Boston or Chicago? (Cambridge, New Bedford, Plymouth: real estate, apartments, houses)

[Brssplr]

I am considering relocation to either Boston or Chicago. I am told that the cost of living in Boston is extremely expensive (though not as much as NYC). Chicago is expensive, but from what I have read, is comparable to Boston. Things (not necessarily in this order) which are important to me are:

1. Arts & Culture (Symphony Orchestra, art museums, opera, etc.)
2. Cosmopolitan, urban area (worldly, open-minded, not provincial mindset)
3. Job market (Public/private education)
4. Cost of living (apartment, not house to start with)
5. Quality of life (mass transit, resort areas nearby, Green quotient)
6. People (outgoing not reserved, open-minded not redneck)

I know both cities have world-class orchestras, but I'm looking also at the other arts and culture scene as well. Any and all comments would be appreciated.

[Bostonian08]

Paging Eevee ...

[goyguy]

Chicago may be the Windy City, but - climatologically speaking - Boston gets plenty of brutal weather too. Neither are cities that people flock to in the middle of winter or summer, LOL. But I give Beantown the advantage in terms of nearby escapes during those harsh times of year: ocean beaches, or rural lakes, in August and ski areas in January. Neither Lake Michigan nor the hills of Wisconsin can compare.

It's a closer call where the arts are concerned, since both places can lay claim to top-of-the-line symphony orchestras and art museums. Although not a gallery scenester, my impression is that the cities are quite similar in that regard too.

The main point of divergence is the livability of each city. By virtue of topography, Boston is considerably more densely populated than Chi-town yet doesn't have anything comparable to Lake Shore Drive with its mile upon mile of high-rises. Communities such as Beacon Hill and the South End which are close to downtown are made up mainly of rowhouses, then the next "ring" of neighborhoods is comprised heavily of "three-decka" apartment houses. Only the outer areas - West Roxbury, Brighton, Hyde Park - have more single-family homes with yards than other types of housing. By contrast, large swaths of Chicago on all sides of town are filled with drab brick ranch houses while sections closer in to the Loop contain mostly small brick or wood-frame apartment buildings. There's really no in-between: you either dwell in a ranch house or a two-to-six-family building, or in a soaring high-rise. With few exceptions, Beantown completely lacks for twenty-plus-story balconied towers where - literature and movies would have you believe - many residents have telescopes but have no interest in astronomy, and binoculars despite never bird-watching. IMHO an urban area is livable in direct proportion to how many persons are occupying the same space. Hundreds of individuals can share an address but have little to no interaction, but a street lined with houses and/or small apartment buildings can be a beehive of block parties and chatting neighbors. Neither city has a discernible advantage in this category per se, but with the way Chicago sprawls there's not quite the same attachment to a small patch of real estate that there is in Boston. Chicagoans tend to identify themselves as being from the West, South, or North Side (perhaps refining that to "near Southwest" or "far North.") Someone from Boston will name their specific section of town right off the bat. With Beantown's being considerably more compact in land area, you can get from one side of the city clear across to the other within a half-hour. Chicago's slow mass transit and perpetually clogged expressways more than double that time for reaching Evanston from Calumet City, the airport from the lakefront, etc.

Every large American city has its "cosmopolitan" and "provincial" enclaves, which can be quickly and easily sniffed out. From the TO's tone, s/he would likely be happiest in Chicago's Lincoln Park, Near North, or Hyde Park communities - or in Boston's Beacon Hill, Back Bay, the South End, or parts of neighboring Cambridge. The cost of living is indeed high in both places compared to most of the US, but this becomes less of a factor if boasting about one's address isn't an issue.

I should add that Providence, RI is past the first stages of being "discovered" but is still a considerably less expensive place to reside in than Boston or Chicago. Fueled by the presence of Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design, among other colleges, the city's music and theater scenes in particular are booming. Paved-over riverbeds have been unearthed, and are now dotted with braziers that are set ablaze for "Waterfire" performance-art productions that draw thousands of onlookers who either watch from the banks or glide by in gondolas. Downtown Providence, a ghost town since suburban malls killed urban retailing in the 1960's, is reviving in fits and spurts. Ironically, a new "galleria" called Providence Place - "anchored" by a Nordstrom department store - has opened adjacent to the state capitol and the train station to help bring folks back into the city. Foodies have a world of options in the city's downtown, East Side, and Federal Hill areas. Big apartments can be rented for a song (compared to Boston) in large brick buildings, rowhouses, or Victorian homes. Boston's an hour away by train, bus, or car; Newport's a half-hour to the east if that, Cape Cod less than 60 minutes beyond, and NYC is 3.5 hours down the coast. Unless the TO is dead set on Chicago or Boston to the exclusion of all other cities, Providence would be worth a second look.

