CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

why do people act like Chicago exists in a bubble and also wont suffer its own adverse effects? while it might not be threatened by rising seas, seeing Chicago have the climate of modern day Austin by the end of the century isnt exactly something to relish or cheer. which btw will impact our own vegetation, tree canopy, health of the lake, quality of life, etc. to say nothing of the unimaginable global upheaval which will make this whole notion of some leisurely privileged American midwestern lifestyle seem beyond quaint. this whole idea that Chicago somehow stands to profit as the rest of the world crumbles is insufferable, and if it comes to pass its not really a world i think any of us are going to want to inhabit anyway.

the automatic assumption of climate change as a net positive for chicago is likely rooted in the boosterism that infects the forum but the city should be preparing for the extreme long-term inevitable consequences of global climate change, including sea level rise likely to render densely populated areas uninhabitable.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

the automatic assumption of climate change as a net positive for chicago is likely rooted in the boosterism that infects the forum but the city should be preparing for the extreme long-term inevitable consequences of global climate change, including sea level rise likely to render densely populated areas uninhabitable.

at 181M above sea level (594') I'd say Chicago is a good bet - and many of the others (NYC, London, Bombay, Shanghai, Tokyo) are a decidedly bad bet.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by harryc

at 181M above sea level (594') I'd say Chicago is a good bet - and many of the others (NYC, London, Bombay, Shanghai, Tokyo) are a decidedly bad bet.

I think we too often focus on the NYC and London type cities but it's the Miami's and NOLAs not to mention large swaths of extremely dense southeast and South Asia abroad.

Immigration to the US and especially Chicago isn't what it once was and current political conditions aren't likely to change that anytime soon. But given our declining national birth rates, it's easy to see how there could be large future waves of immigration in the not too distant future.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Yeah Miami is already having problems with frequent coastal flooding at high tide even without significant adverse weather. Miami is likely to become some sort of futuristic Venice where it will eventually be hundreds of highrises with the first 2-3 floors flooded and the lobby just moving up a floor as needed. The big existential threat to Miami is what happens if one of those nasty nasty storms that blew up in the Gulf last year lands a direct "dirty side" blow on Miami after feeding on global warming charged waters.

But I think the city with the biggest global warming target on it's back is Houston. They've had three or four "100 year" flooding events in the past 4 years alone. At what point does that entire area just become toxic to insurance companies and everyone is forced to leave or live their at their own risk? I mean Hurricane Harvey dumped 5 feet of rain in some places, how the hell are you supposed to live with storms like that happening? And it would be one thing if it were some freak event, but this is now the third or fourth time in the last few years Houston has been destroyed by flooding.

We just had a 100 year flooding event at my family cottage up on the Wolf River in Wisconsin which was coursing with all the meltoff from that late season blizzard that dumped 30+ inches around Green Bay. I've never seen the river that deep before, it was overtopping everyone's seawall. We just had a flood survey done to try to prove we were out of the 100 year flood plain which massively reduces our flood insurance. Sure enough 90% of our yard was above that plain. And guess what, the water stopped almost exactly where the lines on the survey were. So my point is we have a shit ton of knowledge on weather patterns accumulated over a century or more. 100 year floods are 100 year floods, they simply do not happen three or four times in a row. We've had the cottage in our family for 20+ years and it's never even come close to the top of the seawall. Now we know what the 100 year event looks like and shouldn't see it again for a long time. It's not normal to have 3 or 4 in a row, that's just really freaky. It either means our climate science for the Houston area is wayyyyy off or it means that the old 100 year flood standard is no longer accurate which means a lot of people are going to have to move.

PS: Literally the first thing I did after posting this was check the weather because it started raining and I saw this:



That's the remains of the first named tropical storm of the season still spinning 800 miles inland. That's just bizarre, we get the remnants of tropical depressions up here all the time, but they don't stay fully formed like this. It probably has something to do with, I dunno, 90+ degree temps in late May in the Midwest...

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

And yet it is also this building style that leads to these cities have astronomical housing prices since it leads to running out space quickly and then rampant NIMBY-ism(San Fran is the best example in the US). If Chicago wants to avoid this they will allow high rises to be built in many areas.

