Church History Speaks…Are We Listening?

Jun 24th, 2011 | Category: Research in Education
By Patricia K. Rose

Exploration of any large Midwestern city such as Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit, or Cleveland reveals a number of large, old Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) churches in the central city. Many of these churches have beautiful stained glass windows, painted murals, and ornately carved altars, pulpits, lecterns, and pews which attest to the craftsmanship of their builders and the financial commitment of their members. Some of these former LCMS church buildings now house different church denominations. Others stand vacant, are for sale, have been converted to other functions, or have been torn down with no visible clues that a church once stood on the site. Yet, some of these church buildings still house a LCMS congregation, often only a fraction the size of the congregation that existed at the time the church was built.

Because of the declining membership in many of the existing older city churches, there may be a tendency to think of these churches primarily in the past. Some remember, while others picture when the churches were full on Sunday morning, when the congregations had 2 or 3 pastors, when each school room held a class of 50 or 60 children, when the Ladies Aid Society had hundreds of members, and when the baptisms numbered more than one hundred per year. But, they have little knowledge of these congregations today.

There may also be a tendency to think of these old city churches as irrelevant. They can seem very distant to those living in rural areas or in the suburbs, particularly to those living in newer suburbs at the rapidly expanding urban fringe. To churches whose membership is growing, the older city churches may indeed seem as though they are in another world or from another era.

In reality, city, suburban, and rural churches may not be all that far apart in terms of mission and ministry. As a result, many suburban and rural congregations could benefit from knowing more about the history of older city churches. A knowledge of the past can shed light on the old city congregations of today and may provide insights that help other (urban, suburban, or rural) congregations make informed decisions in the present and for the future.

This essay, then, begins by examining the locational history and membership trends of some of the oldest Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregations in the city of Chicago. The second section discusses factors contributing to membership decline, while the last section addresses the question “What does this mean?”

Locational History and Membership of Selected LCMS Churches in Chicago

The history of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod churches in Chicago begins with 1st St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. Not only is this the oldest congregation in the city, it is also the site of the founding of the LCMS in 1847. Eleven years after its founding, 1st St. Paul’s founded its first “daughter” congregation, 1st Immanuel to the south. Thirteen years later a second “daughter” congregation was established, 1st St. John’s on the west side, and 2 years after that, a third “daughter,” St. James, was founded to the north. Each of these three congregations founded “daughters” in their respective parts of the city. A total of 26 Lutheran congregations can trace their roots back to 1st St. Paul’s.1

Daughter Congregations of 1st St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Chicago

One characteristic common to 24 of these 26 “daughter” congregations of 1st St. Paul’s is that they began as branch schools of their “mother” congregation.2 Furthermore, the location chosen for each new branch school was in an area some distance from the mother congregation where existing church members lived.”3 The founding of 1st Immanuel’s daughter, 1st Trinity, and its daughter congregations illustrates this process of church founding. First Trinity began as a branch school of 1st Immanuel in 1863, and became a congregation in 1865. In 1868, the congregation purchased 2 additional lots and built a branch school because “a large portion of the membership had become centered in the Bridgeport community, about a mile southwest of Trinity’s center.”4 In 1886, this school became Holy Cross Lutheran Church. In 1871, 1st Trinity purchased 2 additional lots and built a school in a residential area adjacent to the Stockyards (known as the Hamburger District) which was rapidly becoming “the center of another large portion of Trinity’s members.”5 In 1889 this became St. Andrews congregation. January of 1871 also saw the founding of another branch school just beyond 39th Street which was the southern city limit at the time. In September of that year, St. Peter’s congregation was established for the “Lutherans residing in this area.”6 In 1880, 1st Trinity established a branch school southwest of the Hamburger District “where many of Trinity’s members lived.”7 This became St. Martini Lutheran Church in 1884. In similar fashion, 1st St. John’s and St. James were established, as well as their daughter congregations. Each started a branch school in an area where some church members lived. Then, as more people moved into the area and the population increased, a congregation was established. Later, that congregation would establish branch schools, most of which became congregations over time.

