Is it considered normal to be single in Chicago in your thirties? (Evanston: for rent, employment)
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'm going to chime in here as well. Chicago is one of the BEST cities in the country to be single if you are in your 20s or in your 30s (I don't know about beyond that) IF you either a) live in one of the city's nightlife and young professional hotspots or b) grew up in one of the more outer neighborhoods of the city.
Chicago, particularly the North Side, has nightlife that is one of the top 5 in the US. Single young professionals flock to it. Yes, you do have the drain from Lakeview and Lincoln Park to the suburbs by the Chicagoland natives in their late 20s, but a decent amount of people and/or transplants remain. Plus downtown's crowd tends to be the late 20s to mid 30s crowd.
Since Chicago is a very ethnic city with a lot of outerlying ethnic neighborhoods, there are plenty of single people within that age range that live in those neighborhoods. But often times, these social groups are set from growing up and it would be difficult for a transplant at any age to break into that social group, particularly if they are not of the same ethnicity (and even then depending where they moved from).
Now for an individual (male or female) who is in his or her 30s to move to Chicago, the best bet would be to move downtown or to somewhere between downtown and Lake View or as far west as Wicker Park. Beyond that, it could be a much lonelier existence until one makes friends and finds out where they live.
I wouldn't even recommend any single person, let alone one in their 30s, to move to any suburb of Chicago. Most of the suburbs are dull and boring for one who is single, unless again that person grew up there and already has a set social group.
Evanston is really a college town that just happens to be by a large city. There really aren't that many young professional things outside of NU. Oak Park= mostly young families. Proximity to downtown is overrated. Still a pain to get down there and you also have the transplant factor of the "eeww why do you live in Oak Park rather than downtown?" Arlington Heights and Naperville are not bad, particularly compared to 90% of the US, but I would tell a 30 something to avoid them unless it is absolutely necessary and she can't live in the city.
Comparing Chicagoland suburbs to Detroit suburbs and LA are tough for various reasons. Very few young professionals live in Detroit. There aren't very many good YP neighborhoods. Therefore, the suburbs have swept in on this and suburbs in Oakland County have created more mixed use developments. Most of the YPs in Detroit hang in the suburbs and the suburbs have catered to this.
Compare in Chicagoland for example. In any North, Northwest, or West burb (other than AH and Naperville), it is an undue hardship to get permits to open a bar, lounge, or club. It is even harder to get permits to keep them open past midnight.
NYC/North Jersey are just so massive so it's hard to compare. Plus they are both so densely populated that there needed to be entertainment centers outside Manhattan. But think of NYC and Jersey as separate entities. Jersey City/Hoboken have so much business HQ'd there it made sense to convert the bars/clubs/lounges from blue collar to white collar YP. Even in NYC outside parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn there really isn't much nightlife or activities for young professionals. So if you are a 30 something single female in Queens, it probably isn't all that much different than in the NW side of Chicago.
I recently made the move from Chicago to LA. LA is a world unto itself. One thing LA did right was allow the development of entertainment in most neighborhoods. I live in the Valley, but in a very urban part of the Valley.
The other thing about LA is that the suburbs are very densely populated. The better suburbs, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Burbank, Culver City, and Beverly Hills; got smart and allowed tons of nightlife. That's why people are so much less likely to settle down at such a younger age. There's no much to do.
The one drawback to Manhattan and downtown Chicago are people are NOT willing to travel, particularly people not from there (transplants). So if you live outside "the zone" people won't want to meet you or date you. If you live inside the zone, it's the greatest place ever. In a place like LA, you don't have that stigma because there are so many young professional areas and areas with young professionals. People tend not to detest driving as far (although some of the NY transplants won't go from West Hollywood to Studio City).
Nowincal, you are the de Toqueville of comparing single life in americas metropolitan areas. And it is particularly for reasons in the last paragraph, just as in a previous thread on the LA forum, why I'm looking to leave. I would find it claustrophic and almost soul crushing to never leave a two mile radius, take a subway/El everywhere and not have streets with beautiful detached homes to walk through.
I think the end of the second to last paragraph you mean to type: "Theres so much to do?"
Haha thanks. Though I concede I am not an expert on the Deep South. Most of my friends growing up in Chicago ended up moving to the East or West coasts.
nowincal11's analysis is spot-on and definitely sheds some light as to why our suburbs simply don't have the nightlife or allure for a critical mass of young professional like you have in Chicago's near north side or in metro areas with different layouts & demographics (ie. LA, Detroit, etc.).
