Comments

1
Chicago's development happened over decades and does look pretty good and eclectic. Seattle's has been concentrated in less than two decades and frankly looks like shit.
2
So when is Dan's swanky Capitol Hill neighborhood going to get with the program and go go go for density?
3
@2, Density is for poor people, not rich white folks like Dan.
4
@2, @3: Y'all can't seriously be trying to hold Dan accountable for the actions of his neighbors. Can you?
5
You know what Chicago has that Seattle doesn't: setbacks. Look at that sidewalk. Room for big trees and lots of pedestrians. It's written into Chicago's Zoning Ordinance, but not Seattle's.
6
Clearly the problem here is those dumpy old buildings to the right of the skyscraper didn't get knocked down so the tower could be be even more gigantic. Just kidding...
7
90% of Chicago is occupied by buildings no more than 4 stories high.
8
I wonder if the owner of the smaller building sold the rights to the overhead space above their building. It's actually a common thing that the developers of large buildings do to keep their views and light.
9
That reminds me of the movie "Batteries Not Included".
10
Brrrr ... especially in Chicago
11
My neighborhood should not exist. I support rezoning all of Capitol Hill for high-rise apartments.
12
@11 So why do you choose to live in a house instead of a high-rise apartment?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I find it strange that you've chosen to live in something you feel shouldn't exist.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.