CHICAGO | General Discussions

[the urban politician]

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

This piece is complete bullshit, Chicago will NEVER address its violent crime problem without first addressing the ineffectiveness of the Chicago Police Department, a department with abysmal clearance rates across the board. Police officers on the street WILL NOT reduce violence, they never have. There is a fundamental misconception that the presences of police reduce violence. Police don't reduce violence, they respond to it and the Chicago Police Department has a failing track record. What incentives do violent offenders have to stop committing crimes when 70% of the time they will not be caught? The editorial board says well "it'll take generations to heal...but we don't have time" and many well-meaning people will attribute the Chicago Police Department failing to "no snitching". The members of the communities most affected by violence DO NOT trust the Chicago Police Department to keep them safe when they report a crime. Additionally, these communities have been over-policed and often abused by the Chicago Police Department. It's a vicious cycle that begins and ends with the Chicago Police Department. It is the responsibility of the government leaders to establish trust in these communities not the other way around.

The writers of this article do not give a fuck about the folks being killed, this article is just doing the bidding of the police union. What this article is advocating for is the status quo. It is advocating continuing to waste taxpayers' money on a dysfunctional and ineffective police department instead of making the necessary reforms needed to make the City safer. This approach has not led to a reduction in violence in the past why would anyone expect it would now? If the Chicago Police Department needs more staff its detectives not officers.

If indeed the "Blue Flu" is related to the spike in violence (I don't know... gang warfare has complicated dynamics obviously... maybe they switched from selling drugs to fireworks), then all it shows is that the CPD doesn't give a shit about public safety.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

If indeed the "Blue Flu" is related to the spike in violence (I don't know... gang warfare has complicated dynamics obviously... maybe they switched from selling drugs to fireworks), then all it shows is that the CPD doesn't give a shit about public safety.

You're right CPD doesn't give a shit about public safety.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by RedCorsair87

Hopefully dead. Chicago can do so much better.

I'm not so sure Chicago can. We like to hang onto this romanticized version of Daniel Burnhams boomtown Chicago, but that was 100+ years ago. The fact is the city is bleeding residents and those who remain are culturally conservative and elect leaders who reflect that. Chicago is the capital of Midwestern NIMBYism. Basic, 21st century urban planning/development theories are eschewed for more parking and more lanes and more "open space" (i.e. keeping density down).

Would Chicago in 1900 have trouble building a few miles of BRT on Ashland? Would builders with money to burn get push back against building a massive tower at a spot like 400 LSD? Would a giant hole in the ground at a major neighborhood intersection like Milwaukee/Irving collect stagnant water for years rather than build a measly 5 story residential building and a grocery store?

Meanwhile cities all over the country are developing billion dollar heavy transit or game changing skyscrapers. I'm getting pretty fed up with the atmosphere of stagnation/decline that hangs over Chicago. Some leaders are going to need to get bold to save this city from falling further from it's former glory as the nation's second city.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Handro

I'm not so sure Chicago can. We like to hang onto this romanticized version of Daniel Burnhams boomtown Chicago, but that was 100+ years ago. The fact is the city is bleeding residents and those who remain are culturally conservative and elect leaders who reflect that. Chicago is the capital of Midwestern NIMBYism. Basic, 21st century urban planning/development theories are eschewed for more parking and more lanes and more "open space" (i.e. keeping density down).

Would Chicago in 1900 have trouble building a few miles of BRT on Ashland? Would builders with money to burn get push back against building a massive tower at a spot like 400 LSD? Would a giant hole in the ground at a major neighborhood intersection like Milwaukee/Irving collect stagnant water for years rather than build a measly 5 story residential building and a grocery store?

Meanwhile cities all over the country are developing billion dollar heavy transit or game changing skyscrapers. I'm getting pretty fed up with the atmosphere of stagnation/decline that hangs over Chicago. Some leaders are going to need to get bold to save this city from falling further from it's former glory as the nation's second city.

Pretty bad take actually. Chicago is not anywhere near declining. It is losing a small amount of population, but it's economy when adjusted for population is doing quite well. Job growth until COVID was strong. You really think there are a lot of US cities building amazing architecture everywhere? Most US cities look pretty bland compared to Chicago. Most transit systems are a joke in the US. CTA is better than 99% of US city transit systems.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

. Chicago is the capital of Midwestern NIMBYism.

I honestly have no idea what universe you're living in cause it clearly ain't the one the rest of us are living in.

During this current building boom, Chicago will have built 6 new towers over 800', with a possible 7th hinging upon how 1000M plays out.

To put that into perspective:

1. That's more towers over 800' than Chicago has ever built in a single building boom in the city's entire history.

2. No US city (other than Chicago and new york) even has more than four 800+ footers to begin with!!!


But yes, let's all lament the death of Chicago's ability to build big. Soon, even Des Moines and Decatur will have bigger skylines.

[ardecila]

^ Most US cities face this problem, not just Chicago. We over-corrected from the urban renewal era by giving every community an insane veto power over everything. San Francisco wanted to do BRT on Van Ness, similar to Ashland, and it was held up for over a decade by politics. You should see the fights they have in SF over a tiny 8-unit apartment building, or something.

