Chicago, America's best city for the price? (Peoria, Springfield: to live in, prices)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by long101

Im pretty sure that regular cars are 90-100. I vaguely remember paying 125 for the sticker + permit, however it sure as hell beats the $200 ticket for not having one.

Depends on the model but it appears most sedans are $57/year.
Pricing | Office of the City Clerk, City of Chicago

[long101]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Depends on the model but it appears most sedans are $57/year.
Pricing | Office of the City Clerk, City of Chicago

hmmm interesting. Either that table isnt current or I have been getting ripped off. I looked up my cc statement and I paid 110 last year, which Im guessing was 85 for the sticker and 25 for the permit

[Drover]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Depends on the model but it appears most sedans are $57/year.
Pricing | Office of the City Clerk, City of Chicago

That grid is genuinely bizarre and thoroughly incorrect. I don't know if there's a database error or what but that grid is FOS.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Depends on the model but it appears most sedans are $57/year.
Pricing | Office of the City Clerk, City of Chicago

I think that link is out of date, I just paid $110 last week.

[Vlajos]

A city stikcer for a car below a certain weight is $85 per year.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Depends on the model but it appears most sedans are $57/year.
Pricing | Office of the City Clerk, City of Chicago

it was higher than that even 8 years ago I think I paid around 75+zone parking sticker, I think it's 110 now.

[marothisu]

Eh still. Not insane or anything. Now if it was per month that would be another story..$110 is less than $10/month.

[Drover]

I wonder if that chart in the link above isn't the current pro-rated rate for people who register their cars today.

[UsAll]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fightforlove
No, but Chicago as a whole is, metaphorically speaking of course.

Originally Posted by marothisu

No, no it's not. If we're talking about where the nice houses are in Chicago, most of the nice houses in Chicago are not in working class neighborhoods at all. There are some nice old houses in some bad neighborhoods, (like the Austin historical district which is close to Oak Park), but as a whole? No.

Go to Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, Near north in general, Lakeview, Wicker Park/Bucktown, Hyde Park, Buena Park, etc. These are far from working class neighborhoods

I don't think that you are quite understanding the point that FIGHTFORLOVE is making. He is not referring to the particular neighborhoods within the Cty of Chicago proper nor even its nearby or surrounding suburbs and what they themselves (the neighborhoods or suburbs) are proximate to. He is referring to Chicagoland AS A WHOLE being a megalopolis surrounded by a whole region (the Midwest or Upper Midwest or Plains states) that nearly all consist of cities, towns, villages, hamlets and rural jurisdictions that are not quite the equivalent of what New York City and San Francisco has proximate to them (i.e., within less than a day's drive from Chicagoland). He is saying that Chicagoland taken as a whole is an oddity (an oasis), being a global alpha city within the midst of a vast stretch of territory (the central U.S.) that is very unlike Chicagoland in so many ways.

As stated by others and expanded on here by myself:

(a) If you live in SAN FRANCISCO, you have the whole rest of the world-famous Bay Area (including Oakland, Berkeley, et al) + the Silicon Valley, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas and Reno all a car ride away. You also have the Pacific Ocean, mountains, deserts, wine country, Yosemite National Park, Lake Tahoe, Las Vegas, Reno, and so much more . . . with ALL these mentioned places being world magnets that people from all over are drawn to.

(b) If you live in NEW YORK CITY, you have Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., + the Atlantic Ocean, mountains, and many other big and medium cities and amenities in all directions within less than a day's drive from New York City.

As FIGHTFORLOVE said (somewhat re-phrased by me), NEW YORK CITY and SAN FRANCISCOare like big ritzy houses surrrounded by many other big ritzy houses for many miles around, whereas CHICAGOLAND functiions more like a single big ritzy house surrounded for many miles around by ho-hum working class and lower class neighborhoods. He was using a figurative analogy, not a literal description. In other words, having reasonable driving distance to Milwaukee, Madison, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Springfield, Peoria, the Quad Cities, the Twin Cities, and so on (and with NO OCEANS, NO MOUNTAINS, et al but just all flatlands . . . and most of those other municipalities, at best, have a river going through them but no major body of water such as a Lake Michigan or Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean) is not really quite the same as being proximate to all that New York City and San Francisco are within a reasonable drive of.

