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.
Boston had pretty heavy white flight. From 1950-1980 Boston lost fully half its white population, by 2000 it had lost 62% of its 1950 white population. It lost 30% of its total population in those first 30 years. Which really underscores how remarkable the turn around has been. It has a higher share of immigrants and well educated people. The immigrants revived or kept neighborhoods from total despair. Chicago really didn’t have that to the same extent or as early. The well educated moved into the already decent areas early on and they’ve never stopped booming,
I know Boston had a lot of white flight, I just meant that overall it didn’t effect the entire metro area as much compared to other cities because of the lower amount of migration. Again I know that Boston did receive a good amount of migrants from the great migration but compared to a lot of other metros it wasn’t as significant.
Last edited by Northeasterner1970; 09-26-2021 at 11:27 PM..
Chicago is surrounded by flat suburbs with room to build and then cornfield with rooms to build. Alleviates the pressure on the housing market. The suburbs have amenities and are gridded to better allow access to the city itself, with township governments that allow development to move forward quicker.
Chicago is less safe.
Chicago has worse schools.
Chicago has fewer college students relative to its total population.
Chicago has a more poorly run government than Boston. Illinois has a more poorly run government than Massachusetts.
Wages are higher in Boston than in Chicago
Taxes are much higher in Chicago.
Chicago isnt as in demand as Boston has been for the past 20 years. Thus its rents are naturally lower AND it has more abandoned land and more abandoned/vacant homes.
I have bolded what is true, I don't think taxes or wages are significantly different than Massachusetts. Chicago is the most educated big city in the country, so education isn't really a factor.
Large swaths of the north side are safe, and demand in Lincoln Park, Lakeview etc. makes real estate expensive. Many suburbs are nearly as expensive or just as expensive as the Metrowest on the north shore and west suburbs of Chicago ( see below ). Chicago's upper level in Lincoln Park is $40M, not cheap, and Regency Towers ( formerly Vista) has had sales of $18M.
What makes Chicago cheaper for the ground floor is the relative availability of alot more housing units, and the relative ability to build and expand ( like the west Loop ) into areas that were in decline. Suburbs are able to expand as well due to the availability of land. Boston is hilly, and rocky, and the land availability is scarce. Top that off with an economy that took off, and you have price increases, and a disparity in prices overall. If you compare the upper tier areas, they aren't all that different in price.
Looks like both states have 5% income tax, 6.25% sales tax and Illinois has lower property taxes taking into account property values.
IL has local sales tax and a 1% tax on grocery and clothing but it seems like Illinois really high tax burden is actually sort of a myth
Boston has $12k debt per taxpayer, Chicago has $41k debt per taxpayer.
MA has $30k debt per taxpayer, IL has $52k debt per taxpayer.
I would expect to pay a lot more in taxes (and/or receive fewer government investments/benefits) over the future decades, especially if you are higher income, in Chicago than in Boston.
Boston has a large concentration of high income people competing for a very limited supply of housing in the blue chip suburbs and the fancy neighborhoods of Boston and Cambridge. The highway infrastructure is totally failed so there’s an enormous premium to live close to work. Chicago has better mass transit than Boston so it’s possible to live farther out and not have a soul-crushing commute. ~ 60% of the class 1 office space in metro Boston is in the suburbs. There are a ton of high paid people doing car commutes with no mass transit option. The Boston suburbs use snob zoning to keep high density housing and affordable housing out. In the city, any condo or apartment tower gets huge neighborhood pushback. People now require more square footage per person than in decades past so the existing housing stock has seen a decline in density. Telecommuting has accelerated that trend.
Boston has some of the highest-paid industries that attract the most sought-after talent, not to mention the numerous top universities and colleges in the greater Boston region. Boston overall has a much more educated population than Chicago and is in a geographical region that is wealthier than the geographical area that Chicago is in.
People who are complaining about being taxed to death in cities like Chicago are not flocking to cities like Boston for better tax rates.
I made zero implication that was a thing. You made the correlation on your own.
You don’t need to want to go to Boston to be a reason Chicago is less expensive/in demand than Boston. This isn’t about people leaving Chicago for Boston..
I have bolded what is true, I don't think taxes or wages are significantly different than Massachusetts. Chicago is the most educated big city in the country, so education isn't really a factor.
Large swaths of the north side are safe, and demand in Lincoln Park, Lakeview etc. makes real estate expensive. Many suburbs are nearly as expensive or just as expensive as the Metrowest on the north shore and west suburbs of Chicago ( see below ). Chicago's upper level in Lincoln Park is $40M, not cheap, and Regency Towers ( formerly Vista) has had sales of $18M.
What makes Chicago cheaper for the ground floor is the relative availability of alot more housing units, and the relative ability to build and expand ( like the west Loop ) into areas that were in decline. Suburbs are able to expand as well due to the availability of land. Boston is hilly, and rocky, and the land availability is scarce. Top that off with an economy that took off, and you have price increases, and a disparity in prices overall. If you compare the upper tier areas, they aren't all that different in price.
…nothing to say other than you’re dreaming. Everything I said was true and there insurmountable data to support it. I didn’t make any subjective statements. Those are the primary reasons Chicago is cheaper. There are others.
People who are complaining about being taxed to death in cities like Chicago are not flocking to cities like Boston for better tax rates.
And the people complaining about high taxes in Boston aren't generally the high income people. They're feeling the housing cost crunch. Unless you own a $million+ home where the property taxes start adding up even with Proposition 2 1/2 limiting property tax rates, Massachusetts is a middle of the pack state for tax burden. If you're high income, a 5% flat state income tax is a bargain compared to most states with graduated income taxes. The 6 1/4% sales tax isn't a big deal. If you're renting, middle income, and have been seeing big rent increases over the last decade, you have no choice but to look at relocating.
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.
