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.
To be fair to Chicago, even super dense NYC, which is majority car-free, is still choked with traffic. It's always going to be a major part of city living.
That being said, if you really want to see how little some North Side residents use their cars, just wait until snows. I've seen many cars on my block in Lakeview stay snow covered for more than a week before. Some people go out and clean off their cars just to make it not so obvious that the thing hasn't moved in awhile.
Oh, definitely. I understand. I get the traffic.
I just noticed, when I was up there, a lot of cars, surface parking, and relatively few people walking around, even in premier neighborhoods. It was surprising and, well, disappointing.
This is a good example of what I saw in Chicago back in October:
So that's a major thoroughfare in Lincoln Park with a rather large surface parking lot next to a movie theater. Not on person waiting on a corner to cross the street. Just lots of cars driving around.
But it is what it is. I mean, it's way better than what I have here. It's just that I'm questioning whether or not Chicago is urban/walkable/PT enough to justify all of the associated headaches with moving up there. That's it really.
That part of Lincoln Park doesn't really come to mind when I think of areas with large numbers of pedestrians, but I see what you mean. That frankly is the reality when it comes to living in much of Chicago though. I'll also say that certain areas are only super crowded in the evenings and at night due to bars and restaurants. They can be dead during the day.
I'll also say the difference in foot traffic between downtown and the city's neighborhoods is stark. I personally enjoy being able to go from being lost in a sea of skyscrapers and people to a quiet tree lined street via the L in 15-20 minute, but it sounds like you'd absolutely hate that.
That part of Lincoln Park doesn't really come to mind when I think of areas with large numbers of pedestrians, but I see what you mean. That frankly is the reality when it comes to living in much of Chicago though. I'll also say that certain areas are only super crowded in the evenings and at night due to bars and restaurants. They can be dead during the day.
I'll also say the difference in foot traffic between downtown and the city's neighborhoods is stark. I personally enjoy being able to go from being lost in a sea of skyscrapers and people to a quiet tree lined street via the L in 15-20 minute, but it sounds like you'd absolutely hate that.
Well, I'm looking for something that's dense and European-like here in the US, all while being affordable. Trying to have my cake and eat it, too. Obviously, it's nigh impossible.
Chicago, for some reason, has my heart. I grew up just on the other side of the Lake. I'm from there. I'm a Midwesterner. Trying to balance that Midwestern sensibility with frugality and a great degree of walkability/dense city life.
I'm really going to think on this. I appreciate your willingness to converse on this subject!
Well, I'm looking for something that's dense and European-like here in the US, all while being affordable. Trying to have my cake and eat it, too. Obviously, it's nigh impossible.
Chicago, for some reason, has my heart. I grew up just on the other side of the Lake. I'm from there. I'm a Midwesterner. Trying to balance that Midwestern sensibility with frugality and a great degree of walkability/dense city life.
I'm really going to think on this. I appreciate your willingness to converse on this subject!
Impossible indeed. In the end it might honestly need to come down to what you're most willingly to sacrifice on, price or pedestrian level. Chicago isn't all that European-like in terms of its development and its sheer number of pedestrians might be lower than what you'd like, but it remains one of the most highly walkable major cities with an extensive public transportation network by American standards.
It does sound like the pedestrian levels you are looking for might be more readily found throughout places like Boston, San Francisco, or DC though. Their smaller physical sizes lends them to it more easily, but that being said they're also significantly more expensive than Chicago with frankly comparable public transit systems. Personally I prefer the CTA, but I've seen plenty of people argue in favor of the others on this forum numerous times before.
As for Chicago's allure, I certainly understand it. It's what brought me here. Not a problem about talking with you. I wish you the best of luck
I just noticed, when I was up there, a lot of cars, surface parking, and relatively few people walking around, even in premier neighborhoods. It was surprising and, well, disappointing.
This is a good example of what I saw in Chicago back in October:
So that's a major thoroughfare in Lincoln Park with a rather large surface parking lot next to a movie theater. Not on person waiting on a corner to cross the street. Just lots of cars driving around.
But it is what it is. I mean, it's way better than what I have here. It's just that I'm questioning whether or not Chicago is urban/walkable/PT enough to justify all of the associated headaches with moving up there. That's it really.
