Raise a family in Illnois or California (Chicago, Naperville: for sale, real estate)

[Fdurand]

I am in a great situation. I have a great oppurtunity with my job with a great promotion with my income being 200K and my wife about 55K that would give us a choice to live and work in either the Chicago or L.A. area. My concern is my 5 year old daughter who will be starting kindergarten. Which would be better to live and raise a family, buy a home with that income? The Suburbs of Illonos like Napervliie or the LA area like Westminister. What other suburbs would you reccomend? Thanks

[chet everett]

Wow, way too many variables, most of them personal choice things. If you have family in one area and not the other that would be huge factor. From the grandparent contact, availability of family as back-up childcare/ babysitting that would a big concern if you both work and have child entering kindergarten. Similarly if you have cousins or close friends with children of similar age that is big difference.

When you think about LA v Chicago the weather is a factor, and the lifestyle that goes with it. In the Chicago suburbs you are going to learn to surf, and activity tied to kid's sports is much different than the year-round nature of LA. For adults there are some major life differences too -- travel from Chicago for business is pretty easy either east or west, and many road warrior jobs are actually tolerable while still being an involved parent. California is a very different jumping off point and the shear distance / time zone factor makes it much different place to commute out of.

Housing costs in the most desirable areas of California are considerably higher than the Chicago region, and even your considerable $255K household salary may be stretched, while the options you'd have with such a salary in the Chicago region are much broader.

I sorta wonder what sorts of employement would pay the same in both regions. The legal community in Chicago is quite different than LA, as are many upper / mid level corporate positions in the financial and general management areas. Chicago has nearly no entertainment related employment, while that is aa huge driver in LA.

Medical fields have pretty similar salary, but I gather that the mix of patients can be quite different.

[linicx]

Having lived in both, I would take Illinois. For one thing your dollar will go farther and your taxes will be cheaper - especially if you live in the county and not in a city. Illinois offers four seasons. Chicago is smaller. There are a lot of interesting and educational things for you and your family to do together. I could be wrong but I think the Chicago area in more multi-cultural. It certainly has a wide selection of ethnic foods and cultural events plus great upscale dining and shopping. You'll find trader Joe's, Cosco, Whole Foods and iKea in Chicago, too. You will not find three of the largest skyscrapers in LA. but you will in Chicago. You'll also find the two oldest zoological parks in Illinois; one is in Chicago. You won't have the ocean and mountains, but you will have Lake Michigan and Navy Pier and you aren't that far from the Indiana Dunes or The Dells in Wisconsin or quaint Galena or even the Wisconsin "thumb" in Door County:. You can take the train from Chicago to St. Louis and kill a weekend.

I am quite sure there are private schools in Chicago. The trains and El are convenient to get from home to work, or to the Loop. Chicago does have upscale housing and several nice country clubs. On the whole I don't think Chicagoans are as pretentious as Californians.

I've spent time in most of the largest cities in the US. I still like Chicago better. I am here to tell you the expressway system beats LA routes all to pieces. It is much easier to move around Chicago by car than it is in LA, at any time of the day. Even rush hour on the outer Drive isn't as nasty as 5 in California. I got stuck in that traffic twice in one week for a total of 7 hours. I swore I would never go anywhere near LA again. More importantly you do not have to drive through the desert to visit Indiana or Iowa or Michigan. The Midwest highways and byways can take you to some interesting places using scenic routes.

I do not know the neighborhoods like I used to, but it seems like Forest Park was always a desireable location. I am certain Steve-O or some of the other posters can tell you more than I. Come spend a week and find your dream house. And while you are here, grab a cab and check out the city. It's pricey, but you can't see the City while driving. IF you are lucky the cabbie can tell you the history while you are taking in the sights.

.

[Intergalactic]

Westminster? Naperville is much better.

[linicx]

This should get you started and give you an idea of what is available: Park Forest is not as upscale but it has a Montessori School. I am gong to send you a Direct Message.

Interim housing in Oak Park. Also the OP and River Forest website. Click on Real Estate
Oak Park Tourist - Touring, Living and Working in Oak Park, Illinois

Chicago Single Family Homes for Sale

Upscale Neighborhoods in and Around Chicago

Upscale Living in Chicago's Magnificent Mile Community

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by Fdurand

I am in a great situation. I have a great oppurtunity with my job with a great promotion with my income being 200K and my wife about 55K that would give us a choice to live and work in either the Chicago or L.A. area. My concern is my 5 year old daughter who will be starting kindergarten. Which would be better to live and raise a family, buy a home with that income? The Suburbs of Illonos like Napervliie or the LA area like Westminister. What other suburbs would you reccomend? Thanks

Would you rather live in gangland waiting for a major earthquake in a bankrupt state or would you rather live in one of the best areas of the country to raise a family?

[surlycue]

I don't know whom is worse; the chicago hating trolls or the staunch defenders. obviously there are positives and negatives to both regions but the judgment of them must fall onto the OP. some may prefer the warm weather, others may prefer a 4 season year, et cetera, et cetera.

[breeze823]

Make a list of pros and cons and wants/needs and go from there. Are you from a cold winter area already? I left California for some weather,lol, but would never consider somewhere like Chicago are further north because I knew the winters would be too much for me. Where I am, we get like 1 day of snow and that's perfect, although my kids would like more,lol...
Good luck on your decision!

Editing again to add that I have a friend who lived in Naperville, with kids and loved it!

[Drover]

You won't struggle with a household income of $255K in L.A., but I think you might be surprised at how far it will go (or won't go) in L.A. You'll certainly get more bang for your buck around here, making it easier to do things like put away for your daughter's college education and the like. If costs were equivalent, I'd probably say go for L.A. But since they're not only not equivalent but quite disparate, I'd pick here.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by linicx

I do not know the neighborhoods like I used to, but it seems like Forest Park was always a desireable location. I am certain Steve-O or some of the other posters can tell you more than I.

Actually, Forest Park kind of sucks and has terrible schools. It does have one nice strip of restaurants and bars, but if you're making $250,000 a year Forest Park should not be on your short list at all. If you like Naperville, other nearby suburbs like Downers Grove might interest you. Hinsdale might still be a bit of a stretch on $250K, but Western Springs and La Grange are also great towns in that area.

On that salary the city might still be tough with private schools and a single-family house, but it's doable--and you certainly get more for your money here over Los Angeles.