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 don't think ForeignCrunch is from the Northeast, let alone from Boston. He certainly doesn't have a track record of treating Boston overly kindly on other threads. I doubt he's concerned about a win for Boston, or a loss for Chicago.
When you traveled to a place or lived there matters too. People tend to hold on to what they know and usually arent logical when admitting that maybe however they knew a place changed.
The Chicago of 10 years ago for example is a bit different than today's Chicago. The number of people with good paying jobs has risen the most of anywhere except NYC and LA, but the rate of increase is higher than LA. It's also become the most educated of the 7 largest cities when a decade ago it wasn't.
I have some friends from Paris who had first been to Chicago in 2008 or 2009 and said "whatever" about it. They've visited within the last few years and thought it was amazing, much different than when they had first gone. That's about when I moved to Chicago. At first I actually didnt like it and thought it was overrun with certain things. I eventually met people I got along with and over the years until I moved, there was definitely an increase in more varied and also upscale things. An obvious increase and also the offerings of places to go, activities, etc in the city diversified since then.
I think that using "I lived there" to exert your expertise is only valid if it was in the last 3 or 5 years or you visit a place a few times per year. A lot of places change pretty fast these days.
When you traveled to a place or lived there matters too. People tend to hold on to what they know and usually arent logical when admitting that maybe however they knew a place changed.
The Chicago of 10 years ago for example is a bit different than today's Chicago. The number of people with good paying jobs has risen the most of anywhere except NYC and LA, but the rate of increase is higher than LA. It's also become the most educated of the 7 largest cities when a decade ago it wasn't.
I have some friends from Paris who had first been to Chicago in 2008 or 2009 and said "whatever" about it. They've visited within the last few years and thought it was amazing, much different than when they had first gone. That's about when I moved to Chicago. At first I actually didnt like it and thought it was overrun with certain things. I eventually met people I got along with and over the years until I moved, there was definitely an increase in more varied and also upscale things. An obvious increase and also the offerings of places to go, activities, etc in the city diversified since then.
I think that using "I lived there" to exert your expertise is only valid if it was in the last 3 or 5 years or you visit a place a few times per year. A lot of places change pretty fast these days.
That's a fair point, although I'd argue that the wow Chicago has really come a long way parts of town are somewhat isolated and aren't really a metrowide phenomenon. Those are also the same parts of Chicago that have seen a massive spike in real estate prices, gutting the competitive advantage the city has over other major metros in terms of affordability.
In any case, I should note that I lived near Chicago a decade ago and have only visited a couple of times in the last few years. So perhaps my perception is skewed by the curve of time. For what it's worth my impression visiting was much worse than when I actually lived in the area (which I enjoyed a lot).
I remember my 2011 Chicago trip very clearly.. and it was okay. I didn't NOT like it, but it was archaic in feeling.
My 2018 trip was completely different. I felt like it was a clean version of New York. The people were great and restaurants were packed.. and god the construction was crazy.
However the changes in Boston from 2009 to now are just as transformative on a city level. The Seaport, Kendall Square, the Fenway area, Chinatown, Causeway and the South End are all transformed completely within 11 years.
Its all preferential but Chicago gives you a big city feel while Boston gives you a shorter more-euro style city feel.
Both cities are great, and the 2010s were very good to both cities and they both offer unique experiences.
Its just one city is literally 50-75% more expensive :S
That's a fair point, although I'd argue that the wow Chicago has really come a long way parts of town are somewhat isolated and aren't really a metrowide phenomenon. Those are also the same parts of Chicago that have seen a massive spike in real estate prices, gutting the competitive advantage the city has over other major metros in terms of affordability.
In any case, I should note that I lived near Chicago a decade ago and have only visited a couple of times in the last few years. So perhaps my perception is skewed by the curve of time. For what it's worth my impression visiting was much worse than when I actually lived in the area (which I enjoyed a lot).
You could tell us a bit more on what area or areas you are referring to ..... like a neighborhood in Chicago you lived you feel declined and how and if you feel Chicago's core did for you?
Cost rising in gentrifying areas is not unique to Chicago. Boston's cost keep rising also. The thread is on theses two cities after all.
Can't have it both ways .... in Chicago's housing cost to be rising among the lowest % among major cities in some post and go on to then say how much more expensive more booming and gentrifying areas have gotten. Both play a roll yes. But few if any parts of Boston has slow rising housing cost. No links say its housing prices are not rising there and past any pre-crash levels. Chicagoland housing prices still get the still did not reach pre-crash levels. But taxes still went up being a issue. Yet that is virtually all the large and more booming population cities too in taxes.
Nice homes in still good areas still can be found under $300.000 and much more still under $400.00. That's pretty unheard of in Boston. Chicago still has plenty of great neighborhoods .... not among the gentrifying areas of much faster rising cost. Like the bungalow-belt neighborhoods of solid brick homes 20s 30s and others built 40s thru the 50s and early 60s.
No one should think it's just gentrified areas and bad neighborhoods. Still not reaching full pre-crash level housing values ..... are not good for those long time owners and especially those who bought at the pre-crash highest levels.
Overview of Chicago Real Estate Trends according to redfin
Calculated using the last month totals in winter.
