Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro
I'm not so sure Chicago can. We like to hang onto this romanticized version of Daniel Burnhams boomtown Chicago, but that was 100+ years ago. The fact is the city is bleeding residents and those who remain are culturally conservative and elect leaders who reflect that. Chicago is the capital of Midwestern NIMBYism. Basic, 21st century urban planning/development theories are eschewed for more parking and more lanes and more "open space" (i.e. keeping density down).
Would Chicago in 1900 have trouble building a few miles of BRT on Ashland? Would builders with money to burn get push back against building a massive tower at a spot like 400 LSD? Would a giant hole in the ground at a major neighborhood intersection like Milwaukee/Irving collect stagnant water for years rather than build a measly 5 story residential building and a grocery store?
Meanwhile cities all over the country are developing billion dollar heavy transit or game changing skyscrapers. I'm getting pretty fed up with the atmosphere of stagnation/decline that hangs over Chicago. Some leaders are going to need to get bold to save this city from falling further from it's former glory as the nation's second city.
|
Pretty bad take actually. Chicago is not anywhere near declining. It is losing a small amount of population, but it's economy when adjusted for population is doing quite well. Job growth until COVID was strong. You really think there are a lot of US cities building amazing architecture everywhere? Most US cities look pretty bland compared to Chicago. Most transit systems are a joke in the US. CTA is better than 99% of US city transit systems.