here rant, i recognize that this is an uphill battle, but the good fight is often the only one worth fighting.