Is this a new problem? The article talks about growing cities creating "endless commutes, growing pollution, and unwalkable neighborhoods." For someone trying t

Is this a new problem? The article talks about growing cities creating "endless commutes, growing pollution, and unwalkable neighborhoods." For someone trying to commute to the airport regularly, it's best to live in the NW suburbs. But Downer's Grove was established in 1873 so it's not as if this is a new problem. Additionally, I agree that it is not entirely convenient to travel between satellite areas of the city, but there are a number of opportunities local to any one part of the city/metro area. I live in a suburb and recently spent a large amount of time looking for a new job, after living in a small part of California with limited opportunities, and while I didn't have the best time looking for a position as a Software Engineer, it's not as if there weren't jobs in any suburb or downtown that I couldn't achieve. I'm not someone who would look to regularly commute downtown but there are both Metra and L-stations that I could access and it's not as if we don't have roads. This sort of sprawl as an issue seems to be targeted towards growing cities and suburbs that are undeveloped in terms of resources and infrastructure. Many of Chicago's suburbs and surrounding areas have really deep histories and local roots. In this sense they become their own neighborhoods, cities, towns, and villages instead of just rows of houses without sidewalks or an endless stretch of strip malls. I think it's also easy to carpool or work around bus schedules if that's really an issue to a commute, or buying an electric car for short journeys like that. The second city is also in a much better position than many other cities in the midwest. Indianapolis and Minneapolis-St. Paul are a lot harder to get around from outside the city, especially if you don't have a car, so I could understand how moving further and further out could be a detriment.