In my mind, CHICAGO is still a highly desirable place and holds its own (I personally love love love Chicagoland) and yet I can understand how much of the U.S. and world population-at-large would view both NEW YORK CITY and SAN FRANCISCO are being more proximate to a greater bulk of magnet attractions and locales that interest them than Chicago is.

In summary, FIGHTFORLOVE is saying that Chicago functions more like a nice provincial capital in the heart of the U.S. (i.e., sort of like an oasis in the middle of a vast desert of sorts) . . . compared to New York City and San Francisco. It is not a judgement on Chicagoland itself and what is inside Chicagoland itself but rather on what Chicagoland is reasonably proximate to as well as what it is not reasonably proximate to.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by UsAll

Quote:
Originally Posted by fightforlove
No, but Chicago as a whole is, metaphorically speaking of course.





I don't think that you are quite understanding the point that FIGHTFORLOVE is making. He is not referring to the particular neighborhoods within the Cty of Chicago proper nor even its nearby or surrounding suburbs and what they themselves (the neighborhoods or suburbs) are proximate to. He is referring to Chicagoland AS A WHOLE being a megalopolis surrounded by a whole region (the Midwest or Upper Midwest or Plains states) that nearly all consist of cities, towns, villages, hamlets and rural jurisdictions that are not quite the equivalent of what New York City and San Francisco has proximate to them (i.e., within less than a day's drive from Chicagoland). He is saying that Chicagoland taken as a whole is an oddity (an oasis), being a global alpha city within the midst of a vast stretch of territory (the central U.S.) that is very unlike Chicagoland in so many ways.

As stated by others and expanded on here by myself:

(a) If you live in SAN FRANCISCO, you have the whole rest of the world-famous Bay Area (including Oakland, Berkeley, et al) + the Silicon Valley, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas and Reno all a car ride away. You also have the Pacific Ocean, mountains, deserts, wine country, Yosemite National Park, Lake Tahoe, Las Vegas, Reno, and so much more . . . with ALL these mentioned places being world magnets that people from all over are drawn to.

(b) If you live in NEW YORK CITY, you have Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., + the Atlantic Ocean, mountains, and many other big and medium cities and amenities in all directions within less than a day's drive from New York City.

As FIGHTFORLOVE said (somewhat re-phrased by me), NEW YORK CITY and SAN FRANCISCOare like big ritzy houses surrrounded by many other big ritzy houses for many miles around, whereas CHICAGOLAND functiions more like a single big ritzy house surrounded for many miles around by ho-hum working class and lower class neighborhoods. He was using a figurative analogy, not a literal description. In other words, having reasonable driving distance to Milwaukee, Madison, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Springfield, Peoria, the Quad Cities, the Twin Cities, and so on (and with NO OCEANS, NO MOUNTAINS, et al but just all flatlands . . . and most of those other municipalities, at best, have a river going through them but no major body of water such as a Lake Michigan or Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean) is not really quite the same as being proximate to all that New York City and San Francisco are within a reasonable drive of.

In my mind, CHICAGO is still a highly desirable place and holds its own (I personally love love love Chicagoland) and yet I can understand how much of the U.S. and world population-at-large would view both NEW YORK CITY and SAN FRANCISCO are being more proximate to a greater bulk of magnet attractions and locales that interest them than Chicago is.

In summary, FIGHTFORLOVE is saying that Chicago functions more like a nice provincial capital in the heart of the U.S. (i.e., sort of like an oasis in the middle of a vast desert of sorts) . . . compared to New York City and San Francisco. It is not a judgement on Chicagoland itself and what is inside Chicagoland itself but rather on what Chicagoland is reasonably proximate to as well as what it is not reasonably proximate to.

Forbes just ranked Chicago as the 4th most miserable city; including the fact that it is ranked 6th in metro population loss lately. It's all about the political culture in Chicago that is its worst enemy. Jesse Jackson, Jr. from a popular family with a history of shakedowns is the current Chicago embarrassment.