U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago Suburbs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2011, 04:46 AM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 25,070,616 times
Reputation: 6183

Advertisements

The best way to learn is come to Chicago for a couple of days and do it. Do the drive at 71m and 4pm than imagine driving two hours in torrential rain, white out. black ice and heavy snow. What you will probably learn is you don't enjoy getting up a 3AM so you can drive two hours to work.

A year is a long lease. You might consider living closer to work and staying in the city from Fri to Sunday night.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2011, 06:10 AM
 
2,007 posts, read 4,217,111 times
Reputation: 984
Here's the problem. That whole reverse commute philosophy that might work in some cities, does NOT work in most of Chicago, and certainly not on 290 heading west out of Chicago. It might only apply to the folks commuting to the south suburbs and Indiana from Chicago really. There are times when the reverse folks headed west and north even have it worse than the traditional commuters. At least the traditional commuters also have more public transit options available to them during the rush hour. Either way, best of luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpx44 View Post
Would the commute be as bad given that I would be driving out of the city to work as opposed to going towards the city?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 06:25 AM
 
28,383 posts, read 67,903,744 times
Reputation: 18188
Default Perhaps...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays View Post
This is a classic example why companies are moving downtown Chicago vs. the burbs.

You have a talented young person contemplating where to live in the West Burbs.
The fact is that the hiring of young people has been effected much more strongly than the hiring of more experienced workers. Young people are experiencing far more difficulty finding jobs than other groups of people.

The relative discount that smaller suburban office complexes are willing to accept tends to be less than the cuts that larger downtown Chicago leasing companies are willing accept. The underlying age of many bigger building in the Loop is such that they are completely paid off / depreciated and the leasing firms are happy to cover their relatively modest operating costs. Bigger building have a fairly small operating cost per tenant, especially when they are more than 50% occupied. Smaller buildings have a much higher cost to operate per tenant and in many cases are better off vacant than with only a handful of folks rattling around using lights, HVAC and elevators.

The ease with which any worker, older or younger, can use Metra to get into Chicago is far greater than relative disruption that occurs when companies ask their employees to change their commute from one suburb to another. Transit options allow employers to demand employees arrive early / on-time with little variation. Employers do not like to impose additional commuting demands on employees, especially with high fuel costs.

In general employers do not encourage their employees, young or old, to spend an excessive amount of time out drinking. The relative dearth of such opportunities remains a plus for the suburbs among the more conservative ranks of upper management.

Many firms like to have their own building for purposes of "corporate identity / branding" this is much harder to achieve in the Loop than at a suburban location like Warrenville.

The relative density of the skilled office caliber labor pool remains impressively high in the desirable suburb. Not only do more such folks already live in the 'burbs, the migration that other occurs when folks with technical backgrounds tire of the noise and hassle of city living and head to suburbs where access to good schools to start their families is easier continuously increases that density in the 'burbs...

There is little chance that the 'burbs will ever become the employment wasteland that already exists on wide swaths of Chicago's SE and W sides.
Frankly, except for a few pockets near the airports and the Universities Chicago itself has some of the most poorly distributed employment. In a way this is a good thing for the suburbs as it makes it easy to live there are take Metra in the Loop or live relatively close to one of the rare pockets of employment near Chicago's borders and drive in from a suburb.

Few suburban leaders, political or business, lose much sleep over not having enough bars that serve over priced cans of low grade beer to hipsters or the dearth of rowdy nighttime entertainment. Ultimately the things that "pay the bills" in Illinois are the businesses that generate a lot of local sales tax. WalMart store, Costco, car dealers, jewelry stores and other retail establishments where large numbers of people spend big dollars is the path to having a well financed town in Illinois. Business leaders that are not in these sectors reap the benefits of lowered property taxes when they locate near such large retail sales tax generators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
323 posts, read 328,541 times
Reputation: 459
Warrenville's offices tend to be clustered near I-88. The reverse commute to there should not be TOO bad. Plus, there is the option of Metra, which runs a pretty decent reverse commute schedule; the Route 59 station on the BNSF line is about 2 miles from this area. Some companies offer a shuttle (I know that OfficeMax does) from the Metra stations to the workplace.

That said, living in Naperville would not be too bad of a choice for a young 20-something professional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 11:18 AM
 
10,287 posts, read 12,397,783 times
Reputation: 5967
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett View Post
The fact is that the hiring of young people has been effected much more strongly than the hiring of more experienced workers. Young people are experiencing far more difficulty finding jobs than other groups of people.

The relative discount that smaller suburban office complexes are willing to accept tends to be less than the cuts that larger downtown Chicago leasing companies are willing accept. The underlying age of many bigger building in the Loop is such that they are completely paid off / depreciated and the leasing firms are happy to cover their relatively modest operating costs. Bigger building have a fairly small operating cost per tenant, especially when they are more than 50% occupied. Smaller buildings have a much higher cost to operate per tenant and in many cases are better off vacant than with only a handful of folks rattling around using lights, HVAC and elevators.