If anything, I think Chicago is pretty laissez-faire when it comes to development, which has kept our city relatively affordable compared to the coasts. Neighborhoods allow missing middle, 3-flats and 6-flats as-of-right. Even in downtown areas like West Loop or South Loop, pretty much everything gets approved with minimal changes. We're not Houston, but we also don't have the same parking requirements so we can actually build dense infill. We also have the resource of vast land available for development - empty land from the urban renewal era, empty land in dis-invested neighborhoods, and under-utilized land left after the city de-industrialized. So from a development standpoint I think we're in a pretty good place relative to other cities.

Expanding transit is an issue - thank goodness we have such a big legacy system that is serving our system well, but I think the biggest problem is just the extreme cost of construction. Our city AND state are in miserable financial shape, so we can't afford anything in the way of transit or infrastructure without calling in some serious favors in Springfield or DC and having someone else pick up the tab. I don't think Rahm folded on Ashland BRT because of community opposition, I think (secretly) he folded on it because he realized the city couldn't afford it, and he didn't want to use up the limited bargaining chips in DC for that particular project.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

The real issue behind the violence and poverty is single parent households.

Before the Civil Rights Act, only 24% of Black children were living with single parents.

Now, the rate is 75%.

The current system disincentivizes marriage by giving single parents larger welfare benefits. Instead, larger benefits should be given to those who have two parent households.

Fathers impact children more than any government program.

That's total B.S. It's just not that simple. Single parent households is a symptom of multiple other systemic issues. To lay the blame on just one frickin issue is so typical. Grow up!

[ardecila]

Maybe blame the system that denies Black men the jobs and opportunity to support a family financially, rather than the government programs that throw Black single mothers a crucial lifeline.

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

The current system disincentivizes marriage by giving single parents larger welfare benefits. Instead, larger benefits should be given to those who have two parent households.

Fathers impact children more than any government program.

That may very well be true, but I don't think you'd want to incentive fathers to stick around with monetary benefits. Seems like that would lead to domestic violence. There are no easy answers to social problems.

[Kenmore]

is this the new concern trolling thread?

[Steely Dan]

^ it's become the thread where i dump all of the idiotic axe-grinding from the political shitheads to keep the useful threads of this forum on track.

[BrinChi]

LOL here's something a little more interesting. Chicago made one of these lists in a positive way:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor.../#9ebad6760a68

"Chicago received more home shopping attention on Zillow this year than it did last, with the majority of traffic coming from St. Louis, Milwaukee and Boston.

Chicago is one of the most affordable big cities in the country,” Tucker says. “Millennials are getting older, many are approaching 30, which is the age range when people are moving from renting to owning. These are people that don’t have a big nest egg to put down but they still want to be in a city, so places like Chicago are appealing.”

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

LOL here's something a little more interesting. Chicago made one of these lists in a positive way:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor.../#9ebad6760a68

"Chicago received more home shopping attention on Zillow this year than it did last, with the majority of traffic coming from St. Louis, Milwaukee and Boston.

Chicago is one of the most affordable big cities in the country,” Tucker says. “Millennials are getting older, many are approaching 30, which is the age range when people are moving from renting to owning. These are people that don’t have a big nest egg to put down but they still want to be in a city, so places like Chicago are appealing.”

Impressive, but not surprising. I used to travel all around the country for work and am still amazed at what people think is worth high a cost of living. Chicago is an amazing city in the entire world let alone the US which is almost entirely shitty..

[Chicagolover88]

I was bored and started looking at seattle buildings and one Chicago would be Seattle's tallest skyscraper and its gonna be our 8th tallest. Chicago and New York city really are on another level when it comes to skyscrapers

[CrazyCres]

Originally Posted by Chicagolover88

I was bored and started looking at seattle buildings and one Chicago would be Seattle's tallest skyscraper and its gonna be our 8th tallest. Chicago and New York city really are on another level when it comes to skyscrapers

One day we will over take New York to have the tallest building in America, with or without spire

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Chicagolover88

I was bored and started looking at seattle buildings and one Chicago would be Seattle's tallest skyscraper and its gonna be our 8th tallest. Chicago and New York city really are on another level when it comes to skyscrapers

To be fair, One Chicago would be the 17th tallest in NYC. It really is NYC in a stratosphere of it's own, with Chicago the clear #2 in the US.

[the urban politician]

Editorial: No Congressional bailout for Illinois

With Congress debating another relief package to protect the economy from the coronavirus pandemic, state governments likely will receive federal money to offset revenue losses, Illinois included.

Please, Washington: Don’t turn this fifth go-round in COVID-19 aid into a bailout of poorly managed states like ours.

Any money flowing to Illinois should come with strings attached to ensure federal money is reserved strictly for the purpose of addressing virus-related losses. Insist that funds coming here are commensurate with those going to other states. Demand transparency for every dime spent. Don’t let federal aid for a global health pandemic expand into a rescue effort of Illinois for its decades of reckless state government spending.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...wye-story.html

[bhawk66]

Man, that last one is just the biggest hodgepodge of architecture. Honestly, not the most flattering perspective, imo.

[Rooted Arborial]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Man, that last one is just the biggest hodgepodge of architecture. Honestly, not the most flattering perspective, imo.

================================================================================================

Yeah, if only architects could be less creative and we could all reduce our creative impulses, the monotony would be a great liberation from the pain inflicted upon our

dulled minds!