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 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.
Yep, it's the tax burden that kills Chicago's desirability IMO. Everyone talks about how "affordable" Chicago is. It's really only affordable if you're coming from cities like LA or NYC IMO. Once you factor in the tax burden and realize your taxes really never go down, they only grow year after year, then it starts feeling like less of a desirable place to live, financially. Speaking as a former resident.
Boston is more expensive because it is more desirable (for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread) throughout the entire city. Little (if any part) of Boston is vacant or abandoned. Whereas in Chicago, only parts of it are desirable (including its wonderful core, northside and a few southside neighborhoods). Other parts are much less desirable and some neighborhoods frankly appear to be vacating with little to no replacement construction. Some of this reminds me of Detroit except I think Chicago does a better job of clearing vacant housing once it becomes an eyesore.
One word that many C-Ders are in love with that makes any city/metro area more expensive: Density. The "more desirable" reason some give is outright laughable. It fits nowhere in data analysis when formulating the actual causes and effects of what creates high expense. Density, high tax/regulation burden, housing supply/demand ratios. The "desirability" tag is only to divert attention away from painful truths of failed demographic and social policies. But if it makes you feel better, have at it, lol smh.
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.
Seems stats can differ and city limits size between Chi and Bos is huge. Why many for Boston always fight as if no city-limit exist and no border to limit it. Still city-proper stats the will use if ut boost their point.
These National debt clocks has real time debt of the Nation and for states. Shows different states a state burden of debt per person.
Per person we clearly are a debtor Nation. Booming states still have booming debt even a Texas. On the states in which the topic cities are on.
Massachusetts debt per person - $15,549
Debt to GDP ratio - 18.65%
Illinois debt per person -$13,510
Debt to GDP ratio - 19.42%
Would a Chicago be more likely in a possibility of risk of default? Yes. Actually, IL state law has no bankruptcy allowance for a city. Though default could occur.
Most debt for cities and especially Chicago, is its major underfunded pension debt. Most is debt of future required payments that a default could erase or be reworked if the stars align. No city should ever be left to decline as far as a Detroit before bankruptcy. Even a NYC was at bankruptcy in 1975, but spared by last minute Fed approved loans. Neither state is booming in growth. IL worse in losses. Still by GDP. Chicagoland is a huge economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebestofeverything
Boston is more expensive because it is more desirable (for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread) throughout the entire city. Little (if any part) of Boston is vacant or abandoned. Whereas in Chicago, only parts of it are desirable (including its wonderful core, northside and a few southside neighborhoods). Other parts are much less desirable and some neighborhoods frankly appear to be vacating with little to no replacement construction. Some of this reminds me of Detroit except I think Chicago does a better job of clearing vacant housing once it becomes an eyesore.
The size of Chicago and city-proper is 234 sq/mi vs Boston at about 90 sq/mi. Has the size to house all of Boston's best to boast and outside. So to say less great neighborhoods does not work.
Chicago's major winters scourge is one of its worst stereotypes that is not fixable that Boston avoids as a east coast city. Yet Boston gets more snow. Sure some ocean moderating the cold more. Still it gets the polar vortexes or arctic blast and fronts also and nor'easters and remnant hurricanes. No blemish as Chicago though as if no lost points. Its great Boston avoids that and gets boasted of little lost housing stock in hoods. It does still have hoods and about the same 18% range poverty level.
On C-D is a force of Boston posters and city brought into so many threads and active threads is a good force on C-D for their city. Fewer for Chicago though in general. Chicago still has many who give the city high marks in many areas. Sure not in taxes, but is it really a boast of Bostononians are less taxed overall?
If home values alone are higher in Boston overall. That alone can increase a tax burden. A million $ home in Chicago's lakefront area if in a comparable Boston one is closer to $2 mil? It reasons a higher tax overall is accessed? Even in poorer ones if higher values.
Certainly is good for future growth that Chicago's core outward has room to build. Former industrial and warehousing areas prime today around the core. Some areas a virtual clean slate scheduled for development as demand warrants. Its issues do not quench it all by far.
