Suburbia, the next slum? (Naperville, Orland Park: safe neighborhood, cost, babysitters)

[pvande55]

It would still be a great idea to get the STAR line off the concept phase (drawing boards are no longer used by engineers) and into construction. If Southern California can get a commuter rail line from its eastern suburbs around to Orange County, we ought to be able to get it going here.

[BRU67]

To play devil's advocate, such a large project would have to be be funded in large part with state and federal funds. A lot of folks across the state and nation might think we have more pressing priorities (such as our lagging educational system and decaying or non-existent public transit infrastructure within urban centers) than to spend a billion plus on an exburban public transit system. That's especially true given that those who moved out to those areas did so knowing that they are car dependent.

Now, I can see some benefit to this -- anything that gets more people out of cars is good. But if the goal is to lessen our national dependence on oil, I'm not sure that's the best, or most economical, way to accomplish it. More redevelopment of urban areas already served by public transit may make more sense than a brand new exburban train system.

[suburban_boy]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Naperville may have 5 or 6 corporate headquarters but I'd bet that 99% of their employees drive to work. For corporate headquarters in Chicago, I'd bet that figure is much lower, and could be lower still should there be a major increase in fuel prices because they are serviced by public transit.

It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to make the whole of Naperville public transit friendly. And the cost to accomplish this across Chicago's exburbia would be many, many times that. Now, our priorities as a nation are often very much out of whack, don't get me wrong, so there is a chance we'd consider this preferable over much cheaper and socially beneficial adaptive reuse of blighted or underutilized land in urban areas. But the problem there is that there would be no incentive or public support to install a serious public transit system in our car-dependent exburbs until fuel prices skyrocketed.

If that were to occur, people would start flooding back towards the main urban center (Chicago) long before any kind of reasonable public transit grid could be put in place in the suburbs. In fact, I'd bet a lot of people would start moving back towards the cities even if gas went up to $3/gallon, which, IMHO, would be well below the threshold necessary for our government to embark on the biggest public works project since the Interstate highway system. So the move back to the City will likely commence well before our policymakers sit down with the best and brightest and start drawing up the Naperville Tube System.

Naperville's future, like that of many suburbs, is dependent on low motor fuel costs. As Lookout said, we don't know if that's going to end in our lifetime. It might, or it might not. If it doesn't, Naperville will probably remain as it is now.

Once again. There are thousands of jobs in the burbs. A lot of companies are choosing the burbs over the cities b/c they find it more convenient and cost efficient. Think about how much Sears probably saved moving out of the Sears Tower to Hoffman Estates. They probably received a huge tax benifit and all kind of other incentives. They are away from all the traffic and congestion; better parking; cleaner environment; away from the ****y politics; and alot more room to work with.

People move where the jobs are. I think people will find it even more inconvenient to commute from the city to Naperville everyday (Although it would be less traffic going the opposite way). As long as there are companies that are choosing the burbs over the cities the people are staying put. The fact that Metra is even considering to building a inter-suburban trainline shows that the burbs are still important. Even Metra is realizing that everyone in Chicagoland doesn't work in the Loop.

It's not gas prices that make people move. It's JOBS!!! As long as there are jobs in the burbs there will be people.

[pvande55]

It is ridiculous what taxpayers end up paying for all these moves. When Sears moved to Hoffman Estates the State and local government gave millions in aid. Chicago politicians had the votes to stop it, but supported it in return for aid to city schools. Sears ended up paying some of it back when they ended up with fewer employees than estimated. An adjacent music theater, the Sears Centre, is now owned by the Village of Hoffman Estates, which backed the bonds. And at the former Sears, now Willis, tower, United Airlines is moving thousands of employees, supported with tax incentives.

[BRU67]

Good point. Corporate headquarters have definitely tended to move around over the last 20 years – often overseas. They're nice to have but their presence isn't something you can bank on forever. My main concern is that if we continue our "ignorance is bliss" attitude about our underclass, don’t fix our educational system, and the U.S. workforce doesn’t keep pace with the rest of the globe, you may see those 5-6 corporate headquarters, and many others, shutter pretty quickly and reopen in Bejing and Mumbai.

Headquarters are much easier to move than manufacturing facilities (which aren’t all that hard to move these days either thanks to NAFTA and GATT). They're like the most popular girl in high school. They make you look real good when they're with you, but they'll leave you for the next big thing pretty readily.

[suburban_boy]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Good point. Corporate headquarters have definitely tended to move around over the last 20 years – often overseas. They're nice to have but their presence isn't something you can bank on forever. My main concern is that if we continue our "ignorance is bliss" attitude about our underclass, don’t fix our educational system, and the U.S. workforce doesn’t keep pace with the rest of the globe, you may see those 5-6 corporate headquarters, and many others, shutter pretty quickly and reopen in Bejing and Mumbai.

Headquarters are much easier to move than manufacturing facilities (which aren’t all that hard to move these days either thanks to NAFTA and GATT). They're like the most popular girl in high school. They make you look real good when they're with you, but they'll leave you for the next big thing pretty readily.

Good point. So no matter if we live in the city or burbs....WE'RE ALL SCREWED!!!!!!

[mas23]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Good point. Corporate headquarters have definitely tended to move around over the last 20 years – often overseas. They're nice to have but their presence isn't something you can bank on forever. My main concern is that if we continue our "ignorance is bliss" attitude about our underclass, don’t fix our educational system, and the U.S. workforce doesn’t keep pace with the rest of the globe, you may see those 5-6 corporate headquarters, and many others, shutter pretty quickly and reopen in Bejing and Mumbai.

Headquarters are much easier to move than manufacturing facilities (which aren’t all that hard to move these days either thanks to NAFTA and GATT). They're like the most popular girl in high school. They make you look real good when they're with you, but they'll leave you for the next big thing pretty readily.

agree, lord knows how many jobs we have been lost to asia!

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by suburban_boy

Good point. So no matter if we live in the city or burbs....WE'RE ALL SCREWED!!!!!!

Yup, if we continue mis-prioritizing, that pretty much not-so-eloquently sums it up.

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo

I tend to agree somewhat that the student and parents make the child, but schools play a huge role as well, as they bring students from like minded demographics together for the purpose of educating them.

That's some circular logic you got there.

I agree with others, there's no such thing as a crappy school, just crappy students. The reason why charter schools are successful is because they select for students (and their parents) who want to do well and kick out those who cause trouble.

It's obscene what some of the homes cost in the north suburbs just because of the perceived quality of the schools. Those students would have done just as well (if not better from character building) anywhere else.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Guineas

That's some circular logic you got there.

I agree with others, there's no such thing as a crappy school, just crappy students.

That is a dumb comment. I would guess you work in public education - correct?