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.
I said Audi-driving yuppies snapping up $750,000 condos left and right.
That's because most condos don't cost that much in Chicago.....
This is like saying "Well I don't see people in Minneapolis buying million dollar homes left and right in the city". Well maybe because there aren't any.
That's because most condos don't cost that much in Chicago.....
This is like saying "Well I don't see people in Minneapolis buying million dollar homes left and right in the city". Well maybe because there aren't any.
And there aren't any because demand is not strong enough to bid the prices up that high.
And there aren't any because demand is not strong enough to bid the prices up that high.
Right but is has nothing to do with the calling card industry. Look at Houston, it has a calling card industry but it is really cheap to live in.
It's a mixture of available land, cheap land and demand.
Places like SF, NYC, Boston, DC don't have available land, which makes it not cheap.
If you transported Silicon Valley to Chicago, prices would go up a little in Chicago probably but it would still be a cheap city (relatively speaking) to live in. It still wouldn't be as expensive as NYC or SF.
So the calling card industry might help to boost a little bit, but it really is not what impacts the pricing and COL.
Right but is has nothing to do with the calling card industry. Look at Houston, it has a calling card industry but it is really cheap to live in.
It's a mixture of available land, cheap land and demand.
Places like SF, NYC, Boston, DC don't have available land, which makes it not cheap.
If you transported Silicon Valley to Chicago, prices would go up a little in Chicago probably but it would still be a cheap city (relatively speaking) to live in. It still wouldn't be as expensive as NYC or SF.
No, it has nothing to do with "available land". It's demand, and Chicago doesn't have the same demand. If you transported Silicon Valley to Chicago, prices would skyrocket.
Chicago doesn't have more or less "available land" than most of these places. NYC and Boston can sprawl just as easily, yet they're far more expensive. In LA and SF, once you get over the hills, you can sprawl on forever.
I've said the same thing about both Chicago and Philadelphia and their low COL relative to cities like DC, SF, LA or even Boston. There's no "calling card industry" in Chicago or Philly that's going to generate legions of ballers in clubs poppin' bottles or Audi-driving yuppies snapping up $750,000 condos left and right. It's not so much an issue on the supply side, as many would like to believe, but more an issue that there just aren't that many "big time" jobs in the region.
For sure, same way.
Philly is much like Chicago in that regard. Philly and NYC land wise aren't that different, and in same region. Same with Baltimore near DC. Philly and Baltimore are both way cheaper, less demand, less coveted jobs to start bidding wars.
Same reason Chicago is more expensive than other midwestern cities.
That's because most condos don't cost that much in Chicago.....
This is like saying "Well I don't see people in Minneapolis buying million dollar homes left and right in the city". Well maybe because there aren't any.
There are still condos by the loop built 5 years ago that are still on the market.
It's not a land issue, it's housing production can't keep up with demand in coveted neighborhoods and coveted neighborhood apartments get rented out within a day or two of being on the market and usually with 5-10 people in line looking at it.. San Jose in SV is a pretty penny also.
some 45,000 square miles of H2O (fresh!) NINE 9 times as big as New Jersey.....
with a shoreline of 5,463 miles.....roughly 20 times the Jersey Shore.
But sure, it is just a Lake......
Nice try!!
I know that this is NYC vs Chicago but IMO metro regions could easily be discussed (if they haven't been already, I honestly don't remember), especially since 5463 miles of lake was just brought up (and NJ). And New Yorkers (especially Staten Island) enjoy all of the following during the summer. What in the Great Lakes has the following? Seriously, tell me.
Can the Great Lakes beat the boardwalk scene, invented and perfected by NJ, for one? …
Seaside Heights and Point Pleasant Beach. Pre-Sandy, mind you, but still. We will be back.
Beachfront Victorians, Ocean Grove
Island Beach State Park
Mantoloking pre Sandy
You keep your 5000 miles of lakefront, I'll keep my 220 miles of Jersey Shore ocean (and then the bay) front. I'm sure residents of NYC are more than happy with their oceanfront boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, as well.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 09-04-2013 at 07:17 PM..
I grew up on the Atlantic and Pacific but also grown to appreciate the Great Lakes region. I actually prefer the best of both world's. This is only a fraction of what is in the region. The Great Lakes has a lot more variety of terrain than just beaches. Keep in mind at one time this area was once an ocean. Michigan actually ranks 2nd to Alaska for having the longest coast line of any other state. Despite it not being an Ocean it still has a lot of cool terrain features to the area that would make for a good weekend get away.
I grew up on the Atlantic and Pacific but also grown to appreciate the Great Lakes region. I actually prefer the best of both world's. This is only a fraction of what is in the region. The Great Lakes has a lot more variety of terrain than just beaches. Keep in mind at one time this area was once an ocean. Michigan actually ranks 2nd to Alaska for having the longest coast line of any other state. Despite it not being an Ocean it still has a lot of cool terrain features to the area that would make for a good weekend get away.
Nice pictures, and you're right. It is a very nice area. It's diverse because of its size, as it was pointed out - Michigan and Huron are over 5000 miles of coast, correct?
Midwest1 tied it to the Jersey Shore and tried to make a connection there and seemed to determine that the Great Lakes are better because of the longer coastline. All I'm saying is that's not necessarily true. The Jersey Shore has a unique culture potentially unmatched anywhere, with its own music scene, the boardwalks with their typical food, rides, environments, and the welcoming, family atmosphere all people in NJ and the area know and probably love, along with being diverse as well (you'll find untouched state or national park beaches along with busy boardwalks and piers, then there's AC and Cape May - Victorian and historic, etc; there are multiple bays, inlets, lagoons, variety in sand dune size, rockier slightly more elevated coasts and jetties, etc) and the fact that it is a relatively small area doesn't detract from that.
It's also on the ocean, which let's face it, a lot of people do prefer even though there's no denying the lakes are pretty.
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.