Its south and west side areas of lost housing. Still all has its street-grid intact. Most the power lines hid in alleys. It will have a future in renewal. Maybe the next decade? Maybe in a couple the Midwest will be the new South in relocations?
Chicago still comes in denser. With its tree-lined streets. On a street-grid second to none and having a history of apartment dwellings. It always had plus a good single-home stock.
One word that many C-Ders are in love with that makes any city/metro area more expensive: Density.
Chicago is denser than Boston over a larger area?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town
The size of Chicago and city-proper is 234 sq/mi vs Boston at about 90 sq/mi. Has the size to house all of Boston's best to boast and outside. So to say less great neighborhoods does not work.
Boston proper’s actually ~48 square miles of land. Not 90.
Quote:
Certainly is good for future growth that Chicago's core outward has room to build. Former industrial and warehousing areas prime today around the core. Some areas a virtual clean slate scheduled for development as demand warrants. Its issues do not quench it all by far.
With the right political will, this is all true about the Boston area as well.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 09-27-2021 at 12:01 PM..
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.
Well, Mass is the most educated state in the Union, and is arguably the higher education and healthcare mecca of the US. So I do think that plays into this conversation, as it always has. Someone just posted the median income of Greater Boston at ~$84k, third or fourth in the US. And I believe Massachusetts has the second highest median income as a State. So most certainly, that's a big part of this conversation.
But I agree with the rest of your statement.
The "luxury" market in both is quite similar. It all comes down to the barrier of entry. Chicago has a lot of "middle class", working communities. Many, many towns with good connectivity to the city and suburban conveniences where you can buy a home for $300k. That simply doesn't exist in Boston. I mean, even in a town like Woburn, the median home price is $600k (more than far nicer town in IL like Elmhurst, La Grange, Deerfield, Glen Ellyn). It's a joke.
And then, in high end towns like Western Spring or Wilmette, you can still find very livable single family homes for <$500k. In higher end towns in Mass, again, that's just not going to happen... Places like Belmont or Winchester or Lexington, even an outdated split is starting in at $750k+.
I look at Northbrook, and see a lot of similarities with Andover. Good schools, ~25-30 miles north from Downtown, on the commuter rail. In Northbrook, you can buy a ranch for $375k. In Andover, the same house would be $500k. But at the $1.5M+ market, both are similarly priced. It's the lower end, barrier of entry that causes the delta in median home in Northbrook at $500k vs. $700k in Andover. And this example is pretty much the story across the entire metro.
Boston proper’s actually ~48 square miles of land. Not 90.
With the right political will, this is all true about the Boston area as well.
Best to paste over transfer a total looked up. Also Boston has water counted in stats for its city-proper. Boston is the 2nd smallest major US city in terms of land area after San Francisco that has 47 sq/mi. Therefore, all SF and Boston city fit into Chicago's Northside and core. Hard to believe downtown Chicago had the Chicago river restrict and define its core once. Not anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Why are we looking at state debt? Serious question. What's that mean?
It means if your city is in a state. That states debt has your city residents in its grip. Some argue Boston city-proper does not matter in it is a greater Boston playing vs. other cities and you read many arguments. Sure one can move to another state or from its major city and viola. That former states debt is gone for you and city's debt. Many also love to bring IL debt in for Chicago. Just goes for every state and citizens taxes.
State-Local Effective Tax Rate
IL = 11.1% -- MA = 10.5%
State-Local Tax Burden per Capita
IL = $6,450 -- MA = $7,658
Taxes Paid to Own State per Capita
IL = $5,210 -- MA = $6,041
IL has the 10th highest Tax burden
MA the 15th in highest Tax burden.
By contrast, the median state-local tax burden is 9.9%, and the national average is 10.3%.
The state burden counts for a city or suburb or town or township also. Now housing values also play a key roll and if your city has a higher one. It increases a tax burden and adds a pricey city even higher.
Miami is smaller than Sf and Boston, 36 square miles.
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.
