Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're wrong, I'm not defending Chicago here. In fact, I suggested a different city that I thought would better meet your needs (you're welcome, by the way).
I've lived car free in Chicago continuously for several years and I'm sick of this "discussion." Goodbye.
Chicago has strict requirements on parking garages. It can't face the main streets. Generally to gain approval today? It better offer street-level retail and eateries too and do its best to hide a look of a garage.
At least huge block-sized ones like in a Houston's core. You won't see in Chicago's. Having underground city-owned garages for over 9000 cars helps too. Chicago is laid out with alleys. Outside of its core. Those alleys maybe lined with garages and car-ports. Still as asset more then not. Also high-rise to skyscraper-living is podium-style. That adds a grave street-level. But most hide the garage if done well with street-level shops or eateries.
It can be the best of both worlds? Car or no car to using both depending on what you can afford too. Chicago is lucky to still have a crew you can drive and park too or use L, train or bus too.
This garage was designed to look like a old Chicago-style skyscraper. With retail street-level. But above clearly shows it's a garage.
Chicago still gives a option but you are really losing nothing.
Those are shots of the Loop. That's the most "Manhattan" you're going to find in Chicago.
I agree with what you're saying. Give people a choice. There was a video I linked to about Zurich where it implied cars are "not welcome". I'm not necessarily saying that cars shouldn't be welcomed in any city anywhere, as some people have a preference or economic choices (or whatever) to make. To say that we shouldn't have cars seems militant. I guess I've just been surprised at the number of people who seem to make the "driving" choice over the "walking" or "public transit" choices in neighborhoods where the "driving" choice is arguably not the most prudent. But to each their own.
If anything, I think new development should gently shy people away from driving (be it through less available parking, higher parking prices, or any other number of measures), as I just personally think the personal automobile paradigm is changing. If others disagree, that's perfectly okay.
I think the OP is doing a very poor job of expressing what he wants. It might be instructive to mentally replace every instance of him saying car-free lifestyle with a more common question about Chicago, like how bike-friendly is the city? Or is Chicago a good city for foodies?
Essentially, he is looking for a particular lifestyle and wants to cluster with people who share his value set. For him taking the train and bus everywhere is a value and not simply a matter of expediency. His fear is that Chicago will not be home to like-minded people because it is more car oriented than comprable cities like New York or San Francisco. As he has never really lived amongst like-minded people in cities designed entirely for the convenience of the car, where taking the bus when you can afford your own car is highly stigmatized. He has also built Chicago up and is deeply afraid of being disappointed.
Once you account for that, it's easy to realize that he's not judging other people for how they live their lives. He just wants to know if he would fit in with his particular value set and I think the answer is a resounding yes.
I'm going to try to explain it one more time, brodie.
Let's say I could build my own city from scratch. I could build what, in my eyes, would be a "utopia" for urban planning, public transit, pedestrian activity, etc.
So I build this place. But I also give people a choice to drive. So I build the roads and the parking and everything else that would allow for fairly smooth driving. But I also build out the most mack daddy public transit the world has ever seen. Wide sidewalks. Short blocks. Great shade/canopy. Awesome TOD. Etc. Etc.
Well, let's say I build this place and 80% of the people who move/live there drive cars instead of taking advantage of everything else built.
Would I even want to live in my own city? Perhaps not.
It's not just about walkscores, transit scores, and objective data. It's about a vibe. It's about an attitude of the people who appreciate what, in my opinion, is coming down the road. It's about appreciating a certain lifestyle and frame of mind.
Another quick example would be, what if someone rented out Wrigley Field for you and a friend? Would you still experience Wrigley in all of its glory if it were just you and your friend? Does the crowd not add to the "vibe" and "experience" of the place? Even though Wrigley has the potential to fill all those seats, if they're not being filled, does that not detract from the experience?
I'm not sure how/why my overall points and questions aren't coming across. This will be my last attempt to clear that up. Otherwise, I'll just have to think on this and make a decision.
I'm giving analogies left and right to clear this up. I'm not religious. Does that mean I care about people who worship? Absolutely not. I just don't spend my Sundays at church. To each their own, I say.
I think you believe this analogy, but your arguments in this thread come off in this manner:
"I'm not religious. Does that mean I care about people who worship? Absolutely not. I just don't spend my Sundays at church... and I don't want to see any of those people or those churches in my neighborhood."