You are aware that Chicago is down 1,000,000 residents from its peak are you not? One million people, decades before the residential explosion of River North, Streeterville, LSE, Loop, South Loop, West Loop... areas which are not even close to being built out.

As a whole the city has a population density of 11,500ppsm. Logan Square, a community that is 98% three floors or less is double that. There is TONS of room for population growth in Chicago. Sure, there are favored quarters of the city where housing is tight, but areas like Lincoln Park and Lakeview are victims of deconversions and RS-3 zoning as much as they are increased demand.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

...
That's the remains of the first named tropical storm of the season still spinning 800 miles inland. That's just bizarre, we get the remnants of tropical depressions up here all the time, but they don't stay fully formed like this. It probably has something to do with, I dunno, 90+ degree temps in late May in the Midwest...

Have you heard of the HuronCane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Lake_Huron_cyclone

[harryc]

Originally Posted by emathias

Have you heard of the HuronCane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Lake_Huron_cyclone

Not the same thing at all.

[10023]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The North side is a very similar built form, at least along the lakefront, to a city like Paris plus a long row of highrises. Blocks upon blocks of 3-5 story buildings.

Umm, no it isn’t. Neither is the North Side “blocks upon blocks of 3-5 story buildings” (there are tons of underutilzed gaps in that, surface parking, etc), nor is Paris (which is mostly 6-8 story buildings). Have you been to Paris?

And I know why Chicago is overbuilt. I’m just saying that it would actually be better IF most roads were narrower and IF commercial/retail was more concentrated. If it were just an occasional 3-4 block stretch of Ashland or Western or even Belmont that was zoned for it, with multiple floors of commercial space (shops/restaurants on the ground, things like dentists and lawyers’ offices above, plus apartments above that), then the neighborhoods would have much more vibrant commercial districts and so many wouldn’t look like this: https://goo.gl/maps/oi7G15JcYiQ2

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

Umm, no it isn’t. Neither is the North Side “blocks upon blocks of 3-5 story buildings” (there are tons of underutilzed gaps in that, surface parking, etc), nor is Paris (which is mostly 6-8 story buildings). Have you been to Paris?

And I know why Chicago is overbuilt. I’m just saying that it would actually be better IF most roads were narrower and IF commercial/retail was more concentrated. If it were just an occasional 3-4 block stretch of Ashland or Western or even Belmont that was zoned for it, with multiple floors of commercial space (shops/restaurants on the ground, things like dentists and lawyers’ offices above, plus apartments above that), then the neighborhoods would have much more vibrant commercial districts and so many wouldn’t look like this: https://goo.gl/maps/oi7G15JcYiQ2

Your cited example is Belmont Ave....way the hell out....west of friggin Cicero Ave?

Dude, that's practically in the burbs.

Anyhow, you're kind of preaching to the choir--all of us here like multilevel buildings with a pedestrian oriented bent. So I don't know what you're trying to achieve by reminding us of how much European cities resemble a magical paradise built by Elves and Gnomes. Lest you forgot--America is kind of a "car is king" kinda place, so we have a wee bit of an uphill battle over here...

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

You are aware that Chicago is down 1,000,000 residents from its peak are you not? One million people, decades before the residential explosion of River North, Streeterville, LSE, Loop, South Loop, West Loop... areas which are not even close to being built out.

As a whole the city has a population density of 11,500ppsm. Logan Square, a community that is 98% three floors or less is double that. There is TONS of room for population growth in Chicago. Sure, there are favored quarters of the city where housing is tight, but areas like Lincoln Park and Lakeview are victims of deconversions and RS-3 zoning as much as they are increased demand.

Besides the fact that people lived in much denser and worse conditions, a million people is nothing if we deal with a mass exodus from the South. We would be talking about millions upon millions of people.

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Your cited example is Belmont Ave....way the hell out....west of friggin Cicero Ave?

Dude, that's practically in the burbs.

Anyhow, you're kind of preaching to the choir--all of us here like multilevel buildings with a pedestrian oriented bent. So I don't know what you're trying to achieve by reminding us of how much European cities resemble a magical paradise built by Elves and Gnomes. Lest you forgot--America is kind of a "car is king" kinda place, so we have a wee bit of an uphill battle over here...

