Metro Boston vs metro Chicago: which offers a better quality of of life for families? (state, place)
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.
Chicagoland is an "easier" place to live (despite the property taxes). Better commuter system, cheaper housing, more updated housing stock, more diversity, more suburbs to choose from.
Greater Boston is a nicer place to live. More charm, more to do, more to see, more interesting, and a real focus on health and "local". But, you're going to pay for it.
To me, there is no right answer. Easier is a very valuable thing. But nicer is a real draw for me.
Chicagoland is an "easier" place to live (despite the property taxes). Better commuter system, cheaper housing, more updated housing stock, more diversity, more suburbs to choose from.
Greater Boston is a nicer place to live. More charm, more to do, more to see, far more interesting, and a real focus on health and "local". But, you're going to pay for it.
To me, there is no right answer. Easier is a very valuable thing. But nicer is a real draw for me.
Yeah using Boston proper vs Chicago proper is kind of silly though.
I know you don’t believe Chelsea is Boston but they specifically ask for Metro vs Metro.
The tier 1 towns in Chicagoland share the same wealth concentration as their peers in Boston. Same with the tier 1 neighborhoods within Chicago and Boston.
It's the tier 2 towns and beyond where you really start to see and feel, to me, the income delta. I just think those towns in Chicago, though they still feature a lot of affluence, have a lot of varying sociodemographics/factors. More blue collar residents, more apartments, more low income housing, etc. Places like Elmhurst, Park Ridge, La Grange, Glenview, etc. Those towns in Boston would cost a lot more throughout, and would have a lot less variation in terms of residents. Thus, income levels are considerably higher in some cases.
Are Boston salaries not meaningfully higher than in Chicago?
As others have said, not enough to justify the cost of living difference for most people.
By most metrics, I'd say Boston offers the better quality of life. This is actually one of the few comparisons where Boston even wins in terms of weather. On the big things like healthcare, job market, schools, safety, etc. Boston wins. Metra is a better commuter rail network, but the MBTA is pretty good too. In terms of urban transit, I'd call it a wash. Yes the CTA is bigger, but Chicago is bigger. Both the T and CTA are equally as effective at moving people across the city. If you're out late at night, CTA has more options, but i don't put that in the priority bucket for family threads. The Boston area offers a lot more in terms of day/weekend trips, and I think it's overall more aesthetically pleasing too. But I don't think any of this is enough to offset Chicago's significantly lower cost of living. If money is no object, I'd take Boston easily. But if you're an average (or even above average) American family with opportunities in both markets, your money will go significantly further in Chicago and that will offset almost any of Boston's advantages.
Chicagoland is an "easier" place to live (despite the property taxes). Better commuter system, cheaper housing, more updated housing stock, more diversity, more suburbs to choose from.
Greater Boston is a nicer place to live. More charm, more to do, more to see, more interesting, and a real focus on health and "local". But, you're going to pay for it.
To me, there is no right answer. Easier is a very valuable thing. But nicer is a real draw for me.
Great post. Ultimately, these are 2 great metros in 2 different regions of the country. Ultimately, I could see New Englanders favoring the characteristics that Metro Boston has to offer, and Midwesterners favoring the characteristics that Metro Chicago has to offer.
I have lived in both cities, and moved from Massachusetts to Chicago. Boston has some very cool things to it; Beacon Hill, the Commons, the ocean and a sense of history throughout. Boston is a nice town.
Chicago is big, bustling, and easy to live in. I live in comparable suburb to where I lived in Boston ( I was in Brookline ) and it is way easier to live in the Chicago area. Shopping, transportation, cost of living, and things to do in the city. Tons of restaurants, bars, museums, shopping districts.
People are part of the equation, Midwesterners are somewhat easier to get to know.
I love both, and lived in both, but have to go with Chicago. Both cities are among the best though, so a tough one.
Great post. Ultimately, these are 2 great metros in 2 different regions of the country. Ultimately, I could see New Englanders favoring the characteristics that Metro Boston has to offer, and Midwesterners favoring the characteristics that Metro Chicago has to offer.
Having lived the majority of my life in both, I love each of them, and always find myself missing certain aspects of the other. It's a perpetual "grass is always greener" issue I have with these two. I will say, they're still the two best places I've ever lived.
There are stunning suburbs in both- Winnetka, Wellesley, Hinsdale, Concord, Wilmette, Winchester, Western Springs, Lexington, Barrington, Weston, Evanston, Belmont, Elmhurst, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Lake Forest, Dover, Glencoe, Hingham... This list goes on.
I do prefer Boston's most popular towns to Chicago's, though it's close. Just more curb appeal, more unique characteristics in Boston (largely due to age/history/coastal setting). It is undoubtedly easier, however, to live in Chicago's most popular towns than in Boston's. It's cheaper, you have easier universal access to the city, the homes aren't as old, and the grid format does make things a bit more "liveable" in certain aspects.
But, in that next "tier" towns, everything becomes so glaringly obvious to me. Towns like Northbrook, Downers Grove, Palatine, or a Vernon Hills, Lincolnshire... There's just not as much appeal to me outside of a select few older neighborhoods. Adversely, there is a ton of appeal in Needham, Andover, Marblehead, Arlington, Duxbury, Milton. But, again, you can buy a nice (or even beautiful), updated, centrally located house in those IL towns for $500. And you can get in and out of the city in <40 minutes on the train. In those Massachusetts towns, you'd be lucky to find something that would pass inspection at that price point (less maybe a main road).
I live in comparable suburb to where I lived in Boston ( I was in Brookline ) and it is way easier to live in the Chicago area. Shopping, transportation, cost of living, and things to do in the city. Tons of restaurants, bars, museums, shopping districts.
Good post, and I certainly agree with the major differences between the cities of Boston and Chicago (though, I always include Cambridge/Somerville in a city vs city debate like this as they operate as Boston neighborhoods far more than most North Side Chicago neighborhoods do, which closes the gap a tad for me personally).
As you know better than I, Brookline is EXCEEDINGLY tough in so many ways, cost of living being at the forefront. Hinsdale (I think I have that correct) is far easier to live in, to me, unless you can afford a SFH in Brookline. And, Hinsdale is more universally aesthetically pleasing (at least in the suburban sense) than most of Brookline. Brookline would really be more like Oak Park than Hinsdale.
However, what if you had lived in Wellesley (which is more of an apt comparison)? I'd be curious to hear if or how your perspective would change. I think Hinsdale remains the easier option, though I probably appreciate Wellesley's beauty more than Hinsdale, and would choose Wellesley all things being equal. On a micro level, that is my take on the two metros at large (or at least the suburbs).
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.