Another striking feature of many of the congregations was that over time they moved to different locations in the city. This was more often the case for the churches that were founded earlier. For example, the present location of 1st St. Paul’s is its 4th location in the city. The first church was built in 1844, but in 1849 and again in 1864 new churches were built at different locations. In 1910, the congregation moved to a church building at its present site, and in 1970 they constructed the church building they are now using.8 First Immanuel congregation is now in its 4th church building at a 3rd location.9 First St. John’s congregation had 3 locations, and St. James, two.10 While constructing a new church at a different location was not as common with the later churches, it did occur and involved moves that were greater distances. Bethany and St. Peter’s Lutheran Churches are two such examples. Located in the Humboldt Park neighborhood since 1891, Bethany moved to the Galewood neighborhood some 4 miles further west in 1926. St. Peter’s congregation, which was originally located on Dearborn Ave. between 39th and 40th Streets, moved considerably further south to 74th street.11

Reasons for the moves varied. In some cases, congregations moved in order to acquire a larger building for their growing congregation or they moved because a fire destroyed their previous building. For some, the decision to move was because of changes in the neighborhood. One of 1st St. Paul’s moves occurred when the “L” was built and the neighborhood began changing from residential to industrial.12 For 1st Immanuel, the “influx of Catholics” into the neighborhood was cited as a reason for the move.13 Changes in neighborhood demographics and the location of church members was also the driving force behind the more distant moves of Bethany and St. Peter’s Lutheran Churches. Bethany Lutheran Church moved to a new location after many members moved away and “the shifting of the population which included many members of St. Peter’s…” prompted St. Peter’s congregation to move.14 Building a church at a new site was undoubtedly more feasible in the early years when the buildings were smaller structures of wood frame construction. In time, the churches were larger and were built of brick and/or stone. This represented a greater financial investment on the part of the congregation. It is not surprising, then, they were less likely to rebuild in a new location – especially if membership was stable or decreasing.

The specific locations of these 26 congregations also follow a pattern. With few exceptions (i.e. the present location of 1st Trinity) most of the 26 daughter congregations of 1st St. Paul’s are (or were) located on side streets in residential areas. Even busy Ashland Avenue where 1st Immanuel is located was, at the time the church was built, a residential street— and a fashionable one at that. But, in most cases, the churches are just a block or two away from the more heavily traveled, more commercial streets. Schwartzkopf explained this by a desire for a quieter location, one that would avoid the noise and traffic of the busier thoroughfares. Most likely this locational factor was very important given that most of the congregations began as schools. The side street location would have been perceived by many as a better location than a busy street for children’s education. Perhaps another factor was the price of land that was less expensive on the side streets than on the main streets. Either way the vast majority of these 26 schools that became churches made a decision to locate on a side street rather than on one of the main streets in the Chicago grid.

Another locational factor these churches had in common was that they were located in ethnic neighborhoods. Although some neighborhoods were home to multiple ethnic groups, others were ethnically homogenous. Regardless, Germans were one of the largest if not the largest ethnic group in the neighborhoods where these churches were located. During the time when most of the 26 “daughter” congregations were founded (1850-1900), there were many German neighborhoods scattered in all parts of the city, although by 1900 the north side of Chicago was home to the largest German neighborhood.15

Another thing many of these congregations had in common was their size; they were among the largest congregations in their district and in the synod. In 1900, 10 of the 26 daughter congregations of 1st St. Paul’s Lutheran Church were the largest LCMS congregations in the Northern Illinois District. First Bethlehem, the largest congregation of these ten, had over 5000 members in 1900. This was not only the largest congregation in the Northern Illinois District, it was also the largest congregation in the Missouri Synod in 1896.16 The second largest congregation was St. Matthew’s with over 4000 members. St. Andrew’s had nearly 3800 members. The remainder of the 10 largest congregations (St. James, 1st St. John’s, Holy Cross, 1st Immanuel, St. Mark’s, St. Martini, and St. Luke’s) all had between 2100 and 2700 members. Even some of the smaller of the 26 congregations (St. Peter’s, Gethsemane, St. Stephen’s, and Bethany) had over 1000 members in 1900. Bethel and St. Philip’s congregations which were 6 and 7 years old at the time claimed 484 and 250 members respectively.17 The LCMS clearly had a presence in the city of Chicago.

