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.
My husband and I are recently married, ready to settle down and start a family, and itchin', just ITCHIN' to get out of Chicago. It's a city that's admittedly hard to leave, as after doing a lot of travel around the country we do realize how much bang for your buck you get here. But the landscape and crime and lack of true seasons is getting to us, as is the inability to buy a house without living in the cringe-inducing 'burbs. We're just not inspired by the midwest anymore (he's from Kansas, I'm from Texas). We want a new adventure. We made a list of places we'd like to move, but with the following outcomes:
Austin, TX: too much driving, not big enough, northern 'burbs made us want to vomit.
LA: too much crime, impossible to buy a house, too much driving
San Francisco: too dang cold, impossible to buy a house
Portland: still on the top of our list. Concern about rain and druggies and crime.
Boston: Perfect in every single way, except for...it's dang expensive!
We're in the middle of trying to jumpstart this whole having a family thing (fun..! ha) and when we do have a Jr. or two arrive I want to raise them myself, at least for the first few years. No point in paying somebody else to do it. We love the idea of living in a little town near Boston if my husband finds a good job in the city that he could ride the train to. We'd rent for a bit to see if we like it, then we'd love to buy a house. Doesn't have to be a huge house, just a place with a little yard and 2-3 bedrooms. We don't know much about home-buying (this would be our first time), but my guess is my husband would be able to find a job that pays around $80-90K in his field and we presently have $65K for a down payment on a house.
I know Boston is one of the most expensive cities in the country to live. But the idea of being in the beautiful and idyllic Northeast and part of the extensive train system and to be able to walk and explore, it's irresistible. But are we imagining a life that can't really be? Is raising a family on one income in the Boston area realistic?
1. Boston is pretty cold...way colder than San Francisco. Except in the summer when Boston would often have higher daytime high temps than San Fran.
2. Based on everything I know, Chicago has all the seasons, as does Boston. No real change there for you, though Chicago is probably a bit colder in winter than Boston.
3. Not likely you'll find housing to be less expensive than Chicago. If you're feeling priced out of the more desirable non-suburb areas there, you may feel the same way in Boston.
Nah, there aren't four seasons here in Chicago. It's 75% winter (and brutally cold, just awful) and then a very brief, mild summer. Spring and fall are practically non-existent here. I've been to Boston in the fall and winter and it was much more tolerable.
We don't want to live in the city proper, because we know flat-out it's not the lifestyle we want for a family...but access to it would be nice. The suburbs in Chicago are just regular 'ol American 'burbs. The towns surrounding Boston seem like they have a lot more going on (prettier in general, easier access to parks, easier train access to the city, some have nice downtown areas).
Boston is a lot smaller than Chicago, so you have to go a lot further out of Boston to be as far out as you'd be in Chicago. Here, a neighborhood like Logan Square could be a "suburb".
I think it would be very tough to get by on that income alone but I'm thinking of it from my personal perspective and my personal spending/saving habits/living. People do it on less money, of course--not everyone who lives here is middle or upper middle class--but you would have to think about your lifestyle. I'd suggest zeroing in some towns that appeal to you, getting a sense of what's available in your budget, and making a budget based on that. See if the numbers are worth it. I love Chicago and know you get a lot of bang for your buck there, so you may need to think about which areas you compromise on (space, neighborhood, discretionary funds, etc.)
I'll start out following suit with those who have posted already, advising serious thought about a move to this area, but I'll end up by suggesting a town or two for you to consider as well.
Off the top of my head I think you could probably live in the Boston area on the income you're talking about, but you'd most likely need to plan on your family's living very modestly. That's just off the top of my head, though. A lot depends on how you choose to live, how modest a life in general you're comfortable with, what you'd like to be able to do for recreation and how much those activities would cost, and whether you would be likely to go to work and bring in a second income after those Jr.s got older.
Those are some thoughts I have about points to consider. I'm hesitant to recommend such a move without reservation at this point, because this is all based on speculation about the approximate income you think your husband could pull in. However, I know that you need to get some general idea whether this is feasible before your husband makes the effort to do a serious job hunt in the area. So, with the caveat that this is a very general view that could be altered depending on your and your family's preferences, I'd say it's workable, if you accept that living modestly goes along with raising a family in this area on the income you're talking about.