That's effectively what you're saying with respect to cars. You claim to not care whether people own cars, but then in the next breath state that you don't want to be in a city with too many cars and parking garages. It's only "to each their own" when you don't actually have to interact with those others, in which case you're not really in a "to each their own" mindset at all. Instead, you want to live in an enclosed bubble.
And here's the thing: I'm not trying to dissuade from Chicago at all. I think it's the greatest city in the world. If your goal is to live a carless lifestyle, you're going to love it. I don't think anyone else in this thread is trying to dissuade you, either. What I have trouble with (and granted, I'm a lawyer with a finance background, so I'm biased toward taking as much emotion out of any decision as possible) is (to use a different proverb) the classic situation of failing to see the forest for the trees.
Chicago has a wide variety of neighborhoods and critical mass of people where you can go carless AND it's within your budget. That's 99% of the battle and based on pure objective measures. However, you seem to be focused on the 1% "cultural" aspect that we have shown doesn't exist *anywhere* in the United States. You're making this 1% issue into a 51% or more issue, in which case the only places you'll be happy with are a handful of cities in Europe (except that such European cities are also generally much more expensive than even New York and San Francisco, so you won't be happy with the cost). If you pass on Chicago because of a 1% negative issue (that can't be fulfilled anywhere else in the US, anyway) instead of the 99% favorable issue based on objective factors, then that's your loss. I just have trouble understanding anyone that thinks that way.
Those are shots of the Loop. That's the most "Manhattan" you're going to find in Chicago.
I agree with what you're saying. Give people a choice. There was a video I linked to about Zurich where it implied cars are "not welcome". I'm not necessarily saying that cars shouldn't be welcomed in any city anywhere, as some people have a preference or economic choices (or whatever) to make. To say that we shouldn't have cars seems militant. I guess I've just been surprised at the number of people who seem to make the "driving" choice over the "walking" or "public transit" choices in neighborhoods where the "driving" choice is arguably not the most prudent. But to each their own.
If anything, I think new development should gently shy people away from driving (be it through less available parking, higher parking prices, or any other number of measures), as I just personally think the personal automobile paradigm is changing. If others disagree, that's perfectly okay.
It may start getting to that point of pressure to minimize parking in certain areas. There's been discussion of new West Loop developments that the developers were going to add a lot of parking, and there was some public concern that it would make the neighborhood even more congested.
I think you believe this analogy, but your arguments in this thread come off in this manner:
"I'm not religious. Does that mean I care about people who worship? Absolutely not. I just don't spend my Sundays at church... and I don't want to see any of those people or those churches in my neighborhood."
That's effectively what you're saying with respect to cars. You claim to not care whether people own cars, but then in the next breath state that you don't want to be in a city with too many cars and parking garages. It's only "to each their own" when you don't actually have to interact with those others, in which case you're not really in a "to each their own" mindset at all. Instead, you want to live in an enclosed bubble.
And here's the thing: I'm not trying to dissuade from Chicago at all. I think it's the greatest city in the world. If your goal is to live a carless lifestyle, you're going to love it. I don't think anyone else in this thread is trying to dissuade you, either. What I have trouble with (and granted, I'm a lawyer with a finance background, so I'm biased toward taking as much emotion out of any decision as possible) is (to use a different proverb) the classic situation of failing to see the forest for the trees.
Chicago has a wide variety of neighborhoods and critical mass of people where you can go carless AND it's within your budget. That's 99% of the battle and based on pure objective measures. However, you seem to be focused on the 1% "cultural" aspect that we have shown doesn't exist *anywhere* in the United States. You're making this 1% issue into a 51% or more issue, in which case the only places you'll be happy with are a handful of cities in Europe (except that such European cities are also generally much more expensive than even New York and San Francisco, so you won't be happy with the cost). If you pass on Chicago because of a 1% negative issue (that can't be fulfilled anywhere else in the US, anyway) instead of the 99% favorable issue based on objective factors, then that's your loss. I just have trouble understanding anyone that thinks that way.
Fair enough. I can see what you mean. And perhaps I am blowing out of proportion.