The Lutheran presence was felt not only by the church itself, but also through the schools operated by these congregations. All of the congregations founded by 1st St. Paul’s had schools; some operated 2 or 3. Again, 1st Bethlehem topped the list with 929 students in school in 1900, followed by St. Matthew’s with 810 students and 1st St. John’s with 640 students. The rest of the “top 10” congregations had between 400-500 students in school in this year. The congregations whose membership ranged from 1000-2000 (St. Peter’s, Gethsemane, St. Stephen’s, and Bethany) had between 135 and 211 pupils in school. The newest congregations (Bethel and St. Philip’s) had around 40 students in school at this time.18

Looking at these congregations in 1900 provides only a snapshot in time; it offers but a small glimpse of their history. What was the membership like before 1900 and after 1900? Records earlier than 1900 are scarce, but membership data from 1890 suggest that some of the ten largest congregations were already declining in size by 1900.19

Ten Top LCMS Churches Membership Graph

More important for us is what has happened to these congregations over the next hundred plus years. Graph #1 shows membership trends for what were the 10 largest congregations in the Northern Illinois District in 1900. Since 1920, St. Luke’s has had the largest number of members. In 2009, this congregation (now a member of the ELCA) had a baptized membership of approximately 2200 and an average attendance around 400. That is about the same size as the congregation was in 1900, and about half of its 1940-1960 membership. The other nine of what had been the 10 largest congregations in the district in 1900 show a steady decline in membership after 1900. By 2009, St. Andrew’s (now a member of the WELS) and St. James claimed just under 400 baptized members with St. Andrew’s reporting an average attendance of 142 in 2008 and St. James reporting 195 in weekly worship in 2009. The smallest of the 10 congregations, 1st Bethlehem, reported 62 baptized members and 27 in weekly worship in 2009.20 Three of the 10 congregations had closed – 1st St. John’s and St. Mark’s in 1975 and St. Martini in 2005.

More noticeable than church closings are the closing of schools in the group of what were the 10 largest congregations in the Northern Illinois District in 1900. By 2008, 7 of the 10 schools had closed. The only remaining schools were St. James with 250 students enrolled in pre-school through grade 8 (Sept. 2010), St. Luke’s Academy (now ELCA) with 110 enrolled in preschool – 8th grade (Sept. 2010), and St. Andrew’s (now WELS) with 86 students enrolled in preschool – 8th grade (Sept. 2010).21

Similar declines and closings are seen in the larger group of 26 “daughter” congregations of 1st St. Paul’s. Seven of the churches have now closed, 3 have joined other synods, and all have seen significant declines in membership. Only 5 of the congregations still have schools, most of which have seen enrollment declines as well.22

Factors contributing to membership decline

The decline in membership in LCMS congregations in Chicago and the corresponding decrease in the number of Lutheran schools in Chicago is often attributed to population change. As was the case with other immigrant groups, second and third generation German Lutherans were generally better educated than their parents (often receiving that education in the Lutheran school) and had more and higher-paying job opportunities available to them. As they moved up the socio-economic ladder, they also tended to move out of the older city neighborhoods to newer neighborhoods in the city or in the suburbs, contributing to membership decline at the older Lutheran churches.

Given the migration out of the neighborhood, declining church membership at the older Lutheran churches seems almost inevitable. But, was it? The fact that German Lutherans moved out of the neighborhood is only half of the story. The other half has to do with those moving into the neighborhood. The bigger question is: What happened to the overall neighborhood population? Did it drop? If so, population decline would certainly help to explain the decline in church membership. But, if the number of people moving into the neighborhood was equal to (or greater) than the number who left, other factors must be considered.

Census data reveal that population did not decline as early as membership declined in the LCMS churches. This is true not only for the city as a whole, but also at the smaller community area level as well. The community areas in which the 10 largest churches of 1900 were located all experienced population growth in the first decades of the twentieth century. In these community areas, the population peaked in the 1930 census then began a gradual decline.23 The declines in LCMS church membership, however, began around 1900, well before the neighborhood population began dropping.

