Why are Chicago's suburbs so anti-pedestrian? (Schaumburg, Evanston: 2013, house, neighborhoods)

[j_cat]

I live in Chicago now, but before that I lived in suburbia in several different areas, including such "sprawl nightmares" as Phoenix and SoCal.

I am looking for work and while there are a great many jobs in the Loop, the reality is that many are in various suburbs, and with the exception of a few wonderful places like Evanston, it seems that "Chicagoland" has the attitude of "f*** you, pedestrians," more so than anywhere I've ever seen.

I was absolutely stunned to see major streets without sidewalks or even crosswalks (not even at intersections!), and with rush-hour only or once-an-hour buses, if there are even buses at all.

Entire areas are cut off from each other by highways for which the under- or overpasses do not incorporate any pedestrian access.

And despite a relatively good commuter rail system (as commuter rail systems go), there seems to be little regard for locating corporate campuses near a rail station, or even allowing ped access from neighborhoods to stations (for those who go inbound for work).

I can understand that not everyone prefers to be a pedestrian, but what is with the refusal to even allow access? Perhaps it's a relic of the bad old days of city crime?

I guess my biggest question is: do you all realize that it's not normal? That other places manage to be suburban while still offering reasonable accommodation? That there is "suburban" and then there is this whole other category that you occupy?

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by j_cat

I live in Chicago now, but before that I lived in suburbia in several different areas, including such "sprawl nightmares" as Phoenix and SoCal.

I am looking for work and while there are a great many jobs in the Loop, the reality is that many are in various suburbs, and with the exception of a few wonderful places like Evanston, it seems that "Chicagoland" has the attitude of "f*** you, pedestrians," more so than anywhere I've ever seen.

I was absolutely stunned to see major streets without sidewalks or even crosswalks (not even at intersections!), and with rush-hour only or once-an-hour buses, if there are even buses at all.

Entire areas are cut off from each other by highways for which the under- or overpasses do not incorporate any pedestrian access.

And despite a relatively good commuter rail system (as commuter rail systems go), there seems to be little regard for locating corporate campuses near a rail station, or even allowing ped access from neighborhoods to stations (for those who go inbound for work).

I can understand that not everyone prefers to be a pedestrian, but what is with the refusal to even allow access? Perhaps it's a relic of the bad old days of city crime?

I guess my biggest question is: do you all realize that it's not normal? That other places manage to be suburban while still offering reasonable accommodation? That there is "suburban" and then there is this whole other category that you occupy?

Do you have any specific areas?
Homewood for example if pedestrian friendly and countless other burbs

On the other hand Crestwood I dont think is very pedestrian friendly but its a burb and not many jobs are centrally located there like Chicago

believe part of the problem was for a long long time corporate america was trying to breakaway from core areas and be islands among themselves
look at sears for example or the allstate complex

there is a resurgence towards companies migrating back to downtown areas like Chicago and other larger metros for example - united leaving suburbia and heading downtown

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

Do you have any specific areas?
Homewood for example if pedestrian friendly and countless other burbs

On the other hand Crestwood I dont think is very pedestrian friendly but its a burb and not many jobs are centrally located there like Chicago

believe part of the problem was for a long long time corporate america was trying to breakaway from core areas and be islands among themselves
look at sears for example or the allstate complex

there is a resurgence towards companies migrating back to downtown areas like Chicago and other larger metros for example - united leaving suburbia and heading downtown

Well I had an interview in Northbrook and that was at least doable, though still a major pain.

But now I'm checking Street View and bus schedules and such for opportunities in Oak Brook and that seems all but impossible.

I did the same for just a whim of visiting the Morton Arboretum and that seemed quite literally impossible.

I've found the same thing in checking a lot of other areas on Google. Access seems to be more the exception than the rule.

I'm not seriously going to be mad or bitter about it, it just seems really strange and shocking to me.

I know someone's going to ask why I can't just drive. It's weird, I never learned to drive, it's a personality issue or something. I've been planning to learn, but it just hasn't happened yet. And for the time being I can't afford a vehicle anyway.

[aga412]

Batavia is making a conscious effort to be more walkable.

[Vlajos]

The City of Atlanta has residential areas without sidewalks. Now that's f'd up.

[Chummy Waters]

No sidewalks is the future. All us plumpees are gonna get auto carts that hover and make food....din't you see Wall-E?

