Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricochet48
Wow, so architecturally elitist that you wouldn't live in arguably the social epicenter of the second largest metro in the US...
I live there and can walk a couple blocks south to the riverwalk for stunning views or north to the cathedral district. Are all of the newer buildings lookers, NO; however, they were built economically and costs prohibited more 'attractive' features. Those newer ones that have such elements/ sophisticated designs tend to be much more $$$ (e.g. OBP, Vista, Aqua, etc.).
For a city with a top 10 global GDP, our real estate is still very cheap even in the hottest area (Grand Red stop is the high $/sqft). Honestly curious what small speck of the states (or world) would satisfy you if River North, walking distance from incredible examples, is not even livable.
|
Hello, guy with 9 posts.
First of all, River North is far from the “social epicenter” of Chicago. There isn’t much I can think of north of Illinois, beyond the part that’s basically the Greater Loop (with Bavette’s, Siena Tavern, etc). It’s certainly not trendy. And it’s definitely an ugly neighborhood.
I would rather trade quantity for quality. If Chicago had a bit less construction, maybe even half as much, but it was all of very high quality, the city would be better off in the long run. It is ridiculously cheap (relatively speaking) and there’s an enormous supply of affordable housing in Chicago anyway, and it’s basically limitless if you count potential infill in depressed neighborhoods.