Hyde Park is a very successful, diverse , and attractive neighborhood that my daughter moved into last year, and where my wife owns a condo. Sadly what i have noticed after observing a robbery in that neighborhood is that lately there is too much loitering and suspicious trafficking throughout some of the business thoroughfares and off- streets. What i would advise Lightfoot and the Alderman to do is increase the Police presence in the business area, establish a no loitering zone, and i know implementing a light stop and frisk policy is highly controversial, but it may be effective for the immediate time. These steps may seem draconian for some people of color like myself but we cannot afford to let Hyde Park regress as it represents a good success story in Chicago.

Thinking about recent high-profile incidents, they've involved likely-stolen vehicles. I know privacy advocates would hate this and it wouldn't be cheap, but installing license plate scanners at most stoplights in the city would be pretty effective in making it much harder to use stolen vehicles in crime and to get away from drive-by shootings with witnesses. My understanding is that the University is proposing something like that in Hyde Park (will find out more in half an hour...) . Yeah, it can in principle be used for big brotheresque tracking, but most of us carry surveillance devices in our pockets anyway (and anyway, I don't have a car, so I only get tracked my my cell phone and my ventra app).

This is a no brainer. Tons more speed cameras, red-light cameras, facial identification cameras and license plate scanners would make Chicago--most cities--much more livable and safe. It's dumb that anything a policeman can do, were he present, would be problematic if a cop was looking at a camera instead.

^ The City seems to be more interested in extracting money from taxpayers via red light cameras, which make $$, than facial recognition cameras which might put people in jail that Kim Foxx is trying with her heart & soul to bring to justice but, sigh.....if only there were some evidence!

Facial recognition cameras, while obviously a great source of information that can bring people identified as criminals to justice, is also a major source of consternation for me from a privacy perspective. It's too damned big brother for me, quite honestly.

Perhaps it can be used in very specific areas/circumstances, but widespread use seems to be a severe violation of the right to privacy.

Aaron (Glowrock)

They have arrested suspect, based on surveillance camera / license plate reader evidence. The suspect was 18 and had no criminal history (though according to the Tribune was wanted on a warrant?)


https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/11...chicago-police
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...5wq-story.html

What I don't understand is this:
- If the stolen car got picked up by license plate readers, this was undoubtedly not the first time. Does CPD not bother to use the license plate readers to catch stolen cars? It seems like it wouldn't be THAT hard (though it requires sufficient license plate reader density, I suppose).
- The robber/murderer made $100 off this robbery/murder. Armed robbery doesn't seem very profitable...
- Should the electronics store be under investigation? They must know when something like this is stolen, no?

You know what else was regarded as a huge violation of privacy? License plates. "You mean the police can just track my car?!" Same story with social security numbers. "What if I just want to leave my family and get a new job with a new name in California. Now I can't do that!"

There's no reason to conflate cameras that track Glowrock wherever he goes all day all time with ones that simply act as eyes on the street that can be investigated retroactively in the event that a crime has occurred. Imagine that Chicago has an officer walking around the same block all day who knew most of the people in the neighborhood. If the officer saw one of those people break a car window and then called in his name to the station, that extremely effective policing method would be a state invasion of privacy in the same way that having a camera there would be.

The best system would involve something like a warrant. If there was a high-res camera floating on a blimp 90,000 feet above the city, it would be an invasion of my privacy to create a report of where my car traveled all day everyday. It would not be an invasion of privacy to get a warrant to check the video to see where the car involved in a hit and run drove to and parked.

I see where your coming from (I was born in a country with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitate ), but given that we happily carry surveillance devices in our pockets, i kind of feel like that battle is already lost for the most part. If the government wanted to track you, they already have the means and extra surveillance probably adds little.

It is something that really needs to be thought about. One can choose to not carry a phone and or lock it down if they dont want to be tracked. HOWEVER , there is NO choice if you allow facial recognition cameras all over the place. It is not something i would trust with anyone without the strictest guidelines...and even then i would be afraid of what we would have put in motion.