Population numbers alone, then, do not account for declining church membership. But, that was not the only demographic shift that occurred; changes in immigration resulted in changes in the ethnic make-up of the city and its neighborhoods. Christiane Harzig writes,

From 1850, when Germans constituted one-sixth of Chicago’s population, until the turn of the century, people of German descent constituted the largest ethnic group in the city… In 1900, 470,000 Chicagoans – one out of every four residents – had either been born in Germany or had a parent born there…By 1920 their numbers had dropped because of reduced emigration from Germany but also because it had become unpopular to acknowledge a German heritage although 22 percent of Chicago’s population still did so.24

At the same time that immigration from Germany dropped, immigration from other countries increased. The 1920 census reported that Germans were no longer the largest group of foreign born in Chicago; Poland now topped the list of home countries for Chicago’s foreign born. By 1950, Germans were still the second largest group of foreign born (after the Poles), but the numbers of foreign born from Italy and the U.S.S.R. were nearly as large.25 Germans were clearly “losing ground” in terms of their numerical presence in Chicago.

The membership decline experienced by the LCMS congregations in Chicago can be attributed, at least in part, to the declining German presence in the city and the German heritage of these LCMS congregations. First generation German immigrants and their children filled the pews and swelled the membership rolls of these fast growing LCMS congregations in the latter half of the 19th century. But, when the German population declined, and people from Eastern or Southern Europe moved into the neighborhood, membership at the old inner city LCMS congregations declined.

New neighborhood residents who were not German were not likely to join one of these existing LCMS churches, where use of the German language was common. First St. John’s even went as far as to state the following in its original constitution, “…the language in school and church is and shall remain for all future times only and exclusively German…”26 The congregation did rescind that, however. English preaching began in 1919 and for six years, the congregation had two English services a month. In 1925, they added an English service each Sunday as well.27 The timing of the use of English in Sunday services varied from congregation to congregation, but 1st St. John’s seems pretty typical in that regard. Congregations would start with one or two services in English a month, but it would be years before English services were offered each weekend and many years later before all German services were dropped. Several congregations hired pastors (between 1917 and 1926) to “take charge of all pastoral activities in the English language.”28 Grace Lutheran Church was one of the last to use German in the school; they replaced this with English in 1927. St. Philip’s chose to continue teaching classes in German, and, as a result, the school closed in 1929 because not enough parents would support an education in German. The school reopened a few years later, however, with English as they principal language.29

These congregations changed and did use English over time, but the change was late in coming. World War I produced a great deal of anti-German sentiment in Chicago (and elsewhere in the U.S.). As a result, many German-American associations hid their heritage by changing their names (i.e. the Germania Club became the Lincoln Club). And, “many German churches (except for the Missouri Synod) and parochial schools chose to preach and teach in English.”30 In spite of the anti-Germans sentiment, the LCMS congregations chose to retain the German language some years after WWI ended, even though membership was declining and the neighborhoods around the churches were becoming less German.

From this it seems that the focus of mission and ministry in many of these congregations was primarily on their members. This is most obvious for the congregations that moved when the location of their members changed, but it seems to have been the case for other congregations as well, given their seeming reluctance to give up the use of the German language as their membership declined and neighborhoods were changing.

The order in which the churches and schools were founded—school first, church second—helps to explain this focus. The congregations began as schools, so providing a German-speaking Lutheran school was something the early church founders considered to be of utmost importance. Once the school was established, it still required many resources (i.e. space, time, financial) in order to operate. Congregations made deliberate decisions to supply these resources in order to invest in the education of their children. Eventually, many of these congregations and schools accepted children of non-member families; in some cases, the non-member children outnumbered member children. But, that did not usually produce significant gains in church membership.

Finally, the churches’ locations may have also contributed to membership decline. While a location on a side street in a residential area is undoubtedly quieter than a site on a busy thoroughfare, such a location lacks visibility. The church certainly would be known to residents living in close proximity, but others might drive by (only a block or two away) and never know of the church’s presence. As more people acquired automobiles, the relative location of the churches changed. Even though the building remained at the same site, people could travel farther in less time, giving them more options. No longer was membership at the church nearest their home inevitable; joining a church some distance away or maintaining membership at a church after moving away from the neighborhood was a distinct possibility.

What does this mean?

The experiences of older city churches in Chicago raise questions about ministry, mission, and location that need to be asked at the congregational, district, and synodical levels.31 Although the questions have no easy answers they are worth consideration as they will ultimately affect the life and well-being of congregations, districts, and the synod.

