Do you think the EL will ever be expanded or new lines added? (Chicago: homes, maintenance)

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

If suburban people wanted to use mass transit they would, there is some there and at one time there was more than there is now but it failed. You gotta figure that many people are in the burbs for the very reason that they prefer cars to buses, that they prefer having the ability to come and go as they please. There's a freedom to that and many value it.

Ok, go beyond mass transit. Obviously you need some form of transport (either a train, car, etc) for long distances. But the way communities are designed today, you can't even walk to a corner store for a gallon of milk. Families have to pile into a car and drive however many miles down a clogged feeder street to get to a big box store. You couldnt walk if you wanted to because many of these communities are entirely oblivious to pedestrian friendly design, or cyclists for that matter. I don't really consider that "freedom". Freedom means choices, which well planned moderate-high density design allows. The modern exburb subdivision offers one choice: driving, and the design of the community is not based on a livable human scale, but rather that of a car. This way of thinking is not sustainable, and is only made possible because we have lived through an age of relatively cheap oil.

The ability to come and go at will is great; I realize theres a reason people own cars. But this is more fundamental..about building livable communities which acknowledge the public realm with dignity. I'm not saying everyone has to live in a cramped skyscraper condo. But we have to change our way of thinking because this will not work long term.

[chet everett]

It has worked pretty well for 50+ years of post WWII grrowth...

Look if you wanna live in Chicago's Lincoln Park or Old Town or Streeterville where there is a walkable grocery store you have to trade that off for the DENSITY that allows those places to be profitable. American is HUGE. It is cheap to build new towns that rely on roads to get people around. People like to have soccer field that are across their backyard (they also tend to dislike having rich connected parents at private schools limit access to soccer fields on public lands, but that is another thread...).

I just can't over that people are so goofily IN LUV with rail systems. Transit dollars are better spent on something that is not so capital intensive. The people of various other communities where the weather is MORE agreeable have MOSTLY realized that. If there is some sort of "Star Trek" type breakthough that makes electric power obsolete maybe things will change, but until such a thing happens it makes a LOT more sense to focus on making changes to transit based on trams/buses that might actually result in better ridership, reduced congestion, and a more viable system.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by chet everett

It has worked pretty well for 50+ years of post WWII grrowth...

Originally Posted by via chicago

This way of thinking is not sustainable, and is only made possible because we have lived through an age of relatively cheap oil.

...

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by via chicago

This way of thinking is not sustainable, and is only made possible because we have lived through an age of relatively cheap oil.

Sure it's sustainable, there's too much invested in it. The need to keep it going is pushing technolgies now----hybrid and electric cars for instance. The suburban lifestyle may become more expensive but I think people are willing to pay. Besides, the city lifestyle can be pretty damned expensive too, Hell, I'm considering a $2100 a month apartment in the South Loop. That's alot of dough but I'm willing to pay.

"Sustainable", that's a buzzword now ain't it. Like "icon", everything is a goddam icon. And "horrific", that's another one.

Regards

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by chet everett

American is HUGE. It is cheap to build new towns that rely on roads to get people around.

So we should rape what remaining undeveloped land we have, just because its there and we can?

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by via chicago

So we should rape what remaining undeveloped land we have, just because its there and we can?

Housing is raping but corn and soybeans isn't?

How about the land you live on, is it "raped" too? If so how much of this so called rape is OK? Enough so you get what you want but no more?

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Housing is raping but corn and soybeans isn't?

How about the land you live on, is it "raped" too?

Of course it is. And it should be minimized to present the smallest possible footprint.

It just appears you and I have wildly opposing viewpoints on the way modern cities should be developed.

[oakparkdude]

Look, over the past 20+ years or so, there's been a general trend of greater desirability of urban (specifically Chicago) living. I think the appreciation of urban real estate (present economic crisis excepted) is proof of that. You know the Yogi Berra saying, "No one goes there anymore, its too crowded." Well, its clear based on prices that the demand for desirable urban neighborhoods is very high and will likely continue to increase in the future. The simple reason is that there are very few desirable urban neighborhoods in this country. We stopped making them after WW2.