I think there might be some conflation with "judging" and "disagreeing" here, though. Just because I disagree with someone's choices doesn't mean I judge them for it. Likewise, it also doesn't mean I want to spend a ton of my time around people who are, overall, living a very different life from me. This whole discussion on car-free life is just one (rather small) aspect of that, though I've given other analogies.
I wouldn't totally disagree with your thesis, though. To continue the church analogy, I honestly don't care even one bit if someone is religious. But do I want a church across the street and right next door to me? Not really. Because then I'm surrounded by people who are not like-minded. And I don't think I'd be alone in that regard if you ask someone their preferences and then look at where they live and who they spend time with. There's an innate desire, in my opinion and experience, to be with like-minded people. I enjoy broadening my horizons and educating myself, certainly. But I also have no desire to live among, say, Eskimos. One of the biggest reasons I'm thinking of moving to Chicago is because it's in the Midwest. It's where I come from.
But I am possibly missing the forest for the trees. I'm a very cerebral person. That has pros and cons. And sometimes seeing too deep doesn't allow for what's right in front of you.
As was stated before, is it not better to have 20% or 30% of something than 0%? Certainly so. I just have to weigh the drawbacks of the winters, taxes, politics, etc. against that move from 0-20. Because the only way I go from 0-70 (or whatever number you want to put there) is to move somewhere that is cost-prohibitive and probably not in line with other things that are important to me (of which Chicago has a lot of).
It may start getting to that point of pressure to minimize parking in certain areas. There's been discussion of new West Loop developments that the developers were going to add a lot of parking, and there was some public concern that it would make the neighborhood even more congested.
Well, I believe in choice, as I stated before. However, Chicago's traffic problem is no secret. And it hasn't gotten any better since I first started visiting the city more than a decade ago.
The good news is that I do honestly believe the personal automobile paradigm is shifting. So that problem might go away, whether or not developers/politicians fix it with foresight. I think foresight is preferable, but that's sometimes hard to come by.
Those are shots of the Loop. That's the most "Manhattan" you're going to find in Chicago.
I agree with what you're saying. Give people a choice. There was a video I linked to about Zurich where it implied cars are "not welcome". I'm not necessarily saying that cars shouldn't be welcomed in any city anywhere, as some people have a preference or economic choices (or whatever) to make. To say that we shouldn't have cars seems militant. I guess I've just been surprised at the number of people who seem to make the "driving" choice over the "walking" or "public transit" choices in neighborhoods where the "driving" choice is arguably not the most prudent. But to each their own.
If anything, I think new development should gently shy people away from driving (be it through less available parking, higher parking prices, or any other number of measures), as I just personally think the personal automobile paradigm is changing. If others disagree, that's perfectly okay.
Well even fashionable Lincoln Park. You can't beat a streetscape like this in architecture and green-frontage w/tree canopy. But directly behind is THE ALLEY and GARAGES.
People in Chicago might choose the L or bus going to work in the core. But still want the option to drive to Wisconsin on some weekends too. Or suburban places. Chicago having alleys especially, gives a bigger opportunity to have a car too and park it. Especially once you are in the bungalow-belt.
Well even fashionable Lincoln Park. You can't beat a streetscape like this in architecture and green-frontage w/tree canopy. But directly behind is THE ALLEY and GARAGES.
People in Chicago might choose the L or bus going to work in the core. But still want the option to drive to Wisconsin on some weekends too. Or suburban places. Chicago having alleys especially, gives a bigger opportunity to have a car too and park it. Especially once you are in the bungalow-belt.
The Great Fire was a blessing in a lot of ways (but also unfortunate), as it gave rise to a lot of the things (like alleys) that Chicagoans enjoy today. The Burnham Plan was also pretty progressive, in my opinion.
Those houses in the first shot of LP are just absolutely gorgeous. I don't think it gets any prettier than that. At least not to my tastes.
I agree with what you're saying. That's in line with what I was saying before about a typical Chicagoan enjoying the L to/from the Loop but then preferring a car for a lot of other errands. Chicago's sheer size lends itself to cheap land, which itself lends itself to parking and cars. There are areas in the outer peripheral of the city that sprawl pretty badly, although I'd personally never be spending much time in those areas (if I were to live/move there).
I love Chicago precisely because it is so easy to live car-free (well, that has been my experience). I walk and bike everywhere I go. Not to mention that living car-free keeps the extra pounds away and the ticker ticking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
