How did American core cities survive the 90's?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Is Chicago that much of a lightening rod city that nearly every one of these City Discussion threads must immediately become almost solely about it?

No its just the way Chicago people are.

Chicago is the world, and the rest of us are living in it.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No its just the way Chicago people are.

Chicago is the world, and the rest of us are living in it.

That's the spirit!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Chicago is the world, and the rest of us are living in it.

pretty much.




The Two Nations of North America

[the urban politician]

^ I want to blow up that picture and put it up in my living room

[mhays]

I feel sorry for the sad people who don't live in Seattle. It's like being you, but with awareness.

JK!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

Ardecila: But I guess that's what I mean because you grew up in suburban Chicago and didn't know that her neighborhood really existed. How common is that type of neighborhood in Chicago? Are suburbanites aware of that neighborhood? How common is it across all cities in America? I think it's the exception and not the norm, and so imo in order for American core cities to come back, American core cities need to be mostly comprised of neighborhoods like that.

And when that happens I think aspects of urban living will naturally become part of mainstream American experience

As I pointed out, our vast tracts of suburbia plus our restrictive zoning codes will continue to make urban living in safe, walkable neighborhoods a luxury for the wealthy, except in those cities where slow economic growth or high crime limits the gentrification of neighborhoods. Chicago again being a weird outlier here.

Urban, walkable living won't become mainstream in the way that you're talking about because there's a supply problem. We would need to build more walkable places, but we aren't doing that and even if we wanted to, the barriers are very, very high. Even walkable neighborhoods built in suburban isolation end up being car-oriented, because they don't have enough critical mass to support their own amenities. The walkable nature of the neighborhood just becomes another way for residents to show off their wealth and pretentiousness, hence the ridicule for New Urbanism.

I do think urban living will become normalized, but not mainstream, through the media. Back in the 90s, Seinfeld and Sex and the City famously glamorized urban living, I'm sure similar shows will come along showing urban families instead of single folks. And of course, there are a lot of people who lived their youth in cities but moved to suburbs to start families... the number of such people will only grow, and they have fond memories of city living even if it ceased to make financial sense for them.

[mhays]

True, you can't build real urbanity in most of the US. Try building in a dense, walkable format in most suburban areas.

Even many central cities demand tons of parking, sometimes even for reuse of existing buildings!

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by ardecila

And of course, there are a lot of people who lived their youth in cities but moved to suburbs to start families... the number of such people will only grow, and they have fond memories of city living even if it ceased to make financial sense for them.

You've raised a good point here. Much noise has been made about millennials leaving the city for bigger homes in the suburbs, but that's not much of a problem (even ignoring the obvious fact that any who leave will be replaced by the next generation coming in). So much of the success of city centres is predicated on it being able to draw people from the surrounding region on a daily basis - even with a high residential density, they wouldn't be able to support all the businesses and amenities on that local population alone.

And all those former urbanities will still be connected to the city - if they don't already work there, they'll still head down regularly to go out, shop, etc. It's a far cry from the suburbanites of the past couple of decades who might only go into the city for a sports game or a concert a couple times a year.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I wish the US would standardize on one transit card like the Netherlands has. Then I wouldn't have so many of them lying around my apartment...

I have that problem; transit cards from NY, Chicago, San Diego, etc shoved in a drawer with my Oyster Card.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Standardizing a metro card for a federal trade system in a nation the size of New Jersey is a bit different than trying to standardize a metro card for the entire nation across hundreds of VERY independent and combative jurisdictions from States to unincorporated towns.

lol it would take years and billions in court battles just to get half of the cities on board let alone the country.

Sure, it's not easy, but it would remove a lot of the difficulty of riding transit in a place you don't live. I wonder how many areas actually have their own transit card system (as opposed to paper tickets or cash only).

In Chicago you can already use a contactless credit card (or phone payment system), which helps, but doesn't automagically give you things like free transfers.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

pretty much.




The Two Nations of North America

\

I saw this map:

[Steely Dan]

^ you are terrible at naming countries.

"Awesomeland" rolls off the tongue about 8 billion times easier than "People In debt-land and declining pop:".

you'd probably like to rename "Germany" as "Make nice cars-land and that nazi shit too".

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ you are terrible at naming countries.

"Awesomeland" rolls off the tongue about 8 billion times easier than "People In debt-land and declining pop:".

you'd probably like to rename "Germany" as "Make nice cars-land and that nazi shit too".

Lol.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

You've raised a good point here. Much noise has been made about millennials leaving the city for bigger homes in the suburbs, but that's not much of a problem (even ignoring the obvious fact that any who leave will be replaced by the next generation coming in). So much of the success of city centres is predicated on it being able to draw people from the surrounding region on a daily basis - even with a high residential density, they wouldn't be able to support all the businesses and amenities on that local population alone.

And all those former urbanities will still be connected to the city - if they don't already work there, they'll still head down regularly to go out, shop, etc. It's a far cry from the suburbanites of the past couple of decades who might only go into the city for a sports game or a concert a couple times a year.