The ease with which any worker, older or younger, can use Metra to get into Chicago is far greater than relative disruption that occurs when companies ask their employees to change their commute from one suburb to another. Transit options allow employers to demand employees arrive early / on-time with little variation. Employers do not like to impose additional commuting demands on employees, especially with high fuel costs.

In general employers do not encourage their employees, young or old, to spend an excessive amount of time out drinking. The relative dearth of such opportunities remains a plus for the suburbs among the more conservative ranks of upper management.

Many firms like to have their own building for purposes of "corporate identity / branding" this is much harder to achieve in the Loop than at a suburban location like Warrenville.

The relative density of the skilled office caliber labor pool remains impressively high in the desirable suburb. Not only do more such folks already live in the 'burbs, the migration that other occurs when folks with technical backgrounds tire of the noise and hassle of city living and head to suburbs where access to good schools to start their families is easier continuously increases that density in the 'burbs...

There is little chance that the 'burbs will ever become the employment wasteland that already exists on wide swaths of Chicago's SE and W sides.
Frankly, except for a few pockets near the airports and the Universities Chicago itself has some of the most poorly distributed employment. In a way this is a good thing for the suburbs as it makes it easy to live there are take Metra in the Loop or live relatively close to one of the rare pockets of employment near Chicago's borders and drive in from a suburb.

Few suburban leaders, political or business, lose much sleep over not having enough bars that serve over priced cans of low grade beer to hipsters or the dearth of rowdy nighttime entertainment. Ultimately the things that "pay the bills" in Illinois are the businesses that generate a lot of local sales tax. WalMart store, Costco, car dealers, jewelry stores and other retail establishments where large numbers of people spend big dollars is the path to having a well financed town in Illinois. Business leaders that are not in these sectors reap the benefits of lowered property taxes when they locate near such large retail sales tax generators.
I'm sure that's why office vacancy in the suburbs are rising and vacancy in the CBD is declining.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,520 posts, read 11,969,207 times
Reputation: 3820
Hard to argue with Chet's post, but he ignores the biggest underlying trend which is that working and living in the city is more desirable to employees today than in the past. Ultimately, this trend trumps everything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 11:32 AM
 
28,383 posts, read 67,903,744 times
Reputation: 18188
Actually V, it is. Currently there are number of office heavy property management companies that really would rather empty a building than accept a partially filled building with rates far lower. The effect on their bottom line to have a "mothballed asset" is frankly better than operating a building at a loss...

It gets fairly complex, but if one can write down the value of building and show that it is generating no revenue the odds that it won't also be a prime candidate for property tax relief are quite slim. Further no property management company want to "compete with itself" -- dropping rents is a very bad way to spiral down one's revenue for all its properties. Far better to offer huge remodeling incentives but still be able post relatively high rents...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
323 posts, read 328,541 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Hard to argue with Chet's post, but he ignores the biggest underlying trend which is that working and living in the city is more desirable to employees today than in the past. Ultimately, this trend trumps everything else.
Not sure about this one. It seems to me that companies are measurably preferring the central city mostly in older cities like New York and to a lesser extent, Chicago: Go to Dallas or Atlanta and you'll see the suburbs more extensively as corporate HQ's, etc. Note that in Chicago's case, we have a dynamic mass transit system with Metra, as well. The Loop could not function without a suburban workforce. The reverse may or may not be true. And I am persuaded that the trend is pointing more towards the periphery (cf. Joel Kotkin "The Next 100 Million).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 11:59 AM
 
10,287 posts, read 12,397,783 times
Reputation: 5967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws View Post
Not sure about this one. It seems to me that companies are measurably preferring the central city mostly in older cities like New York and to a lesser extent, Chicago: Go to Dallas or Atlanta and you'll see the suburbs more extensively as corporate HQ's, etc. Note that in Chicago's case, we have a dynamic mass transit system with Metra, as well. The Loop could not function without a suburban workforce. The reverse may or may not be true. And I am persuaded that the trend is pointing more towards the periphery (cf. Joel Kotkin "The Next 100 Million).
Don't let logic get in the way of suburban fantasy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,520 posts, read 11,969,207 times
Reputation: 3820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws View Post
Not sure about this one. It seems to me that companies are measurably preferring the central city mostly in older cities like New York and to a lesser extent, Chicago: Go to Dallas or Atlanta and you'll see the suburbs more extensively as corporate HQ's, etc. Note that in Chicago's case, we have a dynamic mass transit system with Metra, as well. The Loop could not function without a suburban workforce. The reverse may or may not be true. And I am persuaded that the trend is pointing more towards the periphery (cf. Joel Kotkin "The Next 100 Million).
I think obviously the trend toward central city/urban living/working is strongest/most advanced in those cities with the best developed urban cores. A prerequisite of a high-density functional urban core is having a well-developed mass transit system. Most of the sun-belt central cities are trying to catch-up with the established northern metros by building light rail transit systems.

As a rule of thumb, I tend to be very wary of Kotkin's arguments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago Suburbs
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top