3 ms·
> pay and mobility, and so will not follow you to the middle of nowhere. I've never seen pay properly compensate for the harsh (tangible) expenses of living in
by 15155 11y ago
> pay and mobility, and so will not follow you to the middle of nowhere.
I've never seen pay properly compensate for the harsh (tangible) expenses of living in SF/CA.
Seattle, Austin, Boulder, in my experience, have all had far better value props.
> Chicago housing market into SF's
As much as I dislike Chicago (political reasons): SF-style-housing-market can't happen there. The city has massive amounts of sprawl, vehicular commuting is common, real estate is plentiful and inexpensive. It's not a peninsula full of NIMBYs.
- superuser2 11y agoYou can always put housing further from the center, but the radius of not-insane commute times is much harder to expand. Wider highways encourage further-flung suburbs, resulting in at best the same level of congestion, often more. Fortunately Chicago already has the CTA and Metra infrastructure, and we could presumably make trains longer (and run them more frequently) for a reasonable price. Though at some point you hit the limits of safe separation between trains and the inefficiencies of block signaling. CTA rail doesn't have the physical infrastructure to run express services (there are very few places where a train on a specific line can bypass another) so building more stations doesn't necessarily help you either.