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.
Just got back from L.A. and had a wonderful time as always. Weather was pleasent, but always good to be back home. Stayed in Santa Monica, but visited some friends in Pasadena which is very nice, but far away from the ocean.
One of my friends is a realtor there and I about fell over looking at prices. Now I know Beverly Hills, Hollywood Hills, there is just no comparison almost to no other place in the world(prob London, New York, Tokoyo).
But what amazed me was way out in Pasadena and the surrounding communities. There are beautiful teardown probably 800K -1 mil in the likes of Clarendon Hills or Hinsdale that in this region would get you some 2 bedrooms fix r uppers or in some cases lots! It really blew my mind. Is everyone making 4-500K out there and settling for lower quality homes?
I live out in Geneva which I love for the quality of life and home price I can get, but have lived all over Chicagoland and have relatives as well in the area. I am probably a homer being here, but we got it made. In my mind Chicago the city and the burbs may not have weather like the west coast or the excitement of Manhattan, but we got it all IMO. The best restaraunts, the best architecure, our beautiful lake, the seasons(which I love), the best people, sports etc.
So why is Chicago and since this is a suburban forum its suburbs so inexpensive? Not going to argue and again I live out in Geneva, and appreciate the quality of life I have in the fox valley.
I love to travel and traveling always makes me realize how we really got it made.
Me and my brother are in the same trade and both work in Chicago, I live in the S/W Burbs and he lives over the border in Indiana and he laughs at how my house is 2 decades older and i pay 3 times his property tax..
California as a whole, especially in the LA area is significantly more expensive and that all comes simply from supply and demand.
Like mentioned before, people in texas think those in the chicago area are paying out the rear with their home values and property taxes.
Sure it's cheaper than the LA area, but still one of the more expensive places to live.
Just got back from L.A. and had a wonderful time as always. Weather was pleasent, but always good to be back home. Stayed in Santa Monica, but visited some friends in Pasadena which is very nice, but far away from the ocean.
One of my friends is a realtor there and I about fell over looking at prices. Now I know Beverly Hills, Hollywood Hills, there is just no comparison almost to no other place in the world(prob London, New York, Tokoyo).
But what amazed me was way out in Pasadena and the surrounding communities. There are beautiful teardown probably 800K -1 mil in the likes of Clarendon Hills or Hinsdale that in this region would get you some 2 bedrooms fix r uppers or in some cases lots! It really blew my mind. Is everyone making 4-500K out there and settling for lower quality homes?
I live out in Geneva which I love for the quality of life and home price I can get, but have lived all over Chicagoland and have relatives as well in the area. I am probably a homer being here, but we got it made. In my mind Chicago the city and the burbs may not have weather like the west coast or the excitement of Manhattan, but we got it all IMO. The best restaraunts, the best architecure, our beautiful lake, the seasons(which I love), the best people, sports etc.
So why is Chicago and since this is a suburban forum its suburbs so inexpensive? Not going to argue and again I live out in Geneva, and appreciate the quality of life I have in the fox valley.
I love to travel and traveling always makes me realize how we really got it made.
The appeal of California is more about California as a whole. The appeal of Chicago is the central urban core. Yes, the suburbs are very nice, I grew up there, but theres not a real lot to do. The are really only for raising families and putting down roots. Chicagos urban core (two miles of downtown) but the suburbs are great places to grow up and raise a family, but they could just as easily be the suburbs of Dallas or Detroit. There isn't many major attractions, and then beyond the suburbs are basically endless corn and soybean fields, yes there are state parks etc,. mostly wooded areas close to rivers.
The reason why Pasadena area is expensive, is because there is stuff to do in virtually all parts of greater Los Angeles. Pasadena is home to a world class research university, a hopping downtown with historic architecture, with many restaurants and bars, a few art museums (one being major with a botanic gardens), the Rose Bowl, and the San Gabriel mountains nearby, mountains just as majestic as the front range of the Colorado rockies with similar recreation opportunities.
People either rent, or live in some of the less expensive places nearby to buy a smaller house. You can find houses in communities outside Pasadena for 300,000 but it will be small. Just like the north side of Chicago proper, people are willing to have less personal space, because they are close to so much stuff to do.
Pasadenas Chicagoland counterpart would be Evanston, but Pasadena still edges out Evanston.
Clarendon Hills and Hinsdale are nice, but no different from Gross Pointe, MI, basically beautiful, leafy suburban neighborhoods, with a small quaint "boutiquey" downtown, except that you are close to a world class urban core with an economic powerhouse of a downtown (Chicago) versus a city that is more struggling and disfunctional (but still has lots to do) (Detroit).
Just got back from L.A. and had a wonderful time as always. Weather was pleasent, but always good to be back home. Stayed in Santa Monica, but visited some friends in Pasadena which is very nice, but far away from the ocean.
One of my friends is a realtor there and I about fell over looking at prices. Now I know Beverly Hills, Hollywood Hills, there is just no comparison almost to no other place in the world(prob London, New York, Tokoyo).
But what amazed me was way out in Pasadena and the surrounding communities. There are beautiful teardown probably 800K -1 mil in the likes of Clarendon Hills or Hinsdale that in this region would get you some 2 bedrooms fix r uppers or in some cases lots! It really blew my mind. Is everyone making 4-500K out there and settling for lower quality homes?
