51–60 of 111 posts
I've lived in Chicago for nearly 10 years and will continue preaching its advantages to anyone who will listen. Crime isn't as big a problem as people think it is (it's isolated to a few long-disadvantaged neighborhoods), it's affordable, cars are optional, and we have two airports to escape the winter weather.
I've lived in Chicago for nearly 10 years and will continue preaching its advantages to anyone who will listen. Crime isn't as big a problem as people think it is (it's isolated to a few long-disadvantaged neighborhoods), it's affordable, cars are optional, and we have two airports to escape the winter weather.
Nah. The job opportunities for people newly graduating are piss poor in Chicago compared to elsewhere. A lot of old opinions on work prevail, compared to new flexibility in working that we're seeing. Also, having lived in the suburbs for a while, I was shocked how much casual racism is present there. Chicago is in many ways trapped in the past. It's corrupt and dirty. When I see billboards for strip clubs above spraw…
Don't move to California then as it's probably one of the most shockingly(it's California!) racist places I've ever lived. And I'm from Chicago!
I'm not entirely sure I follow the logical argument: regulation is relaxed along transit arteries, allowing developers to build and sell more units there at market rates, thereby keeping the market prices in check; that's great. But I would assume someone capable of paying market rates, typically still owns a car. That car still needs a parking space, so even if the owner does not use it for his daily commute, the pr…
Chicago is definitely enough of a 'big city' that people choose to forego car ownership. I work in an office of developers, and people only tend to get a car once they have kids, and then they only have one car for the family.
Multiple car ownership (or ownership at all) just isn't that desirable any more and Chicago's relaxation of minimum parking requirements are very much market-driven. Parking costs a lot of money to build and takes up a lot of space in a building. Because there is nothing preventing a developer from building more parking than required, he or she has the freedom to match market demand.
There is a 50-floor, ~500-unit apartment building under construction in my neighborhood that, due to its proximity to a train station, was required to build exactly 0 parking spaces. The developer chose to build around 75.
I'm going to dispute this claim. Pittsburgh, PA has skyscrapers[1], defined as any building with or over 40 floors, and is more affordable then Chicago[2]. In fact Atlanta, GA also fits in this category as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_P... [2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
I didn't read the entire article and then got blocked by a paywall but I do not believe "skyscraper city" is well defined, so not hard to dispute. According to this list https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?10=1 Chicago has the second most skyscrapers of any US city. Philadelphia is #7 on that list and is still affordable. If Philly is not considered a "skyscraper city" than that means there were only 6 or less of them…
I'm not entirely sure I follow the logical argument: regulation is relaxed along transit arteries, allowing developers to build and sell more units there at market rates, thereby keeping the market prices in check; that's great. But I would assume someone capable of paying market rates, typically still owns a car. That car still needs a parking space, so even if the owner does not use it for his daily commute, the pr…
I can't find the study, but there's actually some data to back up what you're saying regarding TODs -- people generally still cling to their cars despite living close to public transit.
But it's not necessarily a black-and-white issue. You have to look at actual miles driven to get a clear picture.
For example, I live in Chicago near a CTA Blue Line station and Metra Station. We've have gone weeks without using the car. We drive, maybe 2,500 miles/year, with a chunk of that visiting my father up in Wisconsin. But we'd never give it up since we have a kid and that just makes things easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to your source (Wikipedia), Chicago has around 78 buildings over 550 feet. Pittsburgh has 19 and Atlanta has 16. So the article is right and Chicago is still in a league of its own in that regard.
That Chicago number will be over 80 by the end of the year.
I'm going to dispute this claim. Pittsburgh, PA has skyscrapers[1], defined as any building with or over 40 floors, and is more affordable then Chicago[2]. In fact Atlanta, GA also fits in this category as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_P... [2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
According to your source (Wikipedia), Chicago has around 78 buildings over 550 feet. Pittsburgh has 19 and Atlanta has 16. So the article is right and Chicago is still in a league of its own in that regard.
I think possibly the only legit "skyscraper city" that has been left out according to the article's "definition" would be Philadelphia which is affordable still.
I'm not entirely sure I follow the logical argument: regulation is relaxed along transit arteries, allowing developers to build and sell more units there at market rates, thereby keeping the market prices in check; that's great. But I would assume someone capable of paying market rates, typically still owns a car. That car still needs a parking space, so even if the owner does not use it for his daily commute, the pr…
Chicago is definitely enough of a 'big city' that people choose to forego car ownership. I work in an office of developers, and people only tend to get a car once they have kids, and then they only have one car for the family.
I love Chicago. I've visited most of the major cities in the U.S. and Chicago is the only one that seems comparable to NYC's historic, big city feel.