What Chicago needs to do is continue the process of converting undesirable city neighborhoods into desirable ones. What makes a desirable neighborhood? Good housing stock, good transit, low crime, and good schools. Good housing stock you either have or you don't. Obviously you can build new houses but for various financial and aesthetic reasons, they don't match the desirability of well-preserved older homes. Schools and crime are probably the most intractable problems for this city to solve. They could be and are the subject of many other threads on city-data. Transit, to me, seems to be the easiest one to do something about (assuming you have the political will to try.)

That's why I like the Bloomingdale el extension. The right-of-way is already there. All the viaducts are intact. Trains until very recently ran on the viaduct so its in a relatively good state of repair. It serves a high-density neighborhood with decent housing stock and its directly adjacent to one of the fast appreciating city neighborhoods. As transit extensions go, it would be relatively cheap to institute service. Build it, upzone all the surrounding blocks, establish a TIF, and watch the increased property tax revenue flow. (The better to build a solid-gold Equestrian statue in my honor, Rex Sukwooae Publica Transita Beneficium)*

* Okay, I never took Latin, so I'm sure this isn't correct, but you get the point.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by via chicago

It just appears you and I have wildly opposing viewpoints on the way modern cities should be developed.

Well I think we probably like much of the same things but I think I'm more willing to let others develop as they wish rather than as I do.

Kind Regards

[Chicago60614]

Wow, I'm really surprised how warped some viewpoints on this thread have become.

I think by 2009 we can unclench our fists and finally admit that endless sprawl DOES NOT WORK. It works fine when it's new and it works fine when it's relatively small, but then it all starts falling apart. This is what we've started seeing the past few years. Not to mention gas prices which can sneak out of nowhere and cause unknown havoc.

Who is going to pay for all these roads and highways and infrastructure that has to be put in place to have a city of 2,000 people per square mile when it needs replacement? The taxes will go sky-high, things will naturally start looking aged, and people will move on to the edge of the urban area. The older area doesn't have the tax base to rebuild and it sits and decays. Look at the inner burbs without transit or that are 50 years old or modeled after the sprawl of post WWII.

You also can't have infinite millions of people moving into suburban areas without what we're seeing - traffic getting worse and worse every single year. It's not a quirk that at this critical mass we have many cities like Minneapolis, Houston, Phoenix, etc. etc. that are finally starting to rebuild the rail infrastructure they tore apart 50 years ago (streetcars).

Mass transit is by far the cheapest for society, and the most efficient way to design a city.

Would you want New York or Paris or London with 25 superhighways that are 20 lanes wide running EVERYWHERE. It would absolutely destroy the core of the city.

What makes places like Chicago and New York and San Fran grow and be solid stable desirable places are the fact they can have their density and their lifestyle to allow people to WALK to a store, walk to a bar, jump on a train and not have to sit through traffic and fight 20 minutes to go drive to one box full of 1,000 other people shopping for something. Then get back in their car and drive 15 minutes to another box and then go home.

My life without a car is SOOOOOO much less stressful than when I was stuck driving everywhere and dealing with traffic.

And I had to laugh at Chet saying how Chicago is losing population, losing jobs, losing money, and how could any job WANT to transfer to the city.

You realize that since the downtown area and the city started their upswing in 1994, we have added a couple hundred thousand jobs in the downtown area, and tens of thousands of new condos all over the entire city.

It grew by 112,000 people in the 90's when the census projected it would lose tens of thousands. I wouldn't be surprised if it grew again this decade. If not - no one can deny that this city and so many of its neighborhoods are more stable and healthy in the 2000's than they had been in decades and decades.


I know this was the midset from the 50's through the 80's, but I'm surprised to see people still holding on today...especially after what we've seen the past year.