Right. Previous generations moved out of the city in a traumatic fashion. Either they moved out in response to racial change as their community disintegrated, or they were displaced by urban renewal, fled rising crime rates or higher taxes, etc. Certainly there's no small amount of racial animus, either.

But Millennials who lead a life in the city and then move to the burbs usually have nothing but fondness for the city and their younger years. I don't think we'll see the same outright hostility toward the city that we did from earlier generations, which means the city will continue to thrive and learn to partner more closely with its surrounding suburbs.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by JManc

55 is old?

At 50 you can join AARP.

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

...
So imo, until "getting your first transit card" is part of the shared American experience in the same way that "getting your drivers license" is, I don't think we can say that urbanism is normalized.

I grew up in rural Oregon in a town of 560 people, seven miles from the next biggest town. This was before transit cards, but some summers I commuted into Portland for work using transit, and certainly had no problem using transit. In fact I didn't want to get a car and didn't get my driver's license until my parents forced me to do it so I could drive my brothers places.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I wish the US would standardize on one transit card like the Netherlands has. Then I wouldn't have so many of them lying around my apartment...

Lol, I have a bunch, too.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

...
Anecdotally all my conservative friends always bring up "man your apartment is so small" "why do you live in Norfolk/downtown" "you live in the ghetto?" all the time. The few that come over always end up loving it. I think our culture has been infested with MORE HOME BETTER...MORE SPACE BETTER....quantity over quality for so long that its hard for people to break this mindset. Liberals are much more likely to not have this view point. They are much more likely to not mind living in tight spaces. They are much more likely not to have 5 kids and a mini van and truck. They are more likely to be environmentally conscious. It just is what it is.

I've never wanted a large home because it is so much work to maintain. I have occasionally wanted a yard of my own and an outbuilding/garage to do projects with. I could see buying a cheap place in a ghetto area just to have space for projects, but I can't really afford to live in the areas I want to live daily life and also have that extra space, so I continue to live in a downtown condo.

At the heart of it, liberals believe more strongly in the benefit of the group, conservatives believe that the group is a threat.

Originally Posted by Obadno

...
lol it would take years and billions in court battles just to get half of the cities on board let alone the country.

Court battles? Who would sue who and to what end? I suspect it's simply a factor of limited demand for a national card to be worth the effort for most agencies. If someone came up with a system they could show reduced costs by standardizing, it could happen.

Toll passes are inter-operable pretty much everywhere East of the Mississippi, so it's not inconceivable that transit agencies consolidate fare collection around a universal standards at some point.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by bnk

Tully that is a good example but you left out a major contributor that is Metra suburban commuter rail also keeping the core and the other 2/3rds of the people living in Chicagoland contributing to jobs and entertainment. Only a select few cities have heavy commuter rail networks like this.




Only NYC has a larger system. Chicago is second. The next closest is almost as slightly more than half as large in ridership or stations [241 stations].


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

To the Original Poster we double stack the cars and can add additional locomotives and cars as needed for mass events.



Check it out some time OP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra There are tons of YouTube vids too also check out.











This is true too.



Chicago also never became isolated from their city limits like Detroit or experienced the pure percentage of white flight like the Detroit's and other similar cities out there. Their city limits lack of any real rail networks prevented them the opportunity to become not even more cut off more than they already had gotten to.

Chicago was much more diversified than Detroit, which is the major difference. Also, Chicago was run by strongman Daley, and was considered the "city that works". That reputation came with a mixed bag for many people - particularly African-Americans - as some of the ethnic neighborhoods were not welcoming (many cities also had this issue including NYC). Chicago actually was performing better than NYC, and completed many more tall skyscrapers up until the early 2000s.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

CChicago actually was performing better than NYC, and completed many more tall skyscrapers up until the early 2000s.

Skyscraper construction has almost nothing to do with economic prowess, and Chicago never had comparable skyscraper construction as NYC.

The question "why didn't Chicago sink to the extent as Detroit" is an odd one. No major U.S. city sunk like Detroit. The better question is "why did Detroit fall so far".

[The North One]

lol more Crawfordian lies, I guess you forgot St. Louis exists? Baltimore is still in total free-fall as we all know, Detroit's past is no special case. Nearly every US city sunk in major ways that are completely unheard of in the western history without a war, the country has sabotaged it's inner city's for half a century, it's got little to nothing to do with the diversified economy.

The real question is, why is the US such a hopelessly self-destructive society?

[mhays]

Nearly all? Except the several healthy ones.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by The North One

lol more Crawfordian lies, I guess you forgot St. Louis exists? Baltimore is still in total free-fall as we all know, Detroit's past is no special case. Nearly every US city sunk in major ways that are completely unheard of in the western history without a war, the country has sabotaged it's inner city's for half a century, it's got little to nothing to do with the diversified economy.

The real question is, why is the US such a hopelessly self-destructive society?

are you sure cities in the USA and Canada are that different?

http://mapmerizer.mikavaa.com/#13;39...se;false;false

http://mapmerizer.mikavaa.com/#13;42...se;false;false

http://mapmerizer.mikavaa.com/#13;34...se;false;false

http://mapmerizer.mikavaa.com/#13;43...se;false;false

http://mapmerizer.mikavaa.com/#13;45...se;false;false