Another note of caution has to do with your apparent dislike of suburbs with a very suburban character. While it's true that the scenery around Boston once you get out far enough to see natural countryside is attractive, and it's true that many suburbs of Boston have their own local character, older houses with more distinctive architecture than generic suburban styles, cute or even quaint little downtown areas, and the like, it's also true that these are still suburbs. We have our McMansion subdivisions around here, as well as their older equivalent in neighborhoods of '50's/early '60's ranches and split-levels. Houses of these styles are not ubiquitous as they seem to be in the suburbs in some other regions, but they're here.
But then, it's also true that McMansions don't dominate the landscape here. Aesthetically pleasing appearances notwithstanding, Boston's suburbs are still suburbs in the sense that they are commuter bedroom communities. People leave their homes and drive all over the metro area for work, shopping, and entertainment. This tends to water down the cozy sense of community you might find in a non-suburban town where people encounter their neighbors all through the day as they go about their everyday activities. When you talk about living in a little town outside of Boston, keep in mind that these are suburbs, not genuine Mayberry small-town America that happens to be located conveniently near to a big city.
One final word of caution has to do with weather. Generally, summer and winter here aren't as harsh as they are in Chicago, but I'm not sure there's as much difference between the two cities' climates as you may be thinking. I can't be sure without really knowing what you're picturing, but there is enough similarity between the climate here and that in Chicago that I'd say that if you don't like the weather in Chicago, you'd do well to get some good info on Boston's climate, not base your picture on what you've observed during some visits here.
Okay, we're jumping way ahead here, but I did say something about naming some possibilities. I could be completely off here, because I'd need some details on what you'd really like to have in a place to live, but when I think of some little town outside of Boston, suburban but with maybe some hints of genuine small-town feel, with housing costs that are not exorbitant by this area's standards, and commuter rail service, a town called Littleton comes to mind. It's pretty far out from Boston, and might not work at all, if the commute would be longer than your husband would prefer, but based on the bit of a description you've provided, that's the town I picture. Also, Holliston and Hopkinton fit this picture, except that the nearest commuter rail service is located in an adjacent town, not right in either of these towns. I'm sure there are other towns similar to these, but those are three that might be worth a look. However, that depends on whether I've picked up the right impression of what you're looking for.
One final word of caution has to do with weather. Generally, summer and winter here aren't as harsh as they are in Chicago, but I'm not sure there's as much difference between the two cities' climates as you may be thinking. I can't be sure without really knowing what you're picturing, but there is enough similarity between the climate here and that in Chicago that I'd say that if you don't like the weather in Chicago, you'd do well to get some good info on Boston's climate, not base your picture on what you've observed during some visits here.
Having lived in Chicago for about 5 years now, I can honestly say that there isn't that much difference in weather compared to Boston. Winters are typically less snowy (no nor'easters to worry about here), but there have been winters where temps were in the low teens to as low as single digits. I think summers in Chicago are a little less humid, but not extremely so. I think Boston gets far more T-storms in the summer.
And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there aren't 4 seasons here OP, but I sure noticed the seasonal changes and it's pure exaggeration to say that it's winter 75% of the time. Honestly, if you don't think Chicago has 4 seasons, than by that token, Boston doesn't either.
I would really go over you list of needs and wants again, b/c some of the stuff you've posted seem a bit contradictory. You say San Francisco is too cold, but Boston easily gets colder. You say Austin is not big enough, but Boston isn't a huge city either (how big is "big enough" for you?) and I think is a bit smaller than Boston population wise (can't speak for the metro area). You say Portland has too much crime, but I can't imagine it'd be more crime ridden than Boston, unless my idea of Portland is completely off (also, what sort of crime do you speak of? Car theft? Assault? Murder?). Pretty sure that, as of this year, the murder rate in Boston is higher than Portland (but the vast majority of it is gang related).
Not trying to dissuade you from Boston, just clearing some stuff up to make sure you're not getting the wrong impression of the city. Again, a clear list of what you're looking for in a new city and what you don't want will help you out here. I would also try to visit Boston during the winter if cold is an issue for you.
Having lived in Chicago myself, I have to agree with OP - well not on the 75% thing, but on the idea that seasons are less well-defined. Chicago has a very poor excuse for fall - particularly compared just about anywhere around here, where it's spectacular. But enough about Chicago ...
