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.
Mass is essentially Boston and area population wise, and Illinois is basically Chicago and area. Only 3 million out of 12.5 million live outside of Chicago's metro, 2 million outside of the Boston metro.
So there are towns in the Boston area with towns of 25k with 5 houses on the market? Do you honestly believe that is a healthy real estate market? Who would want to move into a choice of 5 houses that are either too awful to sell or ripe for a bidding war? I found alot of the housing in Boston old and overpriced, or new and ridiculously overpriced by builders looking to make a buck. That does not bode well for a region's sustainability over time, and companies will move if they can't house their workers. Chicago markets have significantly tightened up ( my town went from almost 400 houses, condos and lots on the market 2 years ago 135 today) tighter, but balanced and healthy
And then there are Mass. towns like Brockton, Worchester, Springfield, Holyoke, Taunton, Lynn. Lawrence, Pittsfield, Northhampton, which don't have an equal in Illinois as far as being run down, with the exception of E. St. Louis, Decatur and Danville.
I like both alot. I think overall Mass is prettier, for sure with the Berkshires and islands and cape. But not to live there again. .
Illinois doesn’t have cities nearly the size of Springfield or Worcester.
Sure Rockford might have 150,000 but it’s in 68 sq miles. It has vast suburban areas. If you isolated the urban cores (like Peoria at 48 sq miles) it’s pretty similar if not worse in Illinois.
Pittsfield and Fitchburg/Leominster have a poverty rate of 11%, which is under the national average
Illinois doesn’t have cities nearly the size of Springfield or Worcester.
Sure Rockford might have 150,000 but it’s in 68 sq miles. It has vast suburban areas. If you isolated the urban cores (like Peoria at 48 sq miles) it’s pretty similar if not worse in Illinois.
Pittsfield and Fitchburg/Leominster have a poverty rate of 11%, which is under the national average
Northampton is also not rundown at all.
Please, I’m begging you, stop with the nonsense... Fitchburg is hellish. Pittsfield isn’t much better.
This is the stuff that makes Mass. posters look bad. Too many of us think of ***t don’t stink.
OK..well a quick google street view doesn't reveal it to be as jarring(especially not carbondale) as Fitchburg but its not nice.
I voted for MA, but just because Illinois has dumpy places doesn't make Fitchburg not rundown (definitely looks more run down). And of course, relative to Illinois' size, those cities are more like the size of a much smaller city in MA than Fitchburg.
There are dumpy ruralish towns all over Mass. a la Ware, Athol, Ludlow and many many others.
OK..well a quick google street view doesn't reveal it to be as jarring(especially not carbondale) as Fitchburg but its not nice.
I voted for MA, but just because Illinois has dumpy places doesn't make Fitchburg not rundown (definitely looks more run down). And of course, relative to Illinois' size, those cities are more like the size of a much smaller city in MA than Fitchburg.
There are dumpy ruralish towns all over Mass. a la Ware, Athol, Ludlow and many many others.
Yes there are dumpy towns in mass. Illinois is loaded with places like this. There are literally massive areas with absolutely nothing. https://goo.gl/maps/MjNVtFXsLrVBnc1L9
Yes there are dumpy towns in mass. Illinois is loaded with places like this. There are literally massive areas with absolutely nothing. https://goo.gl/maps/MjNVtFXsLrVBnc1L9
Yea... I don't see that as inherently bad. Just not very populated. Looks clean, and functional enough.
That’s the only area I could actually get a street view because there’s literally nothing for miles. At least Holyoke has people
Minus Chicagoland there are 3 million people in 47000 square miles in Illinois. Seriously think about that. You haven’t seen ruralish
Uhhhhh....I think we should be happy for states that actually grow our food. If every state was populated from end to end, where would we grow our crops? Seriously, think about that. California has a lot of land to grow crops, too, that are sparsely populated, as well. It's really, not that hard.
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.
