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.
Tbh even much of the Chicago war zones (I’d say that an appropriate term) look pretty damn good. It has some tougher areas but the majority of the ghetto really looks pretty stately and clean at least when I’ve seen it on TV or in street view. Often times better looking than the Boston hoods. And unlike other midwestern cities they raze building swiftly and efficiently. And the remaining lots don’t get too ratty either.
Alleys, stiff restrictions, and brick for build materials helps those areas stand up well vs. wood/clapboard like you find in Boston neighborhoods. The worst Boston neighborhoods look more broken down than the worst neighborhoods in Chicago, less the areas in Chicago that have been torn down into fields. That's just downright eerie.
Alleys, stiff restrictions, and brick for build materials helps those areas stand up well vs. wood/clapboard like you find in Boston neighborhoods. The worst Boston neighborhoods look more broken down than the worst neighborhoods in Chicago, less the areas in Chicago that have been torn down into fields. That's just downright eerie.
My sentiments exactly. Some of the worst Boston areas look pretty...ramshackle.
The entire inland neighborhoods on Chicago's North Side are very nice. And no more dangerous than the average American community. They feel like suburbans, but you have access to the L and aren't under the rule of a village.
Pilsen is one of those neighborhoods that everyone has been saying is next to boom. Two decades in the making, it really hasn't. But it's nice, and is in a good location for commuters to the Loop.
Comparatively, and despite being further from the Loop, areas like Logan Square have really seen that type of growth.
Pilsen is one of those neighborhoods that everyone has been saying is next to boom. Two decades in the making, it really hasn't. But it's nice, and is in a good location for commuters to the Loop.
Comparatively, and despite being further from the Loop, areas like Logan Square have really seen that type of growth.
I'm fine with it not booming and becoming expensive. It's a neighborhood I like. Great Mexican food among other things, good local bars and venues, pretty good historic architecture, lots of neighborhood parks, less than half hour to downtown on frequent rapid transit, large two bedrooms available for well under $2K a month.
I think to some degree, this is what makes urban Chicago more exciting and bustling than urban Boston even accounting for the size difference. There's a lot more breathing space to engage in a lot of different activities that are optimized towards immediately making or saving money.
Anyhow, I like the Pilsen/Bridgeport set of neighborhoods and wish they were better linked. I think it'd be great if there was a park on the Chicago River set on both sides of the river in each respective neighborhood about halfway east-west through one of the Chicago superblocks with a pedestrian and bike bridge crossing the river within this park and the Halstead Orange Line stop bridging up to the other side of the tracks. Like between these two points: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.8...b1!4m2!4m1!3e2
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-27-2022 at 02:25 PM..
Pilsen is one of those neighborhoods that everyone has been saying is next to boom. Two decades in the making, it really hasn't. But it's nice, and is in a good location for commuters to the Loop.
Comparatively, and despite being further from the Loop, areas like Logan Square have really seen that type of growth.
They have done everything imaginable to stop Pilsen from booming. Residents there and Sigcho-Lopez are about as anti-developer/development as it gets. They protest bars attempting to open there for being gentrification efforts. Chicago neighborhoods like Pilsen, Humboldt Park and Woodlawn for example are constantly trying to stop "displacement."
Development along the 606 has been fought against by these same types for years. Everybody wants investment and equity until a proposal is announced. If someone's parents or grandparents lived-in a neighborhood or owned a business then they have a God-given right to that land always being affordable for their income bracket as if it's the city's duty to assure residents that racial and economic demographics of a given area will never change. On the other side of the coin you have yuppies that don't want wealthier or poorer people than them living in their neighborhoods so developments are kept sparce and can't be too dense, "affordable" or luxurious. This is how populations are artificially capped and the neighborhoods are treated like museums that can't ever be transformed because nobody truly wants any significant change.
Lincoln Park has 4,000 fewer dwelling units than it did in the 1960's and 35,000 less people than its peak when its desirability has skyrocketed as well as the amount of people who can afford to live there. Chicago is very conservative at its' core and always has been. Fulton Market would be identical buildings with nothing taller than 15 stories if it were left to the people. It takes a Burnett with vision to stand-up and welcome radical growth.
They have done everything imaginable to stop Pilsen from booming. Residents there and Sigcho-Lopez are about as anti-developer/development as it gets. They protest bars attempting to open there for being gentrification efforts. Chicago neighborhoods like Pilsen, Humboldt Park and Woodlawn for example are constantly trying to stop "displacement."
Development along the 606 has been fought against by these same types for years. Everybody wants investment and equity until a proposal is announced. If someone's parents or grandparents lived-in a neighborhood or owned a business then they have a God-given right to that land always being affordable for their income bracket as if it's the city's duty to assure residents that racial and economic demographics of a given area will never change. On the other side of the coin you have yuppies that don't want wealthier or poorer people than them living in their neighborhoods so developments are kept sparce and can't be too dense, "affordable" or luxurious. This is how populations are artificially capped and the neighborhoods are treated like museums that can't ever be transformed because nobody truly wants any significant change.
Lincoln Park has 4,000 fewer dwelling units than it did in the 1960's and 35,000 less people than its peak when its desirability has skyrocketed as well as the amount of people who can afford to live there. Chicago is very conservative at its' core and always has been. Fulton Market would be identical buildings with nothing taller than 15 stories if it were left to the people. It takes a Burnett with vision to stand-up and welcome radical growth.
I agree that NIMBYism can be bad, but at the same time, there are a lot of parts of Chicago close to downtown that can truly use some radical shifting and population increases that would not require or engender very little displacement of people in the neighborhoods. I'm not sure how they'd go about getting that up and going though aside from what's being seen in the Near South Side.
Tbh even much of the Chicago war zones (I’d say that an appropriate term) look pretty damn good. It has some tougher areas but the majority of the ghetto really looks pretty stately and clean at least when I’ve seen it on TV or in street view. Often times better looking than the Boston hoods. And unlike other midwestern cities they raze building swiftly and efficiently. And the remaining lots don’t get too ratty either.
I don’t know why you’d expect any significant part of Chicago to really look like Detroit, Cleveland or St Louis.Chicago propers population decline looks a lot more like Boston than Cleveland. Although there are areas that are worse off (like parts of the near south side by Cominski)
But I do think generally larger apartment buildings help. A 50% vacant 21 unit building in Chicago would be a 7 triple Deckers with 0,0,1,2,2,2,3 units filled. Meaning probably 2 blighted properties vs 0 in Chicago.
Last edited by btownboss4; 01-27-2022 at 05:58 PM..
Those neighborhoods don't look all that bad. One house has some boards on the windows, but all the other houses look okay.
It’s not the houses are in disrepair- they’re not, that’s the gentrification effect. it’s the haphazard development pattern and tbh streetview makes the areas look a little glossier than they d nIRL- but that’s everywhere. generally the weather isn’t sunny and there’s no trees.
Simply put the neighborhoods are “ramshackle” in comparison to chicagos straight streets, neat lots, masonry, alleyways, hidden power lines, and mature foliage.
In Boston the electrical wires and trash is out and visible and the lot setback are little to non existent in comparison to Chicago. I don’t to tbh ink I got any with the trash out. But it s makes a difference also the narrower streets in Boston when snowed on, don’t allow for ad much space when there a snowstorm like in Chicago. The city’s gonna get 14 inches tomorrow and that’s goi ngl to clog the roads in a way it wouldn’t in Chicago.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 01-28-2022 at 06:44 AM..
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.
