Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

someguyontheintrnet t1_itw9lkj wrote

Reply to comment by jemr31 in Envisioned refurbished harbor (circa 1950’s, via City Archives) by Reeyuuk

That, and the water front parking lots. Nothing exemplifies high-value waterfront like parked cars.

26

DfcukinLite t1_itwknij wrote

I mean look at millennium park in Chicago now. It was nothing but parking lots and every city that did this then has a better waterfront then us now.

0

ChiefGreen t1_itx5wpi wrote

Chicago does not have a better waterfront than Baltimore. Chicago is usually the city that's an example of how to f up a waterfront, they put a highway between the city and the shore making it much harder to access. Imagine it there was a highway to nowhere size road between downtown/fells/fed and the harbor, that's Chicago.

3

grandma_magazine t1_itz070h wrote

I disagree, the lake and waterfront are probably one of Chicago’s best features. And that’s coming from someone who used to live right next to lake shore drive. Sure lake shore drive is annoyingly close to the lake, but there’s so much between it and the lake that makes up for it. I love Baltimore and came here because I like it so much more than Chicago - but it’s hard to compare Baltimore’s waterfront to one that’s almost 20 miles long, has multiple beaches where you can swim, several parks, bird sanctuaries, and a great biking path that connects it all together.

3

ChiefGreen t1_iu0nwq3 wrote

Maybe I worded my comment poorly, I agree Chicago has nicer parks and cooler places to check out like shed aquarium or navy pier along the waterfront. What I was talking about is the fact there's a highway that divides all that from the city making it harder to easily access

1

grandma_magazine t1_iu1qmnv wrote

I guess I just don’t see lake shore drive as a giant barrier, it’s got tons of points to go over and under it for pedestrians and cars. Especially outside the loop. But I can see your point if you’re just referring to millennium park and the loop.

1

todareistobmore t1_iu117p5 wrote

Chicago's also just got a very different relationship with Lake Michigan because of the lack of other bodies of water around. What would the actual point be of a beach at the harbor?

1

grandma_magazine t1_iu1r815 wrote

Even if there was an ocean or other bodies of water near Chicago, I doubt most people would pass up the convenience of being able to just walk or ride a bike to a nearby beach.

But I agree the relationship to Lake Michigan is nothing like ours to the harbor, I just think that’s mostly because it’s a cleaner body of fresh water and much larger portion of the city has easier access to it compared to here.

1

DfcukinLite t1_itx63il wrote

That’s your subjective opinion. It would be a highway to 95/895/295

0

ChiefGreen t1_itxeagj wrote

Awesome, more highways that would cut the city off from the harbor and further divide the city making it even more inaccessable to anyone that doesnt have a car or want to drive. Thats great for someone who only wants to get in and out of the city as fast as possible, but as someone that lives and drives in the city, I'd much rather have access to the waterfront than an easier way in and out

1

todareistobmore t1_itx9f8r wrote

Uh, guessing you've never been to Chicago if you think Millennium Park is waterfront? It's about as close to the lake as any of the hotels on Light Street are to the harbor, for the exact same reasons.

3