Median List Price $305K
Avg. Sale / List 96.9%
Median List $/Sq Ft $202
Avg. Number of Offers 1
Median Sale Price $275K
Avg. Down Payment 15.6%
Median Sale $/Sq Ft $181
Number of Homes Sold 2307
Of course this is the whole city. Including neighborhoods seen as higher crime areas perhaps?
I CHOSE THIS Random home choice ON THE REDFIN SIGHT .... on the Northwest-side of the city a tutor style built 1948 (though it does not say it is a Tudor?). Block shows block is.
- Asking $305.000 taxes though over $5000 in the Dunning neighborhood. Taxes to me high. But that's compared to a smaller cities by me in mere rural PA. Not a large city.
Liked the colors and furnished example view with neighboring TUDOR-STYLES I always liked.
ALSO SEEN OUT THE FRONT WINDOW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Demographics ethnicity of the Dunning neighborhood is:
- 63.3% White
- 30.4% Hispanic
- 4.1% Asian
- 1.5% Black
Try that in Boston for what you get here including 2.5 car garage.....
I chose a RANDOM HOME in area near where I lived by the picture alone LOL and knew of Dunning.
Also again I like those tutors some more what I called Gingerbread homes ....
Though not the neighborhood I lived in. Using REDFIN LISTINGS and a demographics link.
Another older Chicago typical 20s 30s bungalow in Norwood Park neighborhood I lived in.
This block of the older ones
Metro Boston wins easily.
Sorry:
i lived in Wilmette 4 years.
Chicago is far and away the best midwestern zone.
there's probably about 600% more stuff to do near and around Boston
Maybe 1200%.
Sorry to seem like i'm being a bit hard--but it's not even close.
Metro Boston wins easily.
Sorry:
i lived in Wilmette 4 years.
Chicago is far and away the best midwestern zone.
there's probably about 600% more stuff to do near and around Boston
Maybe 1200%.
Sorry to seem like i'm being a bit hard--but it's not even close.
Yrs thats true. Boston probably has the most day trip options out of all cities bar SF ... However, for a family Chicago will save them so much money.
Which is why it is a slam dunk winner in a best place to raise a family thread. The housing in any strong school system suburban town with a non-soul crushing commute to the Boston and 128 jobs isn’t affordable on middle class income.
I don't disagree with this, however, the Boston metro area is among the safest in the nation, I know Chicago pretty well and I don't think it compares well in this statistic. Feel free to dissuade me of this.
I don't disagree with this, however, the Boston metro area is among the safest in the nation, I know Chicago pretty well and I don't think it compares well in this statistic. Feel free to dissuade me of this.
I can't believe that people haven't actually talked more about Chicago's crime problem and how much that affects its friendliness to families. Yeah, I get it, the bad stuff happens un the hood. The problem is that a lot of families live in the hood.
Metro Boston wins easily.
Sorry:
i lived in Wilmette 4 years.
Chicago is far and away the best midwestern zone.
there's probably about 600% more stuff to do near and around Boston
Maybe 1200%. Sorry to seem like i'm being a bit hard--but it's not even close.
That is probably true, that there are a lot of day trip options from Boston- going north all the way to Maine and south to Newport and the Cape. Super great for a vacation where you can do daytrips all day long with the kids out of school and you on a break from work. 110% agree. But that is not the issue, this point keeps on getting missed in this thread for some reason.
The question was, on a daily basis, which place is better for a normal family. The suburban choices of over 200 plus suburbs to pick from in Chicago, from high end to truly affordable and every flavor in between, the choices of affordable state colleges, both at the University of Illinois system and the Big 10, great shopping options, newer housing options, Midwest friendliness and values, and cost of living from everything from food to housing is better for a family in Chicago. Right now the unemployment rate in Illinois is 3.8%, a historic low, and 3.3% in the Chicago area, lower than in New York, Los Angeles and a number of other metros.
Two major league baseball teams, an NFL team, NHL team, the Bulls ( cheap tickets now, for a reason ) and a convention and concert scene that it guaranteed a stop from most artists at several venues. Even the world's largest auto show, Lalapalooza, and a million summer festivals are in the mix. Boston and Chicago have their marathons, both top tier. If your kids are potheads, both have legalized satan's smoke.
To say that skiing-which is for a minor few- is what makes a place kid friendly is ridiculous. When you look at the bigger picture, there is a million things kids can do- a whole museum campus with an aquarium, planetarium, Museum of Natural History, the Museum of Science and Industry etc. in downtown Chicago, all with views of Lake Michigan.
Boston is great for that $800,000 suburban house that is old but close in, and a great private college.
Great if the family has money, not all do. Compare a $450,000 house in Watertown to one in Park Ridge or Arlington Heights. Which house and neighborhood would you want your kids in?
You can't live on a day trip, nor exist on skis or a beach in Manchester by the Sea for the day. It's the day to day that counts on an average income.
IN ADDRESSING CRIME, this has been gone over and over again. Most of the crime occurs in a few neighborhoods on the South and West sides. Does the crime in Dorchester or Mattapan affect Needham or Wellesley? Come on!
Last edited by Justabystander; 01-21-2020 at 11:02 AM..
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.