[TomDot]

Jeez Goyguy that was good!
I live in Dorchester but I was married at 4th Presbyterian on Michigan Ave. in the shadow of the John Hancock Tower. My in-laws live in the Chicago Place Building on the 46th floor and I was there this past weekend attending the Purdue/Northwestern game in nearby Evanston.
There is only one thing that I would add since Goyguy touched all the bases.
With the exception of the amazing architecture of the skyscrapers, which very few people really care about, Chicago doesn't have the flavor of Boston, historical or gastronomical.
In Boston, every time you turn a corner, there is something that makes you go wow! 18th and 19th century buildings, 17th century gravestones and spots of the city that you have read about in books but now you are standing where it actually happened.
Chicago is Gleaming skyscrapers and expensive retail outlets. That's it!
Boston is also situated on one of the most important, beautiful, and historical swaths of coastline in the world.
Plymouth is one hour south.
Salem is 45 minutes north.
New Bedford (think Moby Dick)
Gloucester.
Marblehead.
Newburyport.

Yes I am from Boston and I love Chicago but IMO it's Boston, hands down

[eevee]

Originally Posted by TomDot

With the exception of the amazing architecture of the skyscrapers, which very few people really care about, Chicago doesn't have the flavor of Boston, historical or gastronomical.
In Boston, every time you turn a corner, there is something that makes you go wow! 18th and 19th century buildings, 17th century gravestones and spots of the city that you have read about in books but now you are standing where it actually happened.
Chicago is Gleaming skyscrapers and expensive retail outlets. That's it!

I disagree with this. I moved out to Chicago last year and, while I'm no architecture buff, I've found the buildings here to be beautiful. it's not just all "skyscrapers and expensive retail outlets" here! I live a few blocks away from two gorgeous churches (I should try to get pictures and post them), and there are plenty of beautiful houses that can be seen just driving down Lake Shore Drive.

obviously, Chicago doesn't have as many historical spots as Boston, not only because Boston is an older city where more significant events occurred, but also because of that itty bitty fire that happened in Chicago. there are places in Chicago that are quite famous, especially those connected to the World Fair (I saw this great book called "Chicago: Then and Now" that touches upon these spots).

I hate to say it, but the food choices in Chicago tops Boston easily. seafood is awesome in Boston (of course), and so far, I haven't found any decent restaurants that serve Haitian food (I'm sure they exist somewhere...), but the options here are crazy. Chicago definitely isn't just a place just known for hot dogs and pizza (though the dogs and pizza here are awesome!). Chicago is obviously bigger than Boston and is made up of so many different ethnic neighborhoods where you can find some good food. w/ Boston, a lot of the great restaurants are clustered around the downtown/North End/South End area; in Chicago, they're more spread out and it seems like every major ethnic enclave has a popular restaurant. I think in the US, the only city that tops Chicago in terms of food is NYC

[TomDot]

Whitefish and walleye?
I mainly hang around Michigan Ave because thats where the in-laws live. There is Johnny Rockets, McDonalds, ESPNZone, Unos, Ditkas, Lawry's, Boston Blackie's and a couple of other places.
One half square mile (north end) is better than all of downtown chicago.

The historical spots in Chicago
Where the Saint Valentines massacre took place is a small open lot and the place where the dustbowl deperado John Dillinger was taken out.