I’m from Chicago, I get it. It’s better than 99% of places in the US. But let’s not get carried away. Nowhere in the world has the consistent pedestrian-oriented density that Paris has (not even NYC or London), and it couldn’t be recreated now. The urban fabric there is unparalleled. And it’s top of mind for me right now because I was there last weekend.

My point remember was that it would be nice to have some variation in the topography on the outskirts of Chicago. I might have posted Belmont west of the Kennedy, but that’s more representative of Chicago’s 220+ square miles than Belmont between the Red Line and Lincoln Park. And even Clark St through Lincoln Park or Lakeview doesn’t have the consistent 6-8 story streetwalls of Paris. It was a poor comparison.

This is good, but it’s not Paris: https://goo.gl/maps/s4x81Z4yYqK2

[Baronvonellis]

Yea, I was just in Louisville this weekend and there was only 1 street for about 5 blocks that was similar to Lincoln Park. Nashville is alot more urban for the south. It's really booming, and I met alot of former Chicago southsiders there. But Chicago ain't Paris y'all!

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yea, I was just in Louisville this weekend and there was only 1 street for about 5 blocks that was similar to Lincoln Park. Nashville is alot more urban for the south. It's really booming, and I met alot of former Chicago southsiders there. But Chicago ain't Paris y'all!

No one said it was Paris. The two are totally different beasts and will never feel the same. Chicago is much better at certain things(such as hospitality ) and Paris has a much richer history and more defined culture.

[bnk]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...530-story.html


Illinois approves Equal Rights Amendment, 36 years after deadline

The Illinois House voted on the federal Equal Rights Amendment, more than 35 years after the deadline to ratify it passed. (Erin Hooley / Chicago Tribune)

Rick Pearson, Bill Lukitsch

....

Whether the amendment can be added to the nation’s founding document is still a matter of debate among constitutional experts. Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in constitutional law, said it’s unclear “there’s an obvious right or wrong answer.”
Some critics have also questioned the necessity of such an amendment, saying federal laws have already been passed to extend equal rights to women. Stone said ratification of the amendment “would make some difference in marginal cases where the law allows discrimination today” and “lock in” many of the federal protections women have gained over the decades.
“The main reason for adopting the Equal Rights Amendment today if one could legally, constitutionally do it would be the symbolic importance of it,” Stone said. “The rejection of it is in some ways insulting. So, the symbolic importance of it is to who we are as a nation — what our aspirations are, what our values are. That in itself is an important affirmation of who we are.”


...


For further reading...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/u...-illinois.html




Is this an Amazon move?


All states left not voting for are in the south. Theoretically only one more state is needed to approve but the deadline is passed. This might just be symbolic in nature.

That said there are several conservative states that rescinded their vote so if it was really going to try to pass all hell would break loose...SCOTUS would at the end have to resolve this constitutional issue.


This is IMO no closer to passing but it could put a pox upon states that rejected it totally IMO.

[MayorOfChicago]

Random but interesting, this is the difference in violent crime rates for the below cities compared to Chicago (positive means they're higher, negative they're lower) for metro and city. Chicago isn't really that bad at all.

City Only - % that crime is higher or lower than Chicago's violent crime rate:

Detroit: 95%
St Louis: 101%
Miami: 13%
New Orleans: 5%
Memphis: 93%
Milwaukee: 77%
Washington DC: 33%
Cleveland: 48%
Atlanta: 24%
Houston: 7%
Los Angeles: -30%
Minneapolis: 18%
Philadelphia: 14%
San Francisco: -14%
Seattle: -34%
NYC: -37%

Entire Metro Area - % that crime is higher or lower than Chicago's violent crime rate:

Detroit: 32%
St Louis: 29%
Miami: 35%
New Orleans: 42%
Memphis: 175%
Milwaukee: 80%
Washington DC: -14%
Cleveland: 21%
Atlanta: 6%
Houston: 50%
Los Angeles: 14%
Minneapolis: -25%
Philadelphia: 22%
San Francisco: 28%
Seattle: -14%
NYC: -6%

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

Random but interesting, this is the difference in violent crime rates for the below cities compared to Chicago (positive means they're higher, negative they're lower) for metro and city. Chicago isn't really that bad at all.