A first question to ask in terms of ministry and mission is: What is our response to struggling congregations in the central city? In Chicago, as in other Midwestern cities, there are now more people living in the suburbs than in the central city. It is not surprising, then, that there are more LCMS congregations and Lutheran schools there as well. But, what about the estimated 2.7 million people that live in the city of Chicago as of the 2010 census? Although this is lower than Chicago’s peak population (approximately 3.6 million in 1950), the present population is approximately the same as Chicago’s 1920 population when there were more LCMS congregations and schools in the city. Yes, the characteristics of that city population have changed. No longer are so many of Chicago’s residents of German descent. Instead they are immigrants from Mexico, Poland, India, or any number of other countries. Or, they are African American, or young and single, or older “empty nesters.” These are groups that in the past have not had a sizable presence in LCMS churches and schools. Is it time for us to re-examine our mission/ministry in light of the many people that still live in central cities?

Before answering that question, however, a broader question needs to be addressed. That is, “Who are we aiming to serve?” Is our mission and ministry aimed at existing members or is it directed at those outside the church, the un-churched, non-Lutherans, or non-Christians? Most would probably agree that a balance is needed, that congregations, districts, and the synod should serve both members and non-members. Or, as Richard Stearns says, “…there should be a balance between internal and external ministry.”32

Achieving a “balance” between ministry/missions to members and non-members is not as simple as it sounds. First of all, what exactly does “balance” mean? Does that mean dividing resources (time, space, talent, and treasure) 50/50 or 60/40 or 25/75 between “internal” and “external” ministries/missions? What criteria will be used to determine that “balance” and who will decide? Furthermore, what exactly constitutes an “internal” or “external” ministry/mission? Is a Lutheran school primarily an “internal” ministry/mission providing a service to its members? Or, is it an “external” ministry/mission primarily providing service to non-members? Can it be both? Finally, a congregation, district, or synod that aims to serve people beyond its immediate membership needs to determine whom exactly they will serve. Will the focus be on the local community, a broader region, the country, or even other countries/world regions? No church body can do it all; priorities and goals need to be set, as those priorities will in turn affect budgets, policies, and day-to-day life in the congregation, district, or synod.

How does a church body set priorities in mission/ministry? First and foremost is with prayer. Seeking the Lord’s guidance is essential as congregations, districts, and the synod seek to determine in what unique way God is calling them to grow His Kingdom in a particular place and time. In addition, church bodies need to be familiar with the needs of people in their communities, country, and world. Census data, local residents, government officials, and charitable organizations all provide much information about possibilities for mission/ministry.

Another factor to consider in setting priorities in ministry/mission is location. A key question congregations need to ask is, “What opportunities does our location offer in terms of ministry and mission?” Some congregations are located near an organization, a business, or a public facility that would benefit from services or programs. Other congregations are located on or near a major transportation route that provides connections within a larger region. Still others are located in areas where there is a critical need for adult day care services, ELS classes, social activities for teenagers, etc. Such locational opportunities may well influence priorities in terms of mission/ministry.

Leaders at the district and synodical levels must consider issues of location as well. District and synodical resources are limited (as are those of individual congregations), so decisions must be made as to where and how those resources will be used. Should the focus be on where most Lutherans live or where the most un-churched or non-Christians are? These populations often have different distributions making the distribution of resources different in location depending on the ministry/mission focus.

Did the early LCMS churches in Chicago discuss then identify their mission/ministry in light of their location and the needs of their members and others around them? Most likely their mission/ministry was determined by the needs of their members. These immigrants decided early on that educating their children was a high priority. As a result, building and maintaining Lutheran schools seemed to be their primary ministry/mission. The school location then determined the location of the congregation. As the congregation and school grew, they busily carried out their mission/ministry of educating children. When congregational membership and school enrollment declined, questions of ministry and mission became more crucial. Some congregations opted to focus ministry/mission on their members, while some focused more on serving the community in which they were located. Some congregations made the painful decision to close the school and/or the congregation. For many, the obstacles (i.e. financial cost of building upkeep and paying a pastor’s salary) continue to threaten the congregation’s future.

A key lesson for congregations outside the central city (as well as for districts and the synod) is the importance of identifying their mission/ministry in light of their location and the needs of their members and others around them. But, this is not a once-in-a lifetime task. Rather, it should be on-going. Not only does membership change over time, so do the communities in which congregations, districts, and synod are located. As population changes (in numbers and characteristics), church bodies must be open to frequent re-evaluation of their mission/ministry.

