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.
True. But not many Chicagolanders buy vacation homes in Effingham or Cairo. There must be a draw to bring them to SW Michigan.
I can't speak for all Chicagoans, but I personally hate driving. SW Michigan is 1.5 hours away. Cairo is what 6 hours and Effingham I've never heard of.
True. But not many Chicagolanders buy vacation homes in Effingham or Cairo. There must be a draw to bring them to SW Michigan.
Because it's pretty, close but away from Chicago, and not heavily populated. Effingham isn't pretty; Cairo is pretty, but it's economically depressed and many, many more hours away. But Galena is beautiful and many people from Chicago area find themselves there, too. It has nothing to do with something being in Michigan or Illinois--I mean no one is lining up to buy a summer house in Flint or Lansing. I'm not sure what most of this has to do with the IL v MI argument anyway.
I'm sorry, but this thread should not be Illinois vs. Michigan. You are comparing apples to oranges. Instead it should be Iowa vs Missouri vs Illinois vs Indiana.
OK fair enough. BTW, I lived in Chicagoland/Illinois most of my life before I moved out west so I know what its like.
OK, lets bring in other regions into the discussion. I went to school in Northern Michigan, close to some of the best natural scenery and outdoor recreation available in the midwest. People back home still had NO CLUE, what could possibly attract one to those areas, they figured I would be bored out of my mind going to school there, etc. It wasn't even a case like "Upper Michigan is beautiful, and it has lots of outdoor opportunities, but its just way to cold, snowy, and isolated for me. No. They didn't even understand why one would like it."
When I moved to Southern California, people were jealous/figured I was moving primarily because of the weather. Even after explaining the proximity of mountains, etc., it was like you needed a huge explanation, that one might want to move to somewhere that has better outdoor and nature opportunities. Sure, a few people, understood the proximity of western cities to national parks, and other parkland with hiking trails, but for many it did not even enter their minds. They just figured that grandparents moved to Phoenix so they don't have to shovel snow, and SoCal has a bunch of "fake people" and thats it.
This is what I'm talking about.
Although to be fair, theres still plenty of people that have been born and raised in western states that don't engage much in outdoor activities and have to have it explained why one would move there, so I guess its all just personal preference.
Dude -- Chicagoans don't have an "outdoor recreation" culture. I GET IT. I've even agreed with you, several times now. I cannot figure out why you feel the need to belabor the point. But I don't, so I'm done.
I still say that Wisconsin and Michigan should merge as one state, and Chicago and Michigan City be incorporated. Done! It would be an interesting looking state.
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.
