Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#31

Post by OldHand2018 »

chitowneats wrote: post #15
OldHand2018 wrote: post #10

This block of Chicago is really interesting. It’s like going back in time to when American cities were far seedier places than they are now. It survives in part because the neighbor across the street is the Metropolitan Correctional Center [1] (an architectural masterpiece that was ruined by painting it about 10 years ago). The other reason it survives is that many buildings are owned in full by people that just aren…

I worked at this intersection for half a decade. Your analysis is spot on. As for the chicken, you must be referring to Chicken Planet: http://www.chickenplanetchicago.com/

I had to look it up because I knew it by location and not name. It was Mickey’s, not Chicken Planet.

The pizza place is Boni Vino and the lunch crowd is floor traders and guys with thick Chicago accents. Full bar at lunch.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#32

Post by caturopath »

perardi wrote: post #7
hellbannedguy wrote: post #6

I would like to see America build more of these. Even lightening building codes, and zoning requirements (allow for very small rooms). If the Infrasctructure bill promised more of this type of housing I would be thrilled. I'd be happy with a few public restrooms strategically placed around cities, but I guess I'm the only one that needs easy access to a bathroom! 1. It's obvious homlessness is just getting worse. I j…

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

A big part of the missing SROs are the lack of ones that don't target itinerant men, such as are found in much of the world. The accommodations aren't the problem, the perception is -- plenty of medium- and high-income people in low-density areas participate in house shares.

But since SROs are illegal almost everywhere in the US, the few that have stuck in our memory are the ones for folks who didn't have any other real choice, rather than the ones that were simply the best choice.

I'm not sure how perception might shift. If I were to spitball, steps might include finding catchy names that combine student housing, nursing homes, and general-audience SROs and finding a couple flagship projects where luxury towers have high-floor SROs geared toward minimalist tech/finance bros and rich people in need of a crash pad.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#33

Post by cozzyd »

snypher wrote: post #30
throwaway894345 wrote: post #26

Wow, I used to walk by this all the time (I lived in the South Loop and worked in the Loop). I never realized it was the last one. It's the one noticeably dodgier block in the area.

For what reasons would you say it was dodgier?

Not OP, but I wouldn't say it's dodgier, but rather that it feels like a time capsule from the past: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8760356,-87.630659,3a,75y,34...

It doesn't help that it's across the street from a prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Correctional_Cent...) .

(edit, looks like OldHand2018 said basically the same thing I did!).

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#34

Post by throwaway894345 »

snypher wrote: post #30
throwaway894345 wrote: post #26

Wow, I used to walk by this all the time (I lived in the South Loop and worked in the Loop). I never realized it was the last one. It's the one noticeably dodgier block in the area.

For what reasons would you say it was dodgier?

I would get harassed on that block far more often despite it being considerably less dense than just a bit farther north (business) or south (residential). Maybe "dodgy" isn't the right word. You can also have a look around for yourself--the buildings on either side of this block are quite a bit nicer (although that on it's own isn't a good proxy for dodginess): https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8761663,-87.630677,3a,75y,31...

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#35

Post by bsanr2 »

"Like his friend and like his son, Mike strongly believes in caring for what and who are already here. In every one of the many conversations we have from May 2020 to February 2021, he shares with me, in his quiet, passionate voice, his vision: shuttered schools across the south and west sides remodeled, their doors opening like petals for women and children fleeing violent homes or for other Chicagoans in need of shelter while they wait for housing vouchers to come through, classrooms converted to dormitories, cafeterias serving whoever needs to eat."

It should be noted that this is unlikely to happen, unfortunately.

https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/school-closures-and-gentri... https://prospect.org/education/gentrification-school-closing...

Like Campus 805 in Huntsville, Alabama, they're much more likely to be torn down or redeveloped into a play-space for new transplants. Any sort of public service runs directly counter to the purpose of shutting down those schools in the first place.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#36

Post by dang »

viklove wrote: post #2

With the bar on the top and the uncloseable bar on the bottom, this site was too claustrophobic for me to commit to reading the whole article.

"Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then friendly feedback might be helpful."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#37

Post by Spooky23 »

perardi wrote: post #7
hellbannedguy wrote: post #6

I would like to see America build more of these. Even lightening building codes, and zoning requirements (allow for very small rooms). If the Infrasctructure bill promised more of this type of housing I would be thrilled. I'd be happy with a few public restrooms strategically placed around cities, but I guess I'm the only one that needs easy access to a bathroom! 1. It's obvious homlessness is just getting worse. I j…

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

Lol. Only on HN.

I got rid of an SRO in my neighborhood. It was a shitshow... drug deals, issues with open containers and prostitution, car break ins, etc.

There are NIMBY assholes. But there are people who just want to live their life peaceably. Something like an SRO can turn from OK to a nightmare with a change in management or ownership. Nobody in their right mind wants one nearby.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#39

Post by Dig1t »

stopwithslurs wrote: post #29
bombcar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's be realistic and admit these buildings do NOT have to be built in residential areas with Karens abounding. The perfect is the enemy of the good here; let them be wedged into industrial areas or other "not as desirable" parts of town. Trying to pretend that the "bad part of town" can be removed if we just figure out the magic steps is part of the problem.

Can you people stop using my mother's name as a slur that means obnoxious white woman? I'm used to this bigotry on Reddit but why is it ok here? I'm so sick of it.

I do agree with you, it would be super frowned upon to go around doing the same thing with common names of other ethnicities. I don't think its right that we're okay with low-key disparaging one race but not another. At one point in time I think people would have considered that to be racist, but I guess that's not a thing anymore.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#40

Post by bmarquez »

caturopath wrote: post #32
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

A big part of the missing SROs are the lack of ones that don't target itinerant men, such as are found in much of the world. The accommodations aren't the problem, the perception is -- plenty of medium- and high-income people in low-density areas participate in house shares. But since SROs are illegal almost everywhere in the US, the few that have stuck in our memory are the ones for folks who didn't have any other r…

I was about to comment the exact same thing.

There needs to be SRO's catered to non-poor people just needing a place to crash while exploring a city, minimalists, etc.

Outside America the hostel/guesthouse scene worked well for me as a longer term traveler, I even met others doing the "digital nomad" thing and fairly well-off people so there isn't a stigma like in America. When I mention the concept of hostels (even private room ones) to less-traveled Americans, some rolled their eyes and made comments about personal safety, poverty, and "not having your own big space."

Post reply on HN