So, What's wrong with Joliet? (Chicago, Aurora: live, dangerous, suburbs)

[sbd78]

Originally Posted by desert student

What in the world are you talking about? Yes, I do feel VERY comfortable saying that stability is not a concern since most people moving into the sprawling areas of Joliet and Aurora, aren't as concerned about it as someone moving into Evanston. Sorry, I guess I thought it was implied. That is why they are moving into Joliet and Aurora! They aren't interested in towns that are doing very well.

Um, most people who are moving to the sprawling areas of Joliet and Aurora are concerned about their own FINANCIAL stability, and not dropping 3 quarters of a million dollars for a starter home, which is what one costs in Evanston. You think they are moving into Joliet and Aurora because they aren't intersted in towns that are doing very well? No, I think they are more interested in not going bankrupt paying the outrageous real estate prices in the towns you consider to be doing very well.

[desert student]

Originally Posted by NYrules

Lets not also forget that much of the things that Chicago is known to be "great" for such as architecture, interior design, medical professions/healthcare, fortune 500 co's, as well as many large scale retail chains, not to mention museums, universities, and much more mostly lie within city limits, not the burbs. Why? Because there was room in Chicago build all that stuff in the city allowing easy access for everyone basically creating a central hub, not just gearing a city to those fortunate enough to have a car like LA did and now Phoenix where everything is spread out all over the place.

Are Chicago's burbs great? Probably not. When comparing us on a grand scale to lets say the burbs on Long Island or in LA no we probably won't stand out like some of their burbs will, but you know what? Try to compare prices! On LI for instance in their burbs like Amityville, Syosset, Rockville Centre, and Lynbrook, $500,000 will get you what I like to call a "Midlothian special" (referencing the town of Midlothian, IL) basically meaning some tired old dumpy house probably owned by some "white trash family" out there which ran the property into the ground and the home will either need to be knocked down, or require $100,000 of updating prior to moving in, not to mention the taxes there! LA? Well the same really goes there as well. Ever watch Flip This House? See what those little dumps out there go for? I mean we are talking houses that are not even habitible going for $700,000!

So all in all, while Chicago's burbs are rather run of the mill so to say... They are one major thing... AFORDABLE. Your house in one of those "cookie cutter" towns most likely won't put you into the "poor" house and you will have good schools for your kids to go to, average taxes, tons of shopping nearby, jobs up the *****, and you probably won't have to worry about getting shot at in the morning as you go out to get your paper... That is if it is even still there. (poking some humor towards LA's famous burb Compton)

Well let me just "poke" a little bit of humor towards Chicago's famous burb GARY!!!!!!! Which by the way, stacks right up there with Compton in the 'dangerous' category. Give me Compton anyday over filthy, industrial polluted, horribly decayed Gary. At least Compton has near perfect weather. Really, don't attack a bad section of LA, when Chicago has NOOOOOO! room to talk! Have you ever heard of Harvey, Illinois or that nice little burb of MARKHAM?! Things are so bad there it makes Compton look like Lake Forest!

[desert student]

Originally Posted by sbd78

Um, most people who are moving to the sprawling areas of Joliet and Aurora are concerned about their own FINANCIAL stability, and not dropping 3 quarters of a million dollars for a starter home, which is what one costs in Evanston. You think they are moving into Joliet and Aurora because they aren't intersted in towns that are doing very well? No, I think they are more interested in not going bankrupt paying the outrageous real estate prices in the towns you consider to be doing very well.

Well, if we started to make listings of "good" cities, based upon who can afford to move to them right out of college, the list would be so bckwards, that it would be impossible to see the good from the bad. I'm sorry to say that Evanston is a better city than either Joliet or Aurora. I don't feel bad making this comparision because a) it is true b) no real estate agent would ever say, "Yes, Joliet is number one in my book because people can afford to live there. Forget the crime, drugs, gangs, urban problems, bad schools, etc. At least it is affordable!" I'm also sure it is also affordable to move to East St. Louis but do you see people doing it?

[skyeINIL]

Originally Posted by desert student

Well let me just "poke" a little bit of humor towards Chicago's famous burb GARY!!!!!!! Which by the way, stacks right up there with Compton in the 'dangerous' category. Give me Compton anyday over filthy, industrial polluted, horribly decayed Gary. At least Compton has near perfect weather. Really, don't attack a bad section of LA, when Chicago has NOOOOOO! room to talk! Have you ever heard of Harvey, Illinois or that nice little burb of MARKHAM?! Things are so bad there it makes Compton look like Lake Forest!

It sounds as if you are just picking towns out of the air that you may have heard were bad without really knowing much about them.