If we're going in on enforcement/surveillance, I'd prefer to see more speed cameras and bus-lane cameras. The number of Chicagoans killed each year due to traffic collisions and reckless driving dwarfs the number of people killed in carjacking attempts (although overall homicides are still much higher than traffic deaths).

I own a rental building on Wellington in Lakeview with a friend of mine; it is a 3 unit frame building built in 1889 and we are considering demoing for new construction (friend is a home builder in lakeview/north center), jury still out if we will hold and rent or sell units individually.

We are meeting with an architect this week, and just curious on what people here think of a couple items there are disagreements on.

The details:
- 37.5 x 125 lot
- Can build up to 4 units
- Will have a 4 car garage

Items being debated:
- Front Balconies: I think they are table stakes in 2021, my partner hates the look. i've suggested, balconies for the top units and no balcony for the 1st floor unit (with a really nice back covered deck)

-Number of units: We can build 4, I think we go 4. Partner thinks 3 units (Duplex Down, Simplex, Duplex Up) - middle units are TOUGH to sell, but easy to rent.

-Brick vs. Indiana Limestone: This will probably come down to whether we rent or sell, but we both want Limestone 10ft up the front facade with Brick covering the remaining area, but holy shit is it expensive right now!

This is the first time i've gone through this process, just curious what thoughts others have and cool design elements I can bring up to the architect.

Thanks for reading!

^ Before anyone advises you, you REALLY need to decide whether you are going condo or rental before anything else. Because that dictates the strategy

100%. Our architect (who my partner has used dozens of times) is drawing up plans for both options. We need to estimate costs on both approaches before making decisions. My thought is we are over building for rental, given each floor will have ~1,900 sq ft of space.

Wait. How can you invest in new construction in Lakeview? How could that be profitable since no one can live there due to the cost/benefits? You've ranted on here more times than I can count that the taxes are too high for it to be viable.

The building in question has had long term tenants (all have been there 7-10 years) and the building has a ton of deferred maintenance that will require the units to be vacated for an extended period of time. We also got quite the deal on the building when we purchased. However, to answer your question, there will certainly be considerable upfront costs, but long term would be quite the opportunity, regardless of rental or condo.

Right, the issue isn't carjackings directly (as bad as they are), but that stolen vehicles seem to be used in other crimes a lot (though I don't have numbers, and have no idea if a lack of stolen vehicles would actually reduce other crimes).

Funny anecdote: a close architect friend whom I've known since college moved out to SoCal in June after finding a really good job out there. She lived in Chicago her whole life, but always wanted to live near a (saltwater) beach/warm climate. She loved it at first, but I just spoke with her and she said she can't wait to move back. I asked her why, and she said "there is energy in Chicago, it feels alive. Everything here is too...sanitized, and perfect. Almost everyone I meet is very nice and thoughtful, but it's also about getting 'connected', not necessarily making friends, etc. There are no flaws. That's not what a city is, that's not a life. That's a museum, very well-curated, but doesn't tell the real story." It blew my mind to hear her say that, especially after her wanting to move out there for the past 8-10 years.

Again, just an interesting anecdote, didn't know where else to put it..

That's kinda how I feel after being in Europe for three months. Totally ready to be back in the mix of deep dish pizza, strolls down LSD, West Loop, and weekend shenanigans in Boystown. I don't think people in Chicago realize how amazing the city is.

I haven't heard anything about the West Coast being too 'sanitized', so that's a very weird perspective in my book. But I have heard an anecdote about (SF in particular) having lost its life and vibrancy, and that Chicago felt far more energetic and interesting. And this from a Bay Area native

Well, my adoration of Chicago definitely was rekindled a bit this weekend when we stayed downtown for my wife's conference. Albeit it was a token family oriented weekend (swimming pool, Shedd Aquarium, taking kids to the arcade, etc) but the city felt as vibrant as it has been for a long time since COVID.

I am disappointed in the loss of stores to COVID/rioting scumbags and ecommerce that we may never get back (thanks, techie douche bros! :rolleyes: ) but either way we had a really nice time.