Recommend a liberal city less expensive than Chicago? (Peoria, Springfield: condo, crime rate)

[aragx6]

Again, not in Illinois, but as others have suggested Edwardsville, I'd just suggest St. Louis proper. Should be more job opportunities for you in advertising as well than some of the smaller downstate cities.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by CarolL

Also not in IL, but only a few miles into Wisconsin, is Madison. Think: "Ithaca NY of the Midwest."

Madison seems to have what the OP is after, but I'd caution that it's an expensive place to live. Unless you want to live in the student ghetto, an apartment in Madison costs almost as much as an apartment in Chicago.

[Paxtonian]

Liberal Cities = Expensive Cities? Interesting!

[welder]

Are u talking about renting? If u are, go with Chicago! Chicago rents are not that high. Downright cheap actually for being the 3rd largesy city in the US. And it's a great city too! U can get a nice 1 bed in Edgewater for $800. U dont need a car there either. Or go with a studio. Going to some small town? The $ you're going to blow on gas would probably make up the rent difference. In Chicago, u got great public transit. Plus u can kill alot of afternoons at the beaches there. And it wont cost u a dime. From Edgewater, it's literally minutes walking. Chicago is going to have WAY more opportunities than any small town would.

[breer23]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Again, not in Illinois, but as others have suggested Edwardsville, I'd just suggest St. Louis proper. Should be more job opportunities for you in advertising as well than some of the smaller downstate cities.

While I agree with the latter part of your statement, I think that St. Louis is quite a bit more conservative than some of the towns in IL that have been mentioned. It still holds to some of the old roots of the south, and while it does hold some progressive pockets (particularly near the Loop and Wash. Univ. areas), as a whole, the town did not strike me as overly-liberal.

[aragx6]

Mind you I'm not speaking of the suburbs to be sure, but St. Louis relaibly votes blue, and very blue at that, in every election.

"Voter turnout in St. Louis City and County and Kansas City rose 12% over 2000, improving Kerry’s urban victory margin by nearly 50,000 votes over Al Gore’s. In St. Louis City and County, Kerry’s share of the vote exceeded the combined percentages of Gore and Ralph Nader in 2000. Bush got less than 20% in the City."

St. Louis Oracle: November 2004

[breer23]

I can't argue with those stats, aragx6, and I should know...I was one of those in the blue category for this most recent set of primaries, but voter registration doesn't always translate to practice of ideals in a community of St. Louis' size.

I found the vast majority of liberal ideals to be seen predominantly near the universities (which is somewhat typical), while you didn't have to stretch too far out into the suburbs (and yes, I count those as being part of the St. Louis area, since they're is not much to divide the city & county in some regions) and certainly the outlying rural regions to experience more conservative ideals.

It's a mixed bag, to be honest, as most urban areas are. I just didn't want to give the OP the impression that the entire St. Louis region would hone more liberal ideals.

[aragx6]

The city itself is pretty liberal I believe in both voting record and practice. Certainly you are right to suggest that the outer suburbs lean conservative (though you'll typically find them to be more the McCain conservative as opposed to Huckabee conservative if that makes sense) but the same is very true for many of the downstate cities like C-U or B-N that others mentioned. Very libreral at their core near the universities, but much more conservative, and social conservative at that, once you get toward the outskirts.

St. Louis has a far larger liberal enclave than that you'd find in the smaller Illinois downstate cities.

I certainly didn't intend to imply that St. Louis is a Portland or a San Francisco, but it's far cheaper than Chicago, has advertising possibilities and has a substantial liberal population, and in those respects seems to match up with what the OP stated they were looking for, making it certainly, if nothing else, worth a look-see.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Mind you I'm not speaking of the suburbs to be sure, but St. Louis relaibly votes blue, and very blue at that, in every election.

"Voter turnout in St. Louis City and County and Kansas City rose 12% over 2000, improving Kerry’s urban victory margin by nearly 50,000 votes over Al Gore’s. In St. Louis City and County, Kerry’s share of the vote exceeded the combined percentages of Gore and Ralph Nader in 2000. Bush got less than 20% in the City."

St. Louis Oracle: November 2004

This is a common mistake people make. "Blue" and "progressive" are not interchangeable. "Progressive" is part of the coalition that makes up the "blue" but not everyone in the coalition is "progressive." I used to live in Pittsburgh for instance. Blue city, owing mostly to its urban makeup and its union blue-collar traditions. But nobody would mistake Pittsburgh as a "progressive" city. I suspect St. Louis is at least somewhat the same way.

[aragx6]

You know Drover you're right abut that, which is I think what I was getting at with the Portland and San Fran references. That being said, I know some hard core active true progressives who live in the city of St. Louis and when I was just home over the holiday weekend there was a big progressive radio charity function which was sold out, so I know they're out there.