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.
Relative affordability in the NYC metro is basically the same as in the Chicago metro. If you look at housing burden by metro area (ie % of income going to housing costs) they're basically identical. In other words, for the average person in each area, there is no difference.
Another stereotype- Manhattan is completely unaffordable. In reality, housing burden in Manhattan is among the lowest in the NYC metro (because incomes are high and so many people are already homeowners or have stabilized rents). In fact housing burden in Manhattan is lower than in Chicagoland. Of course, this doesn't mean your rent doesn't plummet if you move from Manhattan to suburban Chicago, but it does show how people actually live.
Really the most unaffordable metro area in the U.S. is Miami, because housing costs are high while income/wealth is quite low.
Yeah, but there's no question that you can live within walking distance of work in a property you own in Chicago for far less than what it would cost here. The only question is whether that's "worth" more and that's for each individual to decide. Clearly, if you live in Chicago then it is worth it and if you live in Manhattan then it's probably not worth it.
The not-so-subtle implication here is that NYC is not a particularly realistic place to live. Sure, it's great if you want to party and have fun in your 20s, but not realistic for the long run. In Chicago, on the other hand, you can live in a bungalow and send your kids to public schools that rival those in Montgomery County, Maryland!
If living in New York is not very realistic, then you have millions and millions of people who manage to live very unrealistic lives. I think the problem is that most people equate "New York" with the few places they visit but their conception of "Chicago" is broad enough to encompass leafy bungalow neighborhoods along its outer boundaries. I also think the paradigm of American living is centered around ownership of a single family home, and if a place offers less of that, it's possibly not seen as being as "livable" as some cities that offer more of that.
That is an EXTREME example. More like Shailene Woodley vs Scarlett.
It had to be extreme to underscore the point. There's no way you can tell somebody what the "worth" of something is. Even in that comparison, you might have someone who still thinks Scarlett is worth way more effort than Shailene. Sure, he could get away with taking Shailene to Appelbee's, but he would rather give Scarlett the 5-star treatment.
That is to say that I don't find Chicago's lower COL to be a particularly strong selling point and that is probably true for most people who choose NYC over Chicago. And I'm sure it's the opposite for people who choose Chicago over NYC.
The not-so-subtle implication here is that NYC is not a particularly realistic place to live. Sure, it's great if you want to party and have fun in your 20s, but not realistic for the long run. In Chicago, on the other hand, you can live in a bungalow and send your kids to public schools that rival those in Montgomery County, Maryland!
Well, yeah, if that's the premise, then it's a silly one. CPS is even worse/more segregated than NYC schools.
And people don't just choose where to live based on cheap housing costs. If that were the case then inner-city Flint and rural Mississippi would be the best places to live in the U.S.
Just as many people think Manhattan is "too expensive" and "not worth it" there are many people who think downtown Chicago is "too expensive" and "not worth it". I mean, why live in Lincoln Park when Milwaukee and St. Louis and Cincy have nice urban neighborhoods at a much lower price point? These cities all have transit and hipsters and lofts and cool restaurants too.
Or why not live in cheaper Chicago suburbs, which are often quite nice and a quick drive/train to downtown? It's the exact same argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I also think the paradigm of American living is centered around ownership of a single family home, and if a place offers less of that, it's possibly not seen as being as "livable" as some cities that offer more of that.
Yeah, if someone demands single family ownership, then NYC is, in most cases, a less-than-ideal choice. It has the lowest % of single family homes of any U.S. metro, and just isn't geared around that kind of lifestyle.
Just as many people think Manhattan is "too expensive" and "not worth it" there are many people who think downtown Chicago is "too expensive" and "not worth it". I mean, why live in Lincoln Park when Milwaukee and St. Louis and Cincy have nice urban neighborhoods at a much lower price point? These cities all have transit and hipsters and lofts and cool restaurants too.
I guess that depends on how "close" you think the respective experiences are. If you see only slightly less value in the Chicago experience compared to the NYC experience, then you might be inclined to choose Chicago given the COL disparity. Someone may similarly see the Milwaukee experience as being only marginally worse than the Chicago experience, but on an objective level, it's harder to make that argument imo. Chicago is a world-class city and Milwaukee is not.
But yeah, I agree that that line of thinking can be problematic. A lot of people don't think Wicker Park is worth the rents that are charged there.
I guess that depends on how "close" you think the respective experiences are. If you see only slightly less value in the Chicago experience compared to the NYC experience, then you might be inclined to choose Chicago given the COL disparity. Someone may similarly see the Milwaukee experience as being only marginally worse than the Chicago experience, but on an objective level, it's harder to make that argument imo. Chicago is a world-class city and Milwaukee is not.
But yeah, I agree that that line of thinking can be problematic. A lot of people don't think Wicker Park is worth the rents that are charged there.
Or, slightly less than the Chicago experience. I don't look at the Chicago experience as "worse." "Worse" than what?
I guess that depends on how "close" you think the respective experiences are. If you see only slightly less value in the Chicago experience compared to the NYC experience, then you might be inclined to choose Chicago given the COL disparity. Someone may similarly see the Milwaukee experience as being only marginally worse than the Chicago experience, but on an objective level, it's harder to make that argument imo. Chicago is a world-class city and Milwaukee is not.
I think the relative difference in urbanity/city amenities between NYC and Chicago is comparable to the relative difference in urbanity/city amenities between Chicago and Milwaukee. To me, it's the same argument. At a basic level, what does Milwaukee lack that Chicago has?
Of course all this subjective and very personal. There isn't really any way to objectively determine what a place is "worth" outside of what people are actually paying and where they choose to live.
These two cities are not comparable IMO, and it is not accurate to say that either one offers "the same things" as the other because their vibes and overall culture are distinctly different from each other. New York has no peer in the USA. It's just so much bigger and more dense than Chicago, and full of all the measurable and intangible qualities that come with that. It's far beyond just a matter of scale.
These two cities are not comparable IMO, and it is not accurate to say that either one offers "the same things" as the other because their vibes and overall culture are distinctly different from each other. New York has no peer in the USA. It's just so much bigger and more dense than Chicago, and full of all the measurable and intangible qualities that come with that. It's far beyond just a matter of scale.
So which would you choose, with your career and household size? Because THAT is the point of this post, not comparing the cities in a vacuum.
I think the relative difference in urbanity/city amenities between NYC and Chicago is comparable to the relative difference in urbanity/city amenities between Chicago and Milwaukee. To me, it's the same argument. At a basic level, what does Milwaukee lack that Chicago has?
I guess people would say mass transit, diversity, nationally-acclaimed restaurants, top flight legal, media and finance firms, world-class museums, theater, "big city" feel, etc.
I see your point but I think the gap between Chicago and Milwaukee is WAY bigger than the gap between Chicago and NYC.
I guess people would say mass transit, diversity, nationally-acclaimed restaurants, top flight legal, media and finance firms, world-class museums, theater, "big city" feel, etc.
I see your point but I think the gap between Chicago and Milwaukee is WAY bigger than the gap between Chicago and NYC.
It is. He's semi-trolling at this point. The gap between Chicago and Milwaukee is greater than the gap between New York and Philly.
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.