[chet everett]

There was a long period during which residents in suburban areas did not want sidewalks -- from the hassles of having to shovel in the winter to penny pinching efforts of many towns to charge for repairs / construction of sidewalks to the perception that "only bums and troublemakers would walk anywhere" the resistance to sidewalks in residential area also was a driving factor for the VOLUNTEER Zoning and Planning to prefer "exclusive vehicular traffic" in many towns.

That era largely coincided with the period during which many major roads were funded by Federal grants steered to the region by powerful leaders like Rostenkowski -- he was a classic "give the voters what the voters ask for" kind of politician and had no desire to have PROFESSIONAL planners shove anything upon any town.

Gradually SOME folks in MANY towns realized how nice it could be to have SOMEPLACE to jog, ride a bike, walk a dog or just get from house to house without a car and there MOST towns now have some sort of network of "bicycle and pedrestrian trails" (even if their OFFICIAL zoning discourages "sidewalks"...). In some cases the various overpasses and underpasses are pretty well kept secrets / deliberately laid out more for RESIDENTIAL benefit than any non-vehicular commuters (Oak Brook is clearly in this category -- it has MILES AND MILES of trails, mostly paved, that enable folks "in the know" to get from pretty much ANY residential part of town without conflicts with vehicular traffic, but basically NO accomodations for public transit for employment...)


Finally I will add that even the MOST "pedestrian friendly" places with climates similar to Chicago region NEED to have regulations that have provisions for WEATHERIZED links that connect offices and stores to transit hubs -- Minneapolis is HUGE on this, as is Toronto. With a combination of "sky bridges" , pedways and indoor promenades those areas are MUCH MUCH less hostile in the winter than any place in Chicago. I think one of the big differences has to do with homeless people and even middle class drunks -- frankly Minnesoteans and Canadians are just lots less likely to turn the semi-public shelters from the cold into open toilets than Chicagoians...

Originally Posted by j_cat

Well I had an interview in Northbrook and that was at least doable, though still a major pain.

But now I'm checking Street View and bus schedules and such for opportunities in Oak Brook and that seems all but impossible.

I did the same for just a whim of visiting the Morton Arboretum and that seemed quite literally impossible.

I've found the same thing in checking a lot of other areas on Google. Access seems to be more the exception than the rule.

I'm not seriously going to be mad or bitter about it, it just seems really strange and shocking to me.

I know someone's going to ask why I can't just drive. It's weird, I never learned to drive, it's a personality issue or something. I've been planning to learn, but it just hasn't happened yet. And for the time being I can't afford a vehicle anyway.

[css9450]

Originally Posted by j_cat

And despite a relatively good commuter rail system ... there seems to be little regard for ... allowing ped access from neighborhoods to stations ...

I'd say that the VAST majority of the "old" suburban stations are right smack dab in the middle of the very walkable downtowns of the suburbs they serve. Look at all those stations on the BNSF, UP West, UP Northwest, Milwaukee West, etc, lines and unless its a NEW station that's built in the middle of a sea of parking lots (IE, Route 59 station on the BNSF, La Fox and Elburn on the UP, Schaumburg on the Milwaukee, many of the stations on the North Central, etc), its probably right downtown. Oh I'm sure there are exceptions (and it would be just like some of the members on here to point them out), but my point stands. The stations are where they are because they're right in the downtown areas of the suburbs they serve.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Gradually SOME folks in MANY towns realized how nice it could be to have SOMEPLACE to jog, ride a bike, walk a dog or just get from house to house without a car and there MOST towns now have some sort of network of "bicycle and pedrestrian trails" (even if their OFFICIAL zoning discourages "sidewalks"...). In some cases the various overpasses and underpasses are pretty well kept secrets / deliberately laid out more for RESIDENTIAL benefit than any non-vehicular commuters (Oak Brook is clearly in this category -- it has MILES AND MILES of trails, mostly paved, that enable folks "in the know" to get from pretty much ANY residential part of town without conflicts with vehicular traffic, but basically NO accomodations for public transit for employment...)

Very interesting. I will have to look into this more, if not for employment, then at least for exploring.

[gardener34]

yeah agreed it is pretty ridiculous and despicable that there are areas where pedestrians are actually endangering themselves walking there. No sidewalks, etc.... your best bet to find areas that are pedestrian are the older suburbs where there are still sidewalks, etc. before everything was set up to cater to the lazies that drive everywhere constantly... no wonder usa has an obesity problem.