City Only - % that crime is higher or lower than Chicago's violent crime rate:

Detroit: 95%
St Louis: 101%
Miami: 13%
New Orleans: 5%
Memphis: 93%
Milwaukee: 77%
Washington DC: 33%
Cleveland: 48%
Atlanta: 24%
Houston: 7%
Los Angeles: -30%
Minneapolis: 18%
Philadelphia: 14%
San Francisco: -14%
Seattle: -34%
NYC: -37%

Entire Metro Area - % that crime is higher or lower than Chicago's violent crime rate:

Detroit: 32%
St Louis: 29%
Miami: 35%
New Orleans: 42%
Memphis: 175%
Milwaukee: 80%
Washington DC: -14%
Cleveland: 21%
Atlanta: 6%
Houston: 50%
Los Angeles: 14%
Minneapolis: -25%
Philadelphia: 22%
San Francisco: 28%
Seattle: -14%
NYC: -6%

But this simply CAN'T be! It's goes against the media narrative about how everyone who dares enter Chicago will get shot upon entering, and likely murdered before having a chance to leave! OH NOES!!!!



Seriously though, this data does prove one very important thing. It proves that perceptions can be very, very, VERY deceiving!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

Entire Metro Area - % that crime is higher or lower than Chicago's violent crime rate:

To clarify, is this second set of data compared to just Chicago or is it the Chicago metro?

[bnk]

Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall..

Opps...

Edit

I meant to say Mr. Emanuel cover these rail tracks... For access to the lake and museum campus.


I cant imagine this building and the others on the south end of Grant Park would not approve, but currently they do not seem to want to cough up even a partial cash component to see it through to fruition.

If those tracks were covered and easy access to the Park were realized the premium on those condos and hotels would be worth it in the long term unless it is so ungodly expensive to do so.


Hell the city with corporate help covered Millennium park with thousands of tons of works above them and created parking garages to boot.

Maggie Daily park did almost likewise at much a less expense.

All I am asking for is a simple light grass park ... Nothing more.


But at the glacial pace these ideas are addresses, I'm not convinced I will ever see them done in my years left on this planet. Which is practicly insane due to the increased resale of a place in a condo or a higher charge for a hotel room if this measure was treated with such importance as I have always thought about it.

I remember walking to Solder Field walking friends across the wastelands of the tracks and being embarssed about the tracks and the lack of anything worthwhile to look at other than a wooden platform station that was falling over at that point.

For those that are not locals its hard to navigate west from that area post games and there are just a few dedicated bridges to cross the wastelands.


Outsiders have said, The city is so clean and beautiful, why can't they make it easy to cross over to our hotels. ect...


The Tracks are IMO an embarrassment and I have no answers to outsiders other than well we did cover millennium park but we cant cover these train tracks because there is no money or interest or what ever reason you can think of. Now this is going back 30 years even before millennium park was just an Idea.


Chicago we have a long way to go to make the South Loop a viable livable hoods IMO. The West loop is booming, its void of ten track train lines...

The 78 west of the river is another ugly example. How in the hell can they be covered. No one wants to pay for it and with Drump as POTUS don't expect any city to benefit from any rail support. Luckily we are almost already finished with CREATE that Obama and LaHood helped our region with the help of the senior Lipinski Dem house member that was very helpful in pushing the goals of CREATE and making a real difference. His son I am not sure about, for he seems a back bencher and it appears he is not a real go getter as his father, but that said he has no where near the seniority as his old man did. That could be a general problem of congress where the old timers get the plum assignments and have a factor in where money is spent. The younger seems to have no real influence from what I can gather.

Remember our jailed Rostenkowski rep that was on the Ways and Means committee? That guy could funnel some real monies into the metro. Its to bad he got so greedy like other IL house Reps.

