5 ms·

Chicago is mostly real

ironmagma 3y ago
Chicago is just new enough (post-fire) to have been infected with the insane setbacks and building codes that plague the rest of the country to the point that they prohibit any interesting pedestrian-friendly spaces. Mostly, Chicago is like the rest of the country, car-focused and absent of urban fabric.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  What? Have you even seen Chicago? You don’t even need to drive in most of the city. Same with Boston. America has cities that don’t require car dependence and they’re sure not on the west coast.
  - phil21 3y ago
    Most of the city is definitely an exaggeration. Chicago is absolutely a car-first city, and it's pretty obvious having moved here 20 years ago. You can very easily live in areas of the city without a car and I have done so. Plenty of places on the Northside - but those places will be somewhat expensive compared to the city average. The good news of course is that Chicago is generally far cheaper than other large cities, so most folks posting on HN can probably find something that fits the bill. Vast swaths of residential neighborhoods are simply not well serviced by public transit. Especially on the south and west sides where to be blunt, most folks on HN will never visit. These areas look much like the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in elsewhere in the midwest, just slightly more density due to lot lines being closer together. It really is a tale of two cities here. If you can afford to, you can easily live in one of the most walkable and transit friendly cities in the nation. I posit it's only behind NYC for that. However, if you live just 5 miles away in the "wrong" neighborhood your options will be car or relatively poor bus service. Of course your definition may be different than mine. My father considers places like St. Louis livable without a car - but I totally disagree. Sure you can make it work, but at ridiculous expense to your time and lifestyle. I personally bought a place specifically in relation to how close it was to functional rapid transit. I'm privileged enough to do so, but many friends and family simply couldn't afford to live in such areas of the city - if they moved here they would certainly be daily car drivers.
  - ironmagma 3y ago
    Yes, I have been. There’s a difference between being car-independent and having an environment that connects you with other pedestrians.
- baby 3y ago
  For having lived in Chicago I would say it’s much more walkable than SF. Actually I’d say the only city thats more walkable that I’ve been to in the US is nyc
not_really 3y ago
https://heyjackass.com/ https://heyjackass.com/
baby 3y ago
Agree, altho the cold and the lack of diversity are real downsides

Chicago is just new enough (post-fire) to have been infected with the insane setbacks and building codes that plague the rest of the country to the point that they prohibit any interesting pedestrian-friendly spaces. Mostly, Chicago is like the rest of the country, car-focused and absent of urban fabric.

Der_Einzige 3y ago
What? Have you even seen Chicago? You don’t even need to drive in most of the city. Same with Boston. America has cities that don’t require car dependence and they’re sure not on the west coast.
- phil21 3y ago
  Most of the city is definitely an exaggeration. Chicago is absolutely a car-first city, and it's pretty obvious having moved here 20 years ago. You can very easily live in areas of the city without a car and I have done so. Plenty of places on the Northside - but those places will be somewhat expensive compared to the city average. The good news of course is that Chicago is generally far cheaper than other large cities, so most folks posting on HN can probably find something that fits the bill. Vast swaths of residential neighborhoods are simply not well serviced by public transit. Especially on the south and west sides where to be blunt, most folks on HN will never visit. These areas look much like the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in elsewhere in the midwest, just slightly more density due to lot lines being closer together. It really is a tale of two cities here. If you can afford to, you can easily live in one of the most walkable and transit friendly cities in the nation. I posit it's only behind NYC for that. However, if you live just 5 miles away in the "wrong" neighborhood your options will be car or relatively poor bus service. Of course your definition may be different than mine. My father considers places like St. Louis livable without a car - but I totally disagree. Sure you can make it work, but at ridiculous expense to your time and lifestyle. I personally bought a place specifically in relation to how close it was to functional rapid transit. I'm privileged enough to do so, but many friends and family simply couldn't afford to live in such areas of the city - if they moved here they would certainly be daily car drivers.
- ironmagma 3y ago
  Yes, I have been. There’s a difference between being car-independent and having an environment that connects you with other pedestrians.
baby 3y ago
For having lived in Chicago I would say it’s much more walkable than SF. Actually I’d say the only city thats more walkable that I’ve been to in the US is nyc

not_really 3y ago

https://heyjackass.com/ https://heyjackass.com/

baby 3y ago

Agree, altho the cold and the lack of diversity are real downsides