3 ms·

This is basically a puff piece. Evanston has a cute little downtown area that's great for walking, but like most suburbs, lots of streets don't have sidewalks,

by bbarn 11y ago

This is basically a puff piece. Evanston has a cute little downtown area that's great for walking, but like most suburbs, lots of streets don't have sidewalks, the main route north through it (ridge) is banned to bicycles, forcing awkward navigation of one way streets, etc. We need to stop judging and talking about cities by what their small flashy city-centers are, and start thinking about how people live in and around them. Don't mistake "Actively encouraging retail shopping" with "actively discouraging cars". There are 3 massive parking lots that dump you downtown and all but force you to walk through the outdoor mall there.

bunderbunder 11y ago
Not to mention that outside the dense downtown area, it's hard to get around Evanston efficiently without a car. I'll grant that it's way better than the outer suburbs, and even better than most independent cities. But it's not any better than other suburbs that are served by CTA. It's been a while since I've been to Oak Park, but as I recall it was even more bike and pedestrian friendly than Evanston is.
- tptacek 11y ago
  The major streets in Oak Park all have bike lanes, the minor streets are narrow enough to make bicycling in the street safe for minors (possibly excepting the streets just off Harlem, North, and Austin, which get abused for traffic bypass), and it's hard to live in Oak Park and be more than a 10-15 minute walk from one or sometimes two CTA train lines. Evanston is about twice as big as Oak Park is. If you combine Oak Park and adjacent Forest Park, capturing the end of the CTA blue line, I think you get a more reasonable comparison, in which both suburbs fare about equally. But Oak Park is also very car friendly: residential lots mostly have garages, there are lots every few blocks downtown, and the streets all have convenient metered parking. And, Oak Park's downtown area is far less developed than Evanston's. It's really tough drawing conclusions about suburbs in Chicago from Oak Park; it's barely a suburb at all. Beverly, on the south side of Chicago, is far more suburban than Oak Park is.

by bbarn 11y ago

bunderbunder 11y ago

Not to mention that outside the dense downtown area, it's hard to get around Evanston efficiently without a car. I'll grant that it's way better than the outer suburbs, and even better than most independent cities. But it's not any better than other suburbs that are served by CTA. It's been a while since I've been to Oak Park, but as I recall it was even more bike and pedestrian friendly than Evanston is.

tptacek 11y ago
The major streets in Oak Park all have bike lanes, the minor streets are narrow enough to make bicycling in the street safe for minors (possibly excepting the streets just off Harlem, North, and Austin, which get abused for traffic bypass), and it's hard to live in Oak Park and be more than a 10-15 minute walk from one or sometimes two CTA train lines. Evanston is about twice as big as Oak Park is. If you combine Oak Park and adjacent Forest Park, capturing the end of the CTA blue line, I think you get a more reasonable comparison, in which both suburbs fare about equally. But Oak Park is also very car friendly: residential lots mostly have garages, there are lots every few blocks downtown, and the streets all have convenient metered parking. And, Oak Park's downtown area is far less developed than Evanston's. It's really tough drawing conclusions about suburbs in Chicago from Oak Park; it's barely a suburb at all. Beverly, on the south side of Chicago, is far more suburban than Oak Park is.