I’ve been a member of the Typophile audience for quite some time, and though maybe I’d enter the arena with a pixel font, it’s kinda up my ally. This is where one sketch headed. I don’t know what to do from here. I see there are necessary changes to be made, the ‘s,’ for example, could use some tweaking.
I though I’d keep it small, a six bit x-height, because that’s a great strength of pixel fonts, and a challenge I thought I’d like. Is it working? Is it worth it’s weight in kilobites? 
How about these character replacements? I thought I’d stay a step ahead and fix stuff before anyone even sees this thread! 
Ugh, I tried to make something different, and here I am again, a variation on the theme. 
I’m no expert on pixel fonts, but I’d say that in your original concept, either your e’s are top-heavy, your
s’s are bottom-heavy, or both. (The middle of the word “hopelessly” emphasizes the disparity.)
Just looking at the set, it looks like the font wants to be a bit top-heavy — you didn’t rethink the o, and
most of the other letters seem to be ambivalent. The word “six” makes it look like your s is upside-
down, too. I’d keep the old c for a bit, switch to the middle e, and try to redesign the s to match them
as much as possible. Then let’s see another sample. It’s always hard to judge a letter in isolation.
As for your second font, maybe a second thread, just so things don’t get confused?
all good ideas, I’m at work now, I’ll repost later!
Good call on the ‘s,’ it’s pretty off.
I think it’s pretty original, and that’s hard to do at that size (in 1-bit). But I’d either make the ascenders one pixel taller or the descenders one pixel shorter.
hhp
BTW, you know what’s really crappy about the original Chicago-12pt font? The “g”, “j” and “y” go lower than the “p” and “q”. Gag me with a bowl.
hhp
Ok, here we go with soem revisisions including newer, better, taller (ok, just taller) ascenders, and a few adjustments to fix the letters mentioned above. 
Captured from web.archive.org on 8 Nov 2017. view this capture