So I guess my strategy should be to stay in Chicago until I'm in my late thirties if I'm still single. It doesn't seem like a good place to be pushing 40 even in the city proper(coming from Manhattan at least, where far more people identify as single/never married and it's a lifestyle). I think if it comes down to that I may head back to the East Coast, where I won't feel quite so out of place. But then again, I've got about 10 years before I need to decide on that!
Part of the disconnect here is that it seems you value single-family detached homes surrounded by small lawns more in terms of neighborhood beauty than a 2-6 flat low rise buildings. If that's the case, then you are absolutely correct: there aren't a lot of 20-30 something singles in those areas.
If you want low rise areas with singles that to me are beautiful: Wicker Park, Bucktown, East Village, areas around Humboldt Park, Taylor street around UIC (if you prefer grad students), Logan Square, Lincoln Square, Roscoe Village, Lincoln Park/Lakeview (as long as you're a few blocks off the lake where the highrises are and away from North/Clybourn), Old Town, Andersonville...I'm probably missing a few, but you get the idea.
But aren't all those places within a 4-5 mile radius of downtown? you are still in the city, and it will still take forever to get out of the city or move around there... I think that was more of the point, that you have to be within that 4-5 mile radius, architecture aside. I'm pretty sure Tex wants an area with more space and nature, but not to have it be so dull where he is forced to go into the city for nightlife, but also enjoys the amenities of being in a major metro and going into the downtown from time to time, just not as a requirement.
I'm going to chime in here as well. Chicago is one of the BEST cities in the country to be single if you are in your 20s or in your 30s (I don't know about beyond that) IF you either a) live in one of the city's nightlife and young professional hotspots or b) grew up in one of the more outer neighborhoods of the city
Chicago, particularly the North Side, has nightlife that is one of the top 5 in the US. Single young professionals flock to it. Yes, you do have the drain from Lakeview and Lincoln Park to the suburbs by the Chicagoland natives in their late 20s, but a decent amount of people and/or transplants remain. Plus downtown's crowd tends to be the late 20s to mid 30s crowd.
Now for an individual (male or female) who is in his or her 30s to move to Chicago, the best bet would be to move downtown or to somewhere between downtown and Lake View or as far west as Wicker Park. Beyond that, it could be a much lonelier existence until one makes friends and finds out where they live.
How much per month rent could one expect to pay in one of these locations?
What about the north side (by Wrigley field)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowincal11
I wouldn't even recommend any single person, let alone one in their 30s, to move to any suburb of Chicago. Most of the suburbs are dull and boring for one who is single, unless again that person grew up there and already has a set social group.
Yeah I know the feeling, currently living in the burbs, in my 30s, thinking of moving to the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowincal11
The one drawback to Manhattan and downtown Chicago are people are NOT willing to travel, particularly people not from there (transplants). So if you live outside "the zone" people won't want to meet you or date you. If you live inside the zone, it's the greatest place ever.
Yeah that does seem to be true! How far outside the downtown area would you consider to be in "the zone"?
So I guess my strategy should be to stay in Chicago until I'm in my late thirties if I'm still single. It doesn't seem like a good place to be pushing 40 even in the city proper(coming from Manhattan at least, where far more people identify as single/never married and it's a lifestyle). I think if it comes down to that I may head back to the East Coast, where I won't feel quite so out of place. But then again, I've got about 10 years before I need to decide on that!
Gosh, given this, I guess I'll just have to give up and move to the East Coast now Or stay on the West Coast.
How much per month rent could one expect to pay in one of these locations?
What about the north side (by Wrigley field)?
Yeah I know the feeling, currently living in the burbs, in my 30s, thinking of moving to the city.
Yeah that does seem to be true! How far outside the downtown area would you consider to be in "the zone"?
Rent really depends on what you want and where exactly you live. You can rent studios anywhere from $700-$1000 or so. One bedrooms will start around $1000 and go up to maybe $1400. The location and quality will be determining factors.
The "zone" is probably different for each person and it really depends on where you live. For me it really just comes down to travel time. I live in Lincoln Park so I'm not really all too eager to go hang out on the south side a lot. I'm also admittedly lazy and I don't like having to transfer buses or train lines often. One of my friends calls it "OTP" or "outside the perimeter". Her perimeter was literally a 2 mile radius or so with the center being Streeterville. She Rarely went north of North Ave and never went south of Adams. I'm a little more adventurous but I'll admit I don't really go west of the river all that often, mostly because I rarely have a reason to.
But aren't all those places within a 4-5 mile radius of downtown? you are still in the city, and it will still take forever to get out of the city or move around there... I think that was more of the point, that you have to be within that 4-5 mile radius, architecture aside. I'm pretty sure Tex wants an area with more space and nature, but not to have it be so dull where he is forced to go into the city for nightlife, but also enjoys the amenities of being in a major metro and going into the downtown from time to time, just not as a requirement.
