naperville vs sycamore (Rockford, Aurora, DeKalb: buying a home, safe area, buying)

[Tom1113]

I would stay away from both areas. Sycamore is too cookie cutter, poorly built houses and too far from the city. That's how a lot of houses are being built these days and it's sad. I would stay away from Naperville because the area is too crowded. I would look at Glen Ellyn or Downers Grove.

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Tom1113

I would stay away from both areas. Sycamore is too cookie cutter, poorly built houses and too far from the city. That's how a lot of houses are being built these days and it's sad. I would stay away from Naperville because the area is too crowded. I would look at Glen Ellyn or Downers Grove.

Only a small portion of Sycamore is cookie-cutter. Most houses are quite old and very well kept, better built than the new stuff. It is far from Chicago, Ill agree with that.

[MrsMimi]

I was born and raised in Naperville and feel very fortunate for having done so. But Naperville is not what it used to be. It is way overcrowded and way overbuilt. Traffic is a nightmare! Sure, the downtown area is GREAT, but have fun getting there! Naperville is turning into more of a tourist attraction rather than a place to settle down in and raise a decent family, versus a SPOILED family. There are a TON of people who live there that think they are entitled to this and deserve that because of the size of their checking account! But, here and there, there are some good, down to earth folks who don't live there because of the status it will bring them. I will agree with others, though, that the public schools are TOP NOTCH, although they too have their issues! Just think long and hard about how long you want your weekend errands to take, and what kind of a family you want to raise. I say, live in Sycamore, and be like the hundreds of thousands of people in the Chicagoland area and go visit Naperville on the weekends!

[jrsully5]

I live close to Sycamore and work in Sycamore. I like to shop in Naperville. I think that could sum it up for you. Just what everybody else is saying.... Sycamore is a much smaller version of Naperville, so with that said, less of everything that comes with more people. I have the same concern as an earlier post; the quality of homes being put up (in a more affordable price range) are poor quality. They are missing some character, quaintness, and good old fashion building materials. Sycamore's historical downtown is beautiful... most of those homes are just beautiful.
Visit both, they are about 30 min from each other (not during rush hour)!

[Tom1113]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

Only a small portion of Sycamore is cookie-cutter. Most houses are quite old and very well kept, better built than the new stuff. It is far from Chicago, Ill agree with that.

If people keep moving and building there will be a lot more cookie cutter houses

[momandwifefromcali]

Thank you all so much.
We are very very confused though. The fact that many of you said that the newer houses in Sycamore are not built well scares me so much.
Naperville sounds great, besides the fact that is so overcrowded and the traffic is a big minus.
We want to live in a safe place with great schools with a family feeling community. We want to spend up to $325K on a house (we'll be more happier if less) and we want to have many many activities for the kids close by as well as everyday errands.
Sycamore or Naperville ???!?!?!?

[Drover]

Your budget is pretty much the deciding factor unless you can tolerate living in a townhome. You're going to have a far more difficult time finding a decent-quality SFH in Napreville with $325K than in Sycamore. And like Steve-O said, most of Sycamore's housing stock is much older and sturdier -- you don't have to buy a new house there; whereas chances are you do have to buy a newer home in Naperville since much of its growth has occurred in the last couple of decades, and the older homes are mostly in a rather expensive part of town.

I have to ask, though -- do you have employment lined up yet? If not, you might want to do that first. Picking a community [i]before[/url] finding a job either severely limits your options or exposes you to a dreadful commute. I'd hate to see you settle into Naperville only to find employment in Buffalo Grove; that commute would chew up 4 hours of your day.

[momandwifefromcali]

I have to ask, though -- do you have employment lined up yet? If not, you might want to do that first. Picking a community [i]before[/url] finding a job either severely limits your options or exposes you to a dreadful commute. I'd hate to see you settle into Naperville only to find employment in Buffalo Grove; that commute would chew up 4 hours of your day.

My husband is a real estate agent, he will be working from home most of the time.

[Drover]

If he's going to be in real estate, I'd say Sycamore is the place to be. The Naperville-area market is pretty tapped out and business would be mostly from turnover; whereas in Sycamore you have both turnover and growth (plus a lot of untapped growth potential) fueling the market.

[sbd78]

Originally Posted by momandwifefromcali

Thank you all so much.
We are very very confused though. The fact that many of you said that the newer houses in Sycamore are not built well scares me so much.
Naperville sounds great, besides the fact that is so overcrowded and the traffic is a big minus.
We want to live in a safe place with great schools with a family feeling community. We want to spend up to $325K on a house (we'll be more happier if less) and we want to have many many activities for the kids close by as well as everyday errands.
Sycamore or Naperville ???!?!?!?

A lot of people on here bash newer homes and say they are poorly built, but I have always lived in newer homes and have never had a problem. IMO, its all a matter of preference, some people prefer to have everything new, others prefer the vintage charm of an older home. If you choose new, your house is not going to blow down and fall apart like people imply. In Naperville, you are going to get more activities and be closer to much more shopping for errands, etc. but your housing dollar won't stretch as far as it will in Sycamore. In Sycamore $325K will get you a large and beautiful home, but the town is much smaller and there isn't as much to do as in Naperville. Its all a matter of where your priorities lie. I suggest coming for a visit and viewing both Naperville and Sycamore in person, it may help you with your decision.