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 see more manicured as always a positive. What is prettier? Well ordered rows of tulips around perfectly pruned arbor vitae? Or a pollinator or vegetable garden, or flowers left to thrive and compete for a decade? To me, the latter, everytime.
But again, Somerville isn't a suburb, so I have no idea why that is a comparison.
I'm also not sure what cost has to do with how nice it is. LOOOOAAAADS of rich people have horrific aesthetic taste. In both areas there are plenty of wealthy towns full of ugly homes. I see teardowns of lovely 1890s and 1930 houses and McMansions put up all the time, and almost uniformly, they are horrific. So, most communities will have a mix. Nice older houses, some crappy new ones, mixed with some nice old ones. Price comes into play for a regular family, which is really where Chicago wins, in the quality vs price return.
You can't lessen the Chicago grid layout. Green-space frontage IS STANDARD. As are alleyways in back. Fronts unblemished by the ugly polls. They chose well.
Older highly sought after areas just north of the core. You can't beat such beauty in a still dense city. But these areas are not cheap. Soaring trees etc. Basically the gilded-age areas.
And of course the Chicago-style bungalow-belt built the 20s 30s. Still look great today. Front lawn effect appeared and Frank Lloyd Wright inspired homes for the evolving middle-class. It still makes up 1/3rd the city. Not counting the 40s thru early 60s neighborhoods of its last growth.
I can appreciate a suburb like South Holland in the southland because it's unique laws may have deterred high crime from turning it to the killing fields, unlike what has happened with Harvey and even Dolton to some extent, it's neighbors to the west and north. It's known as a "dry" municipality, meaning alcohol is prohibited from being sold within the village borders, and it becomes a sleepy community on Sundays. This is a remnant from the time it was originally settled by religious Dutch immigrants, hence the village's name. Even though the demographics have changed, it stays true to its roots as a church community. Also, zoning restrictions do not allow apartments and even condominiums, thus virtually all housing are single units. Home-ownership is higher compared to surrounding suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts
As much as love Chicago burbs they lack the natural beauty of coastal Mass towns like Marblehead, Ipswich, Duxbury, Cohasset, Scituate etc
If only Chicagoland was situated in a valley with some steep hills where you can overlook the skyline and Lake Michigan. Like what you can find in the Peoria area. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6698...7i13312!8i6656
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
You can't lessen the Chicago grid layout. Green-space frontage IS STANDARD. As are alleyways in back. Fronts unblemished by the ugly polls. They chose well.
Older highly sought after areas just north of the core. You can't beat such beauty in a still dense city. But these areas are not cheap. Soaring trees etc. Basically the gilded-age areas.
.
We were talking about the suburbs, not the city. I like the look of Chicago as a city better than most of Boston. I just like the Boston suburbs better. No biggie. It's personal preference.
You could argue that Chicago's natural vegetation is not as attractive of Boston (greater New England), and I would probably agree with that. Illinois is prairie country, and thus it lacks the evergreen base that's all over New England ( it does have some, though, although you might have to plant them yourself). Having Lake Michigan on its doorstop is a major plus, though.
If you're seeking a large yard, to go with your somewhat tree-less/deciduous lot, then Chicago's suburbs are for you. Meanwhile, some of the city of Boston's neighborhoods are somewhat tree-less ( thinking of some triple-decker neighborhoods, but not all (East Boston)), but many are quite foliated (Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, West Roxbury, etc)...
Metro Boston has more things to do and a better job market. The towns are more family oriented, and education is #1.
Living in Greater Boston you are in close proximity to the Cape, NH Mountains, Coastal towns of Gloucester, Rockport, Salem, Ipswich, and more.
For me, Chicago is too flat and boring but it does make up in COL and finance industry.
I disagree. I lived in the Boston/Cape Cod area (7/17 - 1/19) and been to Chicago multiple times. For a metro of Boston's size, there really isn't that much to do, especially in terms of unique recreational assets. Directly in the metro area, other than the Atlantic (which I prefer to Lake Michigan), there's way more to do in Chicago. Boston has its merits, but it just doesn't come to close the level of Chicago recreationally.
The income jump doesn't come close to matching the housing cost jump--trust me. Your money will go farther in Chicago. I honstly think that Chicago has a more family-oriented atmosphere than greater Boston..
Agree /\ . I'm still surprised adults still make such wrong assumptions in terms of cost of living vs. average annual income.
I disagree. I lived in the Boston/Cape Cod area (7/17 - 1/19) and been to Chicago multiple times. For a metro of Boston's size, there really isn't that much to do, especially in terms of unique recreational assets. Directly in the metro area, other than the Atlantic (which I prefer to Lake Michigan), there's way more to do in Chicago. Boston has its merits, but it just doesn't come to close the level of Chicago recreationally.
I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with you.
What, recreationally, does Chicago have that Boston doesn't? It's a far easier exercise if you reverse roles, which tells you everything.
I disagree. I lived in the Boston/Cape Cod area (7/17 - 1/19) and been to Chicago multiple times. For a metro of Boston's size, there really isn't that much to do, especially in terms of unique recreational assets. Directly in the metro area, other than the Atlantic (which I prefer to Lake Michigan), there's way more to do in Chicago. Boston has its merits, but it just doesn't come to close the level of Chicago recreationally.
Again, Ive lived in four metros. And metro boston has by far the most things to do out of any metro ive lived in or near. Mountains, hills, seaport towns, boston alone mind you, the cute little towns scattered throughout, Newport, Providence, Mystic, the Cape and Islands, etc... Not to mention Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Pats games. Also if your from Boston, your getting together with your friends on the weekly.
Saying theres not much to do in Boston is like saying Miami is cold.
Agree /\ . I'm still surprised adults still make such wrong assumptions in terms of cost of living vs. average annual income.
I strongly, strongly, strongly, agree with you!
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.
