What does Chicago need to make it more exciting for more people and compete with other top tourist destinations in US? (Lincoln: ski resort, apartment complex)

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by the topper

I'm out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Splendid! Won't be missed!

[knitgirl]

Originally Posted by DavePa

You failed your try living in the US try in the 80s or before? Claimed a recent trip a few years ago. I think you got some things wrong.

Perhaps you could list ugly neighborhoods in housing varieties offered and why? Always give non-generic details if possible.

What kinds of Chicago housing and block lay-out is ugly?

Some input could boost believability?

If your perspective is Northern European ? What is ugly in Chicago housing through the decades? It just seems a bias more then credible toward the US in general.

I grew up in the suburbs and now I live between Lincoln Square and Andersonville. I think most of the northside near the lake is very attractive. I was recently at a family event on the NW side and yeah, a lot of it is ugly. I'm talking those boring 1950's bungalows. Some of them with really awful additions.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by knitgirl

I grew up in the suburbs and now I live between Lincoln Square and Andersonville. I think most of the northside near the lake is very attractive. I was recently at a family event on the NW side and yeah, a lot of it is ugly. I'm talking those boring 1950's bungalows. Some of them with really awful additions.

Some of the mass-produced bungalows are uninspiring (especially in color), but the craftsman-style bungalows are quite nice. Chicago seems to have more of the former than the latter, though..

I do like Milwaukee's bungalows, though, and Portland's, too..

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by MassVt

Some of the mass-produced bungalows are uninspiring (especially in color), but the craftsman-style bungalows are quite nice. Chicago seems to have more of the former than the latter, though..

I do like Milwaukee's bungalows, though, and Portland's, too..

I agree. Chicago is 1/3 the bungalow belt defined as built 1910-1930 or to 1940 and like 80 thousand in the city and 100 thousand if you include the metro.
I much prefer them then the side by row homes more prevalent in the east. Especially a Mid-Atlantic state like PA. To say tat in a Philly forum? Would have you labeled a hater.
But when Chicago was building its bungalow belt for the masses. Philadelphia was still doing full blocks of row-homes. Boston even went to its Triple-dockets over rows.

Originally Posted by knitgirl

I grew up in the suburbs and now I live between Lincoln Square and Andersonville. I think most of the northside near the lake is very attractive. I was recently at a family event on the NW side and yeah, a lot of it is ugly. I'm talking those boring 1950's bungalows. Some of them with really awful additions.

I still like most of the 50s ones. Especially late 50s early 60s. Clean timeless look, held up well, no one ever feels a need to upgrade their look (including the 20s 30s bungalows).

I also like the pale pink brick Chicago used for their construction with merely fronts having other brick varieties. Pretty unique to Chicago. I think Chicago's Mid-century modern were a good solid choice and the homes. Very well built too.

Will always remember my relatives homes they had as these. platinum white-washed woodwork and cabinets and the pale pink brick LOL. Oh, and they originally had pink appliances. oh and those that chose the polished stainless steel storm windows? They were a great feature too. Mostly a 60s addition I believe.

[MassVt]

Even if Chicago bungalows leave something to be desired, I'd still take them over Philly/Baltimore rowhouses, which are often a bit dilapidated, and in tree-less neighborhoods...

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by knitgirl

I grew up in the suburbs and now I live between Lincoln Square and Andersonville. I think most of the northside near the lake is very attractive. I was recently at a family event on the NW side and yeah, a lot of it is ugly. I'm talking those boring 1950's bungalows. Some of them with really awful additions.

For sure. I would say a good 60%-70% of Chicago overall is either very attractive to beautiful. It's the far stretches, like the northwest part of places like Portage Park or Edison Park, with those bland, sterile, 1950's apartment buildings that are eh. I wouldn't even call the ugly, just extremely bland and cookie cutter.

[jwaiter]

Originally Posted by tellinit2ya

What does Chicago need to make it more exciting for more people and compete with other top tourist destinations in the US?

Whitewater rafting!!!! DUH.

Originally Posted by tellinit2ya

Are the same festivals year after year and same museums (that other cities have) enough?!

What are you saying here?? We have unique to Chicago festivals and museums. The Art Institute, The MCA, the Field Museum, the Adler, not to mention the plethora of off the beaten track museums (https://imss.org/ for example) make this a wonderful city to explore!

The summer music festivals have unique perspectives in their respective categories (blues, jazz, gospel, punk, heavy metal, indie rock, and more...) .

The neighborhood fests (Northalsted Market Days, Old Town Arts Fest, West Fest, Retro on Roscoe, etc etc...) give you unique glimpses into what makes Chicago a vibrant diverse place and each has it's own vibe.

You are truly lacking in brain cells if you can't find stuff to do here.

[DavePa]

[/color]

Originally Posted by frimpter928

For sure. I would say a good 60%-70% of Chicago overall is either very attractive to beautiful. It's the far stretches, like the northwest part of places like Portage Park or Edison Park, with those bland, sterile, 1950's apartment buildings that are eh. I wouldn't even call the ugly, just extremely bland and cookie cutter.

I'm a bit different on the 50s 60s varieties. I like most more then not. Just my opinion not disagreeing as we surely can disagree.

I rather like these 50s 60 apartment buildings that can look the same as when built and rocks for me as still cool and the PALE PINK Brick bungalow-ranches. Simple but still timeless to me for a clean urban environment with still hits most bells and whistles of more suburban sprawl. But not sprawl.

I still like the simplicity and clean look that defined a era. These styles still say Chicago as much as Lincoln Park Logan Square or Portage Park earlier decade examples do. Doesn't mean I like them better than a Lincoln Park. But I did live among them once and I LIKE EM too. Not ugly or bland to me.....

Singles to the apartments 💓 to 2-flats that Gotta have a Greek statue too.

[drro]

Those apartment complexes do not look so bad at all but most of the city is not as tidy or maintained, overall Chicago looked very gritty to me especially for European standards. Anyway, a few nice streets outside of downtown which is admittedly nice, do not make Chicago an interesting destination for tourists. It just lacks things to see and do. Then there is the crime issue, generally it is a very high crime city.

[knitgirl]

where on earth did you go? The normal tourist neighborhoods look great. You're pretty much wrong about everything.