End Notes:

  1. It is important to note that these were not the only LCMS congregations in Chicago, nor were they the oldest in northern Illinois. Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in Addison (then called Duncklees Grove) was the first Lutheran congregation in this part of the state. This, like many of the other early churches, was a rural congregation. As the city grew and annexed territory, some of them became part of the city of Chicago and others grew in suburbs around the city.
  2. The first and the last “daughter” congregations (1st Immanuel and Timothy) are the lone exceptions to this.
  3. Schwartzkopf, Louis J. The Lutheran Trail: A History of the Synodical Conference Lutheran Churches in Northern Illinois. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950. It is also important to note that there were additional branch schools besides the ones that eventually became congregations. Some of these remained schools for a time, then closed.
  4. Ibid., p. 171.
  5. Ibid., p. 172.
  6. Ibid., p. 248.
  7. Ibid., p. 173.
  8. Ibid., pp. 26-36.
  9. Ibid., p. 80-87.
  10. Ibid., pp. 189-194 and 214-217.
  11. Ibid., pp. 248- 250 and 402-404.
  12. Ibid. pp. 35-36.
  13. Ibid., p. 84.
  14. Ibid., pp. 250 and 403-404.
  15. Historic City: The Settlement of Chicago. City of Chicago, Department of Development and Planning, 1976.
  16. Ibid., p. 245.
  17. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Deutschen Evangelisch Lutherifchen Synode for Missouri, Ohio und andern Staaten for das Jahr 1900. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1901.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Deutschen Evang. Lutherischen Synod von Missouri, Ohio and andern Staaten fur das Jahr 1890. St. Louis, MO: Luth. Concordia Berlag, 1891. For a few of these congregations, membership decline may be attributed to the fact that they were still starting new “daughter” congregations after 1890, but for most of the ten largest congregations, their “daughters” had already been established, although some later movement likely occurred.
  20. www.lcms.org; www.elca.org; www.wels.net.
  21. September 2010 enrollment statistics were provided (via phone call) by personnel in each respective school office.
  22. www.lcms.org; www.elca.org; www.wels.net.
  23. U.S. Census Bureau.
  24. Harzig, Christiane, “Germans,” in Encyclopedia of Chicago History. www.encyclopedia.chihistory.org.
  25. “The People of Chicago: Who we are and who we have been.” City of Chicago, Department of Development and Planning, 1976.
  26. Swartzkopf, p. 191.
  27. Ibid. p. 195.
  28. Ibid., pp. 423-424.
  29. Ibid., pp. 461 and 423-24. The school later reopened, with English as the principal language.
  30. Harzig.
  31. Although the two terms “ministry” and “mission” often have different definitions, they are used here synonymously, generally referring to areas of service.
  32. Richard Stearns, The Hole in our Gospel, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2009, p. 180.

References:

Harzig, Christiane, “Germans,” in Encyclopedia of Chicago History. www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org.

Historic City: The Settlement of Chicago. City of Chicago. Department of Development and Planning, 1976.

Schwartzkopf, Louis J. The Lutheran Trail: A History of the Synodical ConferenceLutheran Churches in Northern Illinois. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.

Statistisches Jahrbuch der Deutschen Evang. Lutherischen Synod von Missouri, Ohio und andern Staaten fur das Jahr 1890. St. Louis, MO: Luth. Concordia Berlag. 1891.

Statistisches Jahrbuch der Deutschen Evangelisch Lutherischen for Missouri, Ohio und andern Staaten for das Jahr 1900. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1901.

Stearns, Richard. The Hole in our Gospel. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 2009.

The People of Chicago: Who we are and who we have been. City of Chicago. Department of Development and Planning. 1976. United States Census Bureau.

www.elca.org.

www.lcms.org.

www.wels.net.

Author Information

Dr. Patricia Rose serves as Professor of Geography at Concordia University Chicago. She has taught several Chicago field trip based courses, taking students to visit many different neighborhoods in the city. Other geography courses generally include at least one Chicago field trip. In addition, she has co-led (with Professor Emeritus William Kammrath) more than 10 different tours of the Chicago area over the last 15 years. She may be contacted at Patricia.Rose@CUChicago.edu.

Tags: , , , , , ,