I had a car the entire time I lived in Lakeview. The first few years my time at work was split between suburban clients, out of town clients, and going to an office in the Loop, so I drove my car somewhat regularly if going to the burbs or the airport. My parents are in the burbs, so it was easier to visit with my car. Once I changed jobs and worked downtown 100% of the time my mileage dropped to about 3,000 miles per year from 15,000. I had a roommate that never owned a car. It's very manageable if you live near an El stop, grocery store, gym and few other places you may frequent regularly. I would bike for transportation occasionally as well.
As others mentioned, main thoroughfares will be crowded on the appropriate day. I definitely prefer it to New York as there's actually room to walk around here.
The intersection in the picture has the surface parking, but that stretch of Clybourn used to be industrial and had been redeveloped. If you were to visit or in your case view on google maps the entire stretch for the next half mile southeast you'd see plenty of parking lots. If you look at the stretch of Lincoln Ave from Belmont to Wells you'd see maybe a couple gas stations, a couple parking lots and lots of other buildings that require street parking. Same with Broadway through Lakeview, or Halsted or Southport. You'll see plenty of parking on Ashland, stretches of which would blend in with the outer limits of the city as its a major continuous road throughout the city that nearly stretches to the northern and southern borders. Western Ave is similar.
You're correct that public transit is a bit weaker for east west travel in certain areas.
I had a car the entire time I lived in Lakeview. The first few years my time at work was split between suburban clients, out of town clients, and going to an office in the Loop, so I drove my car somewhat regularly if going to the burbs or the airport. My parents are in the burbs, so it was easier to visit with my car. Once I changed jobs and worked downtown 100% of the time my mileage dropped to about 3,000 miles per year from 15,000. I had a roommate that never owned a car. It's very manageable if you live near an El stop, grocery store, gym and few other places you may frequent regularly. I would bike for transportation occasionally as well.
As others mentioned, main thoroughfares will be crowded on the appropriate day. I definitely prefer it to New York as there's actually room to walk around here.
The intersection in the picture has the surface parking, but that stretch of Clybourn used to be industrial and had been redeveloped. If you were to visit or in your case view on google maps the entire stretch for the next half mile southeast you'd see plenty of parking lots. If you look at the stretch of Lincoln Ave from Belmont to Wells you'd see maybe a couple gas stations, a couple parking lots and lots of other buildings that require street parking. Same with Broadway through Lakeview, or Halsted or Southport. You'll see plenty of parking on Ashland, stretches of which would blend in with the outer limits of the city as its a major continuous road throughout the city that nearly stretches to the northern and southern borders. Western Ave is similar.
You're correct that public transit is a bit weaker for east west travel in certain areas.
Thanks for sharing!
I can definitely see the miles dropping way off if you're working in the Loop. If I were to live there, the Loop would be more of a novelty/experience than anything else. A place to marvel, go on a river architecture tour, and visit Grant/Millennium. When I visited, I tried to imagine what it would be like if I were living there, and I definitely noticed issues with going east-west. Living in LP and working at a gym in, say, Bucktown would present issues. Of course, there's Uber and the bus. Always options.
Having everything nearby is key. That's how I've survived living w/o a car in a city like Sarasota, which is most certainly not designed for it.
I only shared that Google Map view because that's kind of emblematic of a good chunk of what I saw when I was up there in October. Again, much better than what I have down here. And if Chicago were more SF-like, it'd probably have SF-like prices. Can't have it all.
I think there's a stats interpretation part that's missing from your original post. One thing to realize is that SF and Boston are much smaller in physical land area than Chicago is. If yoi tried to draw an apples to apples comparison, Chicago's land area takes into account areas that are equivalent to SF and Boston's suburbs which would drive down the percentage of mass transit users and walkscore. In actuality, the sheer contiguous area that's good for living car free in Chicago is likely larger and more varied than that for SF and Boston.
I think there's a stats interpretation part that's missing from your original post. One thing to realize is that SF and Boston are much smaller in physical land area than Chicago is. If yoi tried to draw an apples to apples comparison, Chicago's land area takes into account areas that are equivalent to SF and Boston's suburbs which would drive down the percentage of mass transit users and walkscore. In actuality, the sheer contiguous area that's good for living car free in Chicago is likely larger and more varied than that for SF and Boston.
Absolutely. Great point. I mentioned the development/blight issues in many neighborhoods like Austin and Garfield Park that can negatively skew Chicago, but the density of the city is also negatively affected by the sheer size of the city limits. This is something that has a reverse effect for a city like Miami, whose Walkscore is high due to the relatively small size of the city. Comparing metros is sometimes more apt, depending on what you want to look at.