To the OP, as I read the comments to date, I have to wonder why so many people are focused on trying not to get you to move to Boston - you clearly want to move here, and I can certainly understand why, given your reasons. Your $65K house down payment is a very good start - much better than many people have. But, your husband's projected salary of less than six figures is pretty low.
You could live here, but only on a budget. I went to Zillow.com, and looked up houses for sale in Watertown - a suburb that meets a lot of your needs - and got quite a few houses in the $300 - $350 range: http: Watertown MA Homes for Sale & Watertown Real Estate - Zillow.
I'm sure that you could look at any number of towns in the area and find similar (or even more affordable) options. This is 2011, not 2007, and the property values haven't rebounded that much yet. That would certainly be workable on a single income of over $100k.
In any case, best of luck in your search. I absolutely think it's worth trying to come to Boston. You clearly want to be here.
I'm a Bostonian who lived in Chicago for 5 years and I thought the seasons were truer in Chicago. Chicago's winters are colder, much colder than Boston but we get more show here in Boston. Boston summers are perfect but we've had years when we don't get a spring or a fall. I loved spring in Chicago and fall seemed to be a nice extension of summer. What you will like about Boston is it's sense of history. We don't tear buildings down like they do in Chicago, we just shore them up and put a plaque on them. I love both cities. They're different from each other in so many ways but the differences are all attributes in my book.
Having lived in Chicago myself, I have to agree with OP - well not on the 75% thing, but on the idea that seasons are less well-defined. Chicago has a very poor excuse for fall - particularly compared just about anywhere around here, where it's spectacular. But enough about Chicago ...
To the OP, as I read the comments to date, I have to wonder why so many people are focused on trying not to get you to move to Boston - you clearly want to move here, and I can certainly understand why, given your reasons. Your $65K house down payment is a very good start - much better than many people have. But, your husband's projected salary of less than six figures is pretty low.
You could live here, but only on a budget. I went to Zillow.com, and looked up houses for sale in Watertown - a suburb that meets a lot of your needs - and got quite a few houses in the $300 - $350 range: http: Watertown MA Homes for Sale & Watertown Real Estate - Zillow.
I'm sure that you could look at any number of towns in the area and find similar (or even more affordable) options. This is 2011, not 2007, and the property values haven't rebounded that much yet. That would certainly be workable on a single income of over $100k.
In any case, best of luck in your search. I absolutely think it's worth trying to come to Boston. You clearly want to be here.
what's so bad about Chicago's falls? They seem pretty similar to Boston's autumns, minus a bit more brilliant foliage. Obviously we'll all have to agree to disagree when it comes to the topic of weather since it is a personal preference, but I can assure you and provide scientific and statistical proof that it's not winter 75% of the time in Chicago or even 30% of the time.
I don't think people are trying to dissuade the OP from moving to Boston, just giving her the straight facts. There are lots of active threads on this board of people griping about why they hate Boston and a lot of the reasons are things that are common traits of the city (e.g., lack of parking, poor street signage, cold winters). The OP's reasons for choosing Boston aren't fully stated. I'm just saying, let's try to give the OP as much info as possible and not sugarcoat anything b/c anyone who thinks S.F is too cold is going to be in for a very rude awakening when Boston starts having normal winters again (oh lord, I hope people aren't forming their opinions of Boston winters based on this past freakish winter).
As someone who loves Boston I still have to say, please don't do it. You're in one of the best cities in the world, at much better cost of living than Boston. Chicago has history, architecture, intellectuals, great sports teams, an international airport, etc., just like Boston does. If the issue is truly wanting four seasons, move to the mid-Atlantic region (PA, NJ, MD, VA). I have cried (well, figuratively cried) over many "missed" springs here when Boston decided to serve up a double helping of winter before going straight to summer.
If you want adventures, take the $20-$30k extra a year you'd be spending to live here, and use some of it for trips around the country. Go to southern California or the Virgin Islands in the winter, New England for fall foliage, etc. You're centrally enough located that you can visit almost anywhere in the U.S. with minimal jet lag or travel time.
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.
You're in one of the best cities in the world, at much better cost of living than Boston. Chicago has history, architecture, intellectuals, great sports teams, an international airport, etc., just like Boston does. If the issue is truly wanting four seasons, move to the mid-Atlantic region (PA, NJ, MD, VA). I have cried (well, figuratively cried) over many "missed" springs here when Boston decided to serve up a double helping of winter before going straight to summer.