[eevee]

Originally Posted by Brssplr

I am considering relocation to either Boston or Chicago. I am told that the cost of living in Boston is extremely expensive (though not as much as NYC). Chicago is expensive, but from what I have read, is comparable to Boston. Things (not necessarily in this order) which are important to me are:

1. Arts & Culture (Symphony Orchestra, art museums, opera, etc.)
2. Cosmopolitan, urban area (worldly, open-minded, not provincial mindset)
3. Job market (Public/private education)
4. Cost of living (apartment, not house to start with)
5. Quality of life (mass transit, resort areas nearby, Green quotient)
6. People (outgoing not reserved, open-minded not redneck)

I know both cities have world-class orchestras, but I'm looking also at the other arts and culture scene as well. Any and all comments would be appreciated.

goyguy covered a lot in his point, so I'll just add on a few bits real quick:

-Cost of Living: Boston is, overall, more expensive than Chicago. when you're comparing Chicago's ritzy neighborhoods (ie, Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, River North, etc) with Boston's, the rents are fairly similar. but there are many fun, safe areas in Chicago where a 1 bedroom apartment can be had for less than $1k/month. if you're into the art scene, areas like Wicker Park and Bucktown would be good places to start looking.

I can't say much about the overall COL comparisons between the two cities. taxes in Chicago are higher, transportation costs are higher, and eating out feels more expensive here in Chicago than in Boston (I say feel b/c I haven't eaten out in Boston for over a year, so I'm not sure if the national rise in food costs has affected Boston. but it did seem easier to grab a sub and a Coke for less than $6 or eat at a bar for around $10-15)

folks in Chicago are less reserved than those in Boston. parts of Chicago are very suburban in nature and may contain some people w/ a "provincial" mindset, but the overall city is pretty open-minded. in this respect, I didn't find that much of a difference between Chicago or Boston

the CTA is better and worse than the MBTA. better because it's more extensive and several bus lines, along w/ two major train lines, run 24/7. it's worse because much of the system is in disrepair and, while many stations are currently being replaced and slow zones are being eliminated, the system does show its age more than the T.

the lakefront provides a lot of green space in Chicago, but, IMO, the park system away from the lake isn't as strong as Boston's Emerald Necklace. Chicago has some good beaches along the lake and fairly inexpensive housing can be found near the lake in the far north neighborhoods like Edgewater and Roger's Park. Boston has the Blue Hills nearby and is a short driving distance away from various hiking, skiing, rafting, camping, and beach sites. there's more to do around the Boston area than there is around the Chicago area

I've been in Chicago for over a year, and I love it here. I honestly can't say which city is overall better than the other. I do miss the "smallness" of Boston; Chicago feels too sprawling for me!) and the New England area in general (IMO, NE is much nicer than the Midwest, far more variety). and of course I miss the good seafood!

[eevee]

Originally Posted by TomDot

Whitefish and walleye?
I mainly hang around Michigan Ave because thats where the in-laws live. There is Johnny Rockets, McDonalds, ESPNZone, Unos, Ditkas, Lawry's, Boston Blackie's and a couple of other places.
One half square mile (north end) is better than all of downtown chicago.

The historical spots in Chicago
Where the Saint Valentines massacre took place is a small open lot and the place where the dustbowl deperado John Dillinger was taken out.

well, if you don't go out into the rest of the city, you can't say the city of Chicago as a whole is worse than Boston! that'd be like someone just hanging out near Fanueil Hall and complaining about how the rest of Boston sucks! other than the museums located downtown, there's not much culture or fun around Michigan Ave.

[Brssplr]

Does one city have more of an "international" feel to it? I'm curious which one has a higher percentage of foreign-born inhabitants? One indicator of how cosmopolitan a city is, seems to include being able to go almost anywhere in the city and hear people speaking other languages.

[eevee]

Originally Posted by Brssplr

Does one city have more of an "international" feel to it? I'm curious which one has a higher percentage of foreign-born inhabitants? One indicator of how cosmopolitan a city is, seems to include being able to go almost anywhere in the city and hear people speaking other languages.

honestly, both cities, due to their renowned schools and hospitals, have large immigrant populations. of course, Chicago has more simply due to having a larger population, though it may have have a higher ration than Boston also because Boston is so close to NYC so some new immigrants to the East Coast may end up there instead. AFAIK, the immigrant population of both cities include:

Boston: Haitian, Brazilian, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Vietnamese, Indian, African (I've known mainly Sudanese and Ethiopians, not sure about others), Chinese, Irish, Jamaican

Chicago: Mexican, Polish, African (again, not sure from where, but there are many recent immigrants from here), Chinese, Puerto Rican, Eastern Europe (various countries from this area. one of my supervisors is from Lithuania, another from Belarus), Irish

I'm sure I've missed a few but hopefully that gives you a general idea