However, one is probably not going to live/work/play in an area in Chicago that would be any bigger than, say, the size of the city of Boston (48 sq. land miles) anyway. Said another way, one is probably going to live much of their life in Chicago in an area that's probably only 1/4 of the city (or perhaps less). I doubt people living in Lincoln Park spend much time in Calumet Heights. And when looking through that lens, one has to really concentrate on the neighborhoods they're going to live/work/play in. To that point, that's why I was asking about the viability and commonality of car-free living in many of the vaunted N and NW neighborhoods. I think the lifestyle possibilities are there, but perhaps not to the degree I first assumed. It's disappointing, but, I mean, the city is still wonderful. And it's one of the best options in the country. That's because the US only offers a small handful of options (NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, and perhaps a couple others).
Chicago has my heart. I love the city. I've probably spent hundreds of hours reading about the place. It fascinates me. I dreamed of being there as a kid. It's just that the trade-offs of moving/living there (taxes, higher COL, weather, etc.) are only worth it for me if a truly urban and urbane existence is possible. If it's not really all the way there, I'm not sure I'm not better off where I'm at (considering its own set of trade-offs). To be honest, I'm trying to have it all and pay little for it. So it's not Chicago's fault. But life is short. And I'm always looking to maximize everything I can, while simultaneously considering opportunity costs pragmatically.
Others have assisted you point-by-point, so I'll give a general thought or two.
First, it sounds like you have a bit of money behind you. So I'd recommend, emphatically, that you move straight to NYC. By all your criteria, it's the place for you. It's a walker's paradise. Its streets thrum with vitality and commerce at all hours of the day and night. It's the best place in the nation to advance your career. (Unless you're a coal miner or a cattle rancher, but even then there's probably a niche.) It has the subway.
The thing about Chicago is it's flawed. It's a fabulous, unique, deeply flawed city. Amazing history, steeped in culture, marvellous vernacular architecture and sound urban design. It's also politically horrendous and battling a segregationist legacy. It gets quiet at night. Its new buildings have effing parking podiums and locals moan to their aldermen about traffic. The CTA covers most of it but transit can be a hassle. Its finances are a mess and there's a real danger that doctrinaire right-wingers will use that to turn the place into another Bumcrack, Indiana.
If you need a city to fill you with life, energy and inspiration then Chicago ain't going to cut it. (No shame in it. Many people are like this.) You'll probably grow to loathe it and wind up writing nasty things about it. You certainly wouldn't be the first in that regard.
On the other hand, if you bring those things with you, and can see past its flaws then it will make a fine place to live. I personally love the city. I spend a lot of time there. I've read all its history, just like you have. I follow its politics and its business news. There's something about it that hooks me and makes me want it to succeed. I could see myself moving there one day and hanging out with the writers I know there. But I know I'll need to prepare for a lot of problems, like nocturnal deadness and financial dire straits, that NY doesn't have.
(Full disclosure: I'm a transplant from Australia living in NYC. Note that I'm not a 'New Yorker', because, frankly I was neither born nor elemtary-schooled in the city. Just a rootless, transient floater. So take all this with a large crystal of NaCl.)
Edit: Noticed you mentioned Firsco. SF really ain't all that great. At night, it makes Chicago look like Hong Kong. All the beatnik and fringe-culture stuff ended forty years ago. Aside from its Opera, its cultural attractions are breathtakingly second-rate. Its transit isn't as cohesive or comprehensive as Chicago's -- Chi at least has two 24-hour lines. It's outrageously expensive because all the tech money there pumps up constrained housing supply. (NIMBYs rule the joint.) The only reason I'd ever move there is if I was at the top of the tech game and wanted to get in on the action.
Last edited by compactspace; 05-02-2017 at 03:14 AM..
You sound like you'd be disappointed living here. You are SO freaking idealistic. It's as "urban and urbane" as you make it. I DON'T live in one of the "vaunted" north side neighborhoods. I live north of them and about a mile or so west of the lake. I live off a busy street, but the street adjacent to my apartment building has easy street parking. I LIKE that. I walk less than 2 miles to work, in the winter when it's icy out I take the bus. I mainly use my car for grocery shopping as I prefer to go once a week. I'm glad that I don't have to fight through a crowd of people when I am walking, though there are plenty of other people out walking on their way to the Metra train and the L on my morning commute.
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.