Do a tiny bit of research and you'll find that Gary is not, and never has been, a suburb of Chicago (not sure if you were serious about that) and that Markham has changed A LOT in the past decade (crime rate has dropped significantly). I don't think anyone will disagree that Harvey is pretty bad.

[sbd78]

Originally Posted by desert student

Well, if we started to make listings of "good" cities, based upon who can afford to move to them right out of college, the list would be so bckwards, that it would be impossible to see the good from the bad. I'm sorry to say that Evanston is a better city than either Joliet or Aurora. I don't feel bad making this comparision because a) it is true b) no real estate agent would ever say, "Yes, Joliet is number one in my book because people can afford to live there. Forget the crime, drugs, gangs, urban problems, bad schools, etc. At least it is affordable!" I'm also sure it is also affordable to move to East St. Louis but do you see people doing it?

First of all, we are talking about the new sprawling areas of Joliet, not the run down gang infested parts of town. Totally different. And why are we even comparing Joliet and Evanston? Sure, Evanston probably is a better town to live in. It is close to the lake, close to downtown, and that is why it costs 3 times as much to live there. You said people were moving to these new sprawling areas because they don't care about established towns like Evanston, when the truth is, lots of young families are moving to the sprawling areas because that's what they can afford. Evanston is very expensive, your average young family just starting out can't afford it!

[aragx6]

So true, hell an average family will never be able to afford Evanston.

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by desert student

You must not have read what I wrote because I wasn't speaking in terms of a buisness perspective!

Again, I think that it is sad that Chicago, with everything it has, has not produced a suburban community that people know on a national level as being positive. Meaning, good schools, low crime, excellent standard of living, quality of life issues, clean, etc. etc. Not major companies! Again, look at the Houston to Chicago reference in comparision to what you said. Many smaller cities, with far lower Fortune 500 companies have already produced alternate suburban cities that have everything I listed, and are known for it on national level. Does that make sense now!

Let me ask you this. What Phoenix suburb has made a positive impact on the world? Hmmm? Scottsdale? What a joke! Its just a resort for rich northerners and Californians. Take away the resorts and its just another dust bowl southwestern city, with some fancy houses that us northerners buy up. PHX suburbs are the epitome of bland and non-influential. Chicago's suburbs are above and beyond PHXs, I dont think anyone would argue that. Besides PV and Scottsdale, what is there? Mesa? Chandler? Gilberts? Fountain Hills? Surprise? Carefree? Cave Creek? Anthem? Ooooooh, theyve done sooooooo much for this world and made such a positive impact. I really think you should take some economics classes since youre a "student", any professor with 1/10th of a brain would tell you that Chicago and its suburbs are vastly more important than PHX's. Youre still young, I guess we have to realize that to understand where youre coming from.

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by aragx6

So true, hell an average family will never be able to afford Evanston.

Understatement of the year.

Id give an arm to live in Evanston, but the powers that be have led me down other roads.

[backtochitown]

Originally Posted by desert student

You must not have read what I wrote because I wasn't speaking in terms of a buisness perspective!

Again, I think that it is sad that Chicago, with everything it has, has not produced a suburban community that people know on a national level as being positive. Meaning, good schools, low crime, excellent standard of living, quality of life issues, clean, etc. etc. Not major companies! Again, look at the Houston to Chicago reference in comparision to what you said. Many smaller cities, with far lower Fortune 500 companies have already produced alternate suburban cities that have everything I listed, and are known for it on national level. Does that make sense now!

I don't know...Naperville to call out one burb gets some pretty good props...

The City of Naperville ranked second in Money magazine's 2006 best places to live ranking. Fort Collins. Colorado came in first in the annual national ranking.

Three other Illinois communities also made the list: Orland Park (45), Aurora (55) and Bloomington (80).

This year's list focused on cities between 50,000 and 300,000 population. Communities were ranked in 38 categories including median income, housing value, tax rate, crime rate, mortality rate and amenities like theaters and museums.

Are you saying Houston is highly rated? Wow, I've been there several times and think it is a concrete wasteland...maybe the burbs are better but I wouldn't even consider it based on the city itself.

[backtochitown]

Originally Posted by desert student

Well let me just "poke" a little bit of humor towards Chicago's famous burb GARY!!!!!!! Which by the way, stacks right up there with Compton in the 'dangerous' category. Give me Compton anyday over filthy, industrial polluted, horribly decayed Gary. At least Compton has near perfect weather. Really, don't attack a bad section of LA, when Chicago has NOOOOOO! room to talk! Have you ever heard of Harvey, Illinois or that nice little burb of MARKHAM?! Things are so bad there it makes Compton look like Lake Forest!

I grew up next to Gary and for the most part it is a dump...but Gary does have nice areas...there are million dollar homes on the beach there...Gary is also is pretty much next door to some really nice towns such as Munster, Valpo, etc...you just have to know where you are going.