The article seems to imply that "talent wants transit" because they want carless urban life. OP says there's the other side of the same coin.

I think this is a point that's often missed.

I've mostly lived and worked in Chicago. I live in the city, and commute by CTA. My colleagues who live much further out in the suburbs, and commute by Metra, often spend about the same amount of time in transit as I do.

If there's a story here, it's that the halcyon days when people could efficiently get around a megalopolis on highways are gone, and most the value proposition of those giant self-contained office parks out in the suburbs is gone with it.

Which isn't to say that it doesn't make sense to build offices out in the suburbs, just that they better still be reasonable to access from a train station. And that doesn't even necessarily mean "close" - many people in Chicago still have the better part of a mile left to walk after they get off the train. But they have the benefit of infrastructure to support walking -- a mile walk in the city itself is a much less daunting proposition than a mile walk in Naperville.

The problem with suburban office hubs is that outside of anomalies like Tokyo, rail networks are generally heavily radial, going from the suburbs to the city. A job in the city will be accessible to pretty much every worker in the region via rail; you put a job center further out, and a good portion of the labor market is stuck having to take trains into the city and back out into your suburb.

Bay Area resident here from south suburbs.

Chicago has some of the best commutes there are.

If the Bay Area was more like Chicago (regional rail, roads), we wouldn't have as much hand-wringing as on this thread.

Chicago car traffic is horrible. But, Chicago is flat, and has great rapid transit and rail.

It's all relative, but I find Chicago vehicle traffic isn't that bad compared to other metro areas (and I moved here from a smaller city where you could traverse the entire city in 20 minutes). Before I moved to Chicago, I was told that traffic was a nightmare, and I should be prepared to spend at least an hour commuting 1-way by car. But I just haven't found that to be the case -- Chicagoans love exaggerating about two things: the traffic and the weather. Of course, traffic on the I-290 and I-90 at rush hour can be bad, but if you time your departure right, it's not too terrible.

Chicago's car infrastructure is more or less commensurate with its size. Seattle on the other hand was not designed for the population it currently has, and traffic there seems worse.

It used to be even better. RIP, bar car.

Even with the walk Metra from naperville is faster than trying to fight your way in via 290