Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center
I agree with the rest of your post. While Western and Ashland can suck from a pedestrian perspective (especially Western, so much truck traffic), they are absolutely necessary to keep things moving. Not just from a commuting perspective, but also logistics such as deliveries for restaurants, grocers, warehouses, etc. They are vital infrastructure for getting around town and transit is not an option for a lot of the traffic they move.
|
We should have the infrastructure we need. And better is better. But when I read these kind of comments my eye starts twitching.
There are thousands of cities in the world that simply don't accommodate semi-truck traffic. We can but we don't need to. There are costs but there are also benefits. The most popular, attractive, vibrant, in-demand and desirable parts of Chicago--or Washington D.C. or Seattle or Boston or wherever--have streets where one car can barely manage to go over 20mph on a one-way street and apartment towers and single family homes on the same block were built without parking.
We can make different choices. But we need to constantly acknowledge that building codes and laws simply make it illegal to build Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Lakeview, Georgetown or Greenwich Village anywhere in Chicago. We should change that. If we want different outcomes we can simply take places that have better outcomes as examples. It doesn't need to be Paris or Barcelona as an example--almost every city that puts people first is more desirable than one that accommodates cars first. If the people who only want to drive at 45mph in my city stay home, let them. Let's see what happens.
No neighborhood has ever gotten better when they tore down housing and widened a road or built a highway. No neighborhood has ever gotten better when they tore down housing or retail and built parking. The equation is reversible. Boston and San Francisco removed big roads and everything nearby got better and the city functions better.