the toll booths are only for the out-of-towners without i-pass.

all chicagoland toll roads now have open road tolling (i-pass), so people who live here never actually have to stop at the toll booths anymore (tolls are collected electronically as you whizz by at 70mph).



that's a frequent complaint i hear from out of towners.

for whatever reason, people in chicago tend to use the expressway names, not their interstate numbers.

it's like the anti-LA.

Yeah, and especially because they're Mexicans cramming themselves into those wood-framed houses.

If they were white dudes in their 30s with silly beards wearing fashionable retro frames, who skateboard to work 2x per week at the tech coworking space, then Milwaukee would be really urban.

Yup. That, and having to see Blagoyavich's (sp?) ugly mug on construction billboards near every toll booth was all that I remember about travelling through Illinois to the Wisconsin state line.

LA (and Riverside and Orange counties) have had those electronic passes forever. I went to college in Orange County from 2002-06 and was always envious of everyone using Fastlane passes on the 91.

Having visited Chicago after living in LA and Phoenix, and even Cincinnati (the only freeways there with nicknames that anyone uses with regularity are Fort Washington Way, Cross County Highway and the Norwood Lateral) that was a nightmare. LA freeways have nicknames, but hardly anyone uses them (freeway interchanges like the Orange Crush and El Toro Y notwithstanding).

I love those regional differences and colloquialisms. Then again, a decent GPS system in 2006 cost around $200 and our only resources were maps, Thomas Guides and Mapquest/Google Maps. We were so primitive back then...

You like five ways, right? I'm a three way person myself ;)

Why are attached housing always seen as more urban than unattached housing? As long as the townhomes and apartments are close to each other with some space for alleys or driveways, separate housing could be just as dense and walkable. Plus you have some Independence and privacy since you're not wall to wall with your neighbors.

All jokes aside, if the latter were true, yeah the neighborhoods would probably be functionally more urban.

Affluent 20-somethings are likely contributing much more to characteristics of "good urbanity" than immigrant extended families. Babies and 80-somethings aren't exactly fueling new bistros or gallery openings.

5 way all day long!

and i know this might be blasphemy over in ohio, but when i make skyline for myself at home (yeah, the canned stuff, it's the best i can do), i do a chicago variation of 5 way that replaces the kidney beans with black beans. amo frijoles negros!

I don't think it's blasphemy, and even though I don't like beans, what you do sounds better than the kidney beans most parlors use in their four and five ways. Best I can do is buy cans of Skyline here in Arizona at Fry's (owned by Kroger). I don't even bother making coneys because I can never find the right wieners and buns. Almost everyone I've introduced it to here in Arizona and in California loved it, way before that asshole Albert Burneko at Deadspin decided to shit on it (metaphorically).

And that's how you derail a discussion, folks. ;)

White people = good urbanity = bistros and galleries

No, it's age and affluence. Has nothing to do with race.

Young rich people = good urbanity = bistros and galleries

To some extent, all things equal, yes. Again, babies and seniors aren't contributing to urbanity in the same way as 20-somethings, especially those with resources.

If you have neighborhood A, where typical household is mom/dad with four kids, and neighborhood B has six working 20-somethings per unit, they're "the same" per Census density counts, yet impact on urban environment will be notably different.

And that's, in part, why North Williamsburg is more vibrant than South Williamsburg, despite having much lower density. Density certainly contributes to urbanity, but it isn't determinitive.

Suburbs in the city = good urbanity

No.

This is very vibrant, messy, but good urbanity. North Williamsburg-

https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+...!4d-73.9577163

This is more flawed urbanity. South Williamsburg-

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7002...7i13312!8i6656

S. Williamsburg is much less vibrant, at street level, than N. Williamsburg, despite having much higher density. In part it's because of demographic differences.

And good and white.

Suburbs in the city.

South Williamsburg is also very white. Unless you don't consider Jews to be white.

Edit: Also, city neighborhoods dominated by families with children are much more "suburbs in the city" than ones dominated by young single people.

Unless they're Mexican, of course.

i'd much rather live in age-diverse neighborhood than one dominated by any single age cohort.

i want it all: the babies in strollers, the kids on the playground, the high schoolers smoking weed in the alleys, the college kids riding their fixies down the street, the young professionals fetching their ubers, the young parents going out for date nights, baby-boomers attending storefront theaters, the 80 year old grannies walking to church/synagogue/mosque.

that's one thing i love about my new neighborhood: while it's a little biased toward the young professional crowd, it still has a little bit of everything.

my zip code 60625:

Under 5 years - 7.5%
5 to 9 years - 5.3%
10 to 14 years - 4.6%
15 to 19 years - 5.2%
20 to 24 years - 7.2%
25 to 29 years - 10.7%
30 to 34 years - 11.7%
35 to 39 years - 9.9%
40 to 44 years - 7.2%
45 to 49 years - 6.3%
50 to 54 years - 5.9%
55 to 59 years - 5.1%
60 to 64 years - 4.6%
65 to 69 years - 3.3%
70 to 74 years - 1.9%
75 to 79 years - 1.4%
80 to 84 years - 1.2%
85 years and over - 1.1%

source: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...w.xhtml?src=CF

There are plenty of Mexican suburbs if you go to the right part of the country,

sure boddy and people steer threads back to the topic as well, but thats not what i meant.

i was wondering because some people consider the great lakes region the states that surround them and some just the cities most near the great lakes. while there are a few reasons for the states to be thought of that way, mostly due to things like water rights defense, obviously i am in the latter camp, so that threw me! :tup:

I'm a parent with two children living in the city, and I concur.

However, if you're talking about a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood, that generally means you want to have an active commercial district. And when considering commercial vitality, the number of households is more important than the number of people, given children don't really buy much, even if they do walk around the neighborhood. Therefore all things considered, "family-friendly" urban neighborhoods need even higher population densities then popular neighborhoods for young people to be as commercially vibrant.