Hell even The Third in line for the POTUS the pervert Hastert pushed a good amount of federal dollars into the Chicagoland region under Dubya the 2nd. Hell he almost made a third suburban interstate loop around Chicagoland, the Hastert bypass, but it failed eventually luckily

The funny thing is that Illinois is not lacking in political seniority in the last few decades, Durban the 4th or now 5th In line to succeed to the POTUS if needed is a very important member of the Illinois delegation. We need to keep he re elected until he dies in office. But all of that said clout Illinois is still a major substisier-er of the rest of red America. Illinoisans pay more federal taxes that we get back and we have been in this situation for at least 3 decades non stop, even with Obama being the POTUS for two terms. Illinoisans are getting screwed in the amount of taxes paid to the amount we get back for most of my lifetime, and I have not idea how to make at least close to equal.

Obama needed congress to address that matter and it was not a priority for him obviously. If Obama from Chicago and Illinois cant fix the disparity of taxes paid vs taxes received than who the hell can? It seems like we will always be stuck in the position of a suckling pig that the rest of the country benefits from. This is a very sad of state of positon IMO. but Illinois with all of its problems is not such a sorry state that ever person in the media and general conservatives want to make it out to be. [ ESP ] Trying to tie it to the murder capital of the entire world. Data shows that this is untrue. Perceptions has it influences though. Everyone that hated Obama likewise hated Chicago. Every gang on gang gunshot gets all of the reds hot and bothered. It gets posted every single day in conservative websites that I observe.

A hell of a lot of red state Americans think you are likely to get killed in less than 30 minutes s once you cross into city limits. I know its nuts but the perception is out there and it is non stop and its very powerful in the general major medias.

That said Chicago in General is having one of the lowest unemployment in a very long time; Things are looking up in the metro area, its the south of the state that is pulling up it strings and like always retiring to sunnier pastures, like Florida, AZ, and ect.


Funny thing about state population is I personally know at least 10 or more families that semi retired to Florida for 51% of the year but in reality really live in Chicagoland > 7 months of the year to be around their grandchildren.

IMO Florida is like the local USA version of the tax haven that is the Cayman Islands. Its a Tax haven for them and most of the snow birds live there less than 5 months but they willfully act as Florida citizens and do vote down there. Florida and AZ is a wasteland of elderly. I'm not saying its bad I might retire to SW Florida

Someday but its not like I will forget about my roots or use it as a tax shelter. I my self could never imagine living down there more than 6 months to qualify qs a resident and I will not cheat the system like so many retiree snow birds do.

Hell Florida likely has several million people acting as residents that do not live there most of the year and they get the fed funding for all of the old snow birds....



...


anyway trying to get back to point....

Chicagoland at least has been quite successful in corporate expansions and relocations for almost 3 decades regardless of our loss of population on the west and south sides of Chicago. [ Those that do not agree with that statement save your time and not rebut but PM me and I will provide you links to prove my facts ]


Google donor states vs welfare states. Almost all of the states that receive donations are red states from the productive north, east coast, west coast to poor post confederate states of the south. This has probably been going on since the post Lincoln Andrew Jackson era ???



The McCormack Place Semi trailer marshaling yards and general congregations in the area is another place that an Olympic village was to be built upon, after being covered in the 2016 plan.....

The sad situation of the tear down of the Historic Michael Reese Hospital Building is another example of a south loop location that is cut off from the lake by trains and railroads.


That area also was to be developed for the 2016 Chicago Olympiad.

[Notyrview]

^Lol drunk post tho i mostly concur

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

^Lol drunk post tho i mostly concur

Well I did re-read my statement and I did have a few spelling errors. Thank you for addressing that.

Its certainly not purely and cleanly outlined like a , Microsoft power point presentation, which BTW some of the largest and most successful businesses outlawed or simply said they would no longer accept PowerPoint presentations anymore. [ PM me if you do not believe me. ]


BTW I will stand by my previous suggestions and statements.

I will also not deny that I did imbibe on this Friday night and I do state that I do not have to work this weekend.

Those that know me, or at least my previous posts in the last decade would agree this is a mild inebriation for me and I am proud I can post in a reasonable manner even if I have had a few, which is a hell of a lot better than I was posting in the past years ago.


If anyone disagrees with my statement feel free to PM me.


Thanks in advance and carry on folks.


BNK