Almost all of those places are within 4-5 miles of DT, Andersonville aside. I get what Tex is looking for, and to get why that doesn't happen in Chicago with the frequency of LA, you need to go back to the history, the topography, and transportation patterns in both places.
Chicago is an older city/metro with a higher percentage of housing stock that predates the automobile age. It doesn't have the topographical constraints of LA, which essentially means there isn't the same land scarcity issue in suburban development. When you compare the metros side by side, people are often surprised by the fact that LA is actually more dense on average. Chicago is less dense in its suburban environs but has a much more dense built environment closer to downtown than you find in LA.
How does this relate to the dispersion of singles and nightlife in LA vs. Chicago? Chicago's burbs typically have larger lots, which is more conducive to raising a family...think dad out cutting his 1/3 acre lot on Saturday morning. The thought of having to do this every Saturday morning isn't attractive to a lot of singles. LA has water and space constraints (being hemmed in by mountains), which leads to smaller lots and a more manageable suburban lifestyle for singles that feels a bit more "urban" than what you find in Chicago. Those areas are more dense in LA, which makes it easier to support entertainment districts. Comparing the densities of DuPage Co (2800/sq mi) to OC (3800 sq/mi) gives you a decent idea. OC is actually probably over 5000/sq mi when you exclude mountainous areas that are largely void of development.
Outlying areas of LA also have natural draws that might appeal to singles: mountains and beaches. Chicago's outlying areas are flat. Those with beaches are either dominated by old money wealth (north shore) or industry (south shore). Not appealing for a single professional.
The age of both regions also has a lot to do with the built environment of both metros. LA is largely a post-auto metro. Highways criss cross through the entire region. Many were built when there was nothing else around. As a result, there isn't a true central node of activity/employment, with employment centers everywhere that might draw young professionals to different parts of the metro. More of Chicago's highways were built on eminent domain through neighborhoods. Eminent doman through established neighborhoods is expensive (which is why the cross town never happened in the 60s). As a result, it's a wheel and spoke model with everything centered on DT. There are other areas of employment for singles, but a greater share is found DT than what you'd find in LA.
Take Oak Park vs. Pasadena. Oak Park is getting short changed a bit in this discussion. I have family who live off Lake Street in OP and some who live a few blocks south of Old Town in Pasadena. There are a lot of singles or married young professionals w/ no kids living in Oak Park. A simple walk down Marion at night past Poor Phil's, the wine + cheese shop, etc will tell you that. As would a trip down Oak Park Ave further east or a stop in the Kinderhook. It's a viable alternative if you want beauty/entertainment outside of the central city with parks and the like. Pasadena clearly has more of a scene off Colorado (E/W) and Green (N/S). Why more in Pasadena? The region is decentralized, so you have more employment opportunities for singles in the immediate surroundings. I took a train in from Arroyo in Pas to DT LA to get some work done in our satellite office in LA. It was nearly empty in rush hour, because people there don't work DT. They work in Pas or Glendale or in a studio in Burbank or something. I've taken the train from Oak Park after an all night bender w/ friends to get home, change, and go to work. It was full.
I've gone on too long, but I do agree with the general assessment. You are more likely to find much better entertainment alternatives outside of central LA than you would in Chicago. Chicago's central options, IMHO, are just much better than you will find anywhere in LA though. I like the buzz of central Chicago, and you can't have that level of activity without the metro (and its single life) being centered on the city.
Rent really depends on what you want and where exactly you live. You can rent studios anywhere from $700-$1000 or so. One bedrooms will start around $1000 and go up to maybe $1400. The location and quality will be determining factors.
The "zone" is probably different for each person and it really depends on where you live. For me it really just comes down to travel time. I live in Lincoln Park so I'm not really all too eager to go hang out on the south side a lot. I'm also admittedly lazy and I don't like having to transfer buses or train lines often. One of my friends calls it "OTP" or "outside the perimeter". Her perimeter was literally a 2 mile radius or so with the center being Streeterville. She Rarely went north of North Ave and never went south of Adams. I'm a little more adventurous but I'll admit I don't really go west of the river all that often, mostly because I rarely have a reason to.
Is your friend by chance from Atlanta?
I know you have a lot of stuff going on there, and the subways can be slow in Chicago, but I don't think a lot of people like being confined to that small of a space where they think they can hang out.
I think you say the main point in your post, it isn't in fact that you are lazy, or that it is far, the main point is "I rarely have a reason to"
My space is quite a bit larger, from Evanston into the South Loop and East of Western, but outside of that, not much reasons I can think to leave.
In other areas, as many people have pointed out, there are a lot of reasons to.
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.
Or stay on the West Coast.