I live out in Geneva which I love for the quality of life and home price I can get, but have lived all over Chicagoland and have relatives as well in the area. I am probably a homer being here, but we got it made. In my mind Chicago the city and the burbs may not have weather like the west coast or the excitement of Manhattan, but we got it all IMO. The best restaraunts, the best architecure, our beautiful lake, the seasons(which I love), the best people, sports etc.
So why is Chicago and since this is a suburban forum its suburbs so inexpensive? Not going to argue and again I live out in Geneva, and appreciate the quality of life I have in the fox valley.
I love to travel and traveling always makes me realize how we really got it made.
I tend to agree with you in general, but oh man at least in my experience Geneva has much higher property taxes than other suburbs in Chicagoland. I know people who pay $10k for a 2100 sq ft in Geneva. My Mother in law pays about the same in taxes but for house almost twice the size in unincorporated Bloomingdale. I get it that Geneva is nicer and has better schools but still...
I used to live in LA specifically Culver City and yes the houses were very expensive. A house in Culver city at 1.5 million would be like a house in schaumburg.
I agree that our relative affordability is tied to the fact that we are in the Midwest, and not Southern California or some other highly desirable region. But I'll disagree partially with the assertion that Chicago's suburbs are not a unique offering.
Several of our suburban neighborhoods are as commonplace as can be, perhaps even the lion's share. But one thing that differentiates many of our suburban communities is the very popular commuter rail service to the Loop. This has created many vibrant suburban downtown areas, and has allowed for a certain degree of walkable density around the cores of the old "railroad suburbs". Of course there is the Caltrain system in the Bay Area, and that has only helped make Palo Alto even more desirable. But you'd be hard pressed to find this type of suburban living situation in Detroit or Dallas. They each have a few of the older "railroad suburbs", but the railroads are not much of a factor in them any longer.
I recently spent quite a bit of time driving around the Detroit suburbs, and I think the recent economic troubles in greater Detroit are finally taking a toll on the leafier suburban areas. Lot's of abandoned strip malls, big box, etc. You really get the sense that the economic problems of inner city Detroit are starting to drag down the suburbs. Or at least the economic struggles of the region are starting to show in the physical environment, even if it's subtle in many areas.
I agree that our relative affordability is tied to the fact that we are in the Midwest, and not Southern California or some other highly desirable region. But I'll disagree partially with the assertion that Chicago's suburbs are not a unique offering.
Several of our suburban neighborhoods are as commonplace as can be, perhaps even the lion's share. But one thing that differentiates many of our suburban communities is the very popular commuter rail service to the Loop. This has created many vibrant suburban downtown areas, and has allowed for a certain degree of walkable density around the cores of the old "railroad suburbs". Of course there is the Caltrain system in the Bay Area, and that has only helped make Palo Alto even more desirable. But you'd be hard pressed to find this type of suburban living situation in Detroit or Dallas. They each have a few of the older "railroad suburbs", but the railroads are not much of a factor in them any longer.
I recently spent quite a bit of time driving around the Detroit suburbs, and I think the recent economic troubles in greater Detroit are finally taking a toll on the leafier suburban areas. Lot's of abandoned strip malls, big box, etc. You really get the sense that the economic problems of inner city Detroit are starting to drag down the suburbs. Or at least the economic struggles of the region are starting to show in the physical environment, even if it's subtle in many areas.
It depends where you go. Certainly the downriver area of metro Detroit (south suburbs south of I-94), the Gratiot corridor in Macomb County, and anything right along 8 mile (except Ferndale) yes you can see the impact. But you do have a few very vibrant downtowns, possibly more so than in Chicagolands, largely because there are very few nice, desirable popular areas in the city of Detroit that have great nightlife, etc.
Specifically these areas are along the Woodward Corridor: Birmingham, Royal Oak, and Ferndale. The may not have a regional rail system going through them (although Royal Oak and Birmingham do have Amtrak stations). Then you have your auto oriented edge cities like Troy and Novi (basically like Schaumburg and outer Naperville), and a couple others like Plymouth, MI (reminds me of St. Charles.) and of course Dearborn, home to Americas largest Arab community, and the Henry Ford/Greenfield Village. Canton, a sprawlburb, with neighboring Plymouth (small downtown) have also held up due to their proximity to Ann Arbor, one of Michigans greatest assets.
In conlusion, I agree with what you said, but its mostly noticealbe particularly about the inner ring suburbs of the respective cities. Specifically in Chicagos near north suburbs. Park Ridge and Skokie for example were just middle class, affordable, 50s brick ranches, however their proximity to Chicagos north side, and both Metra and El, make these places more desirable and expensive, Detroits counterparts saw big drops. The same is true for Chicagos near west suburbs to a lesser extent than the north, these also have seen more desirability but obviously its mixed with desirable (Oak Park, Forest Park, Berwyn) and less so (Broadview, Lyons, etc.)
The South and SW suburbs, and of course NW Indiana however are a little different stories, and those are obviously more rustbelt in character.
I know less about Dallas, but you also have a regional rail that goes through some DFW cities like Arlington between Dallas and Fort Worth.
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.
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.
