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.
To be clear, it's nowhere near true that "[t]here are no small startups" in Chicago. There actually are plenty of small tech startup companies in Chicago, but a lot fewer than in Seattle, and they make up a much smaller fraction of the overall local economic scene. As you say, Chicago's economy is much more dominated by big megacorporations than Seattle's, but that doesn't mean that small startups can't or don't get going in Chicago also. FWIW.
Maybe I'm just more plugged into the startup scene here than most people, but a very high percentage of the tech workers I know (and I'm a tech worker, so I know a lot) are at startups. I'm at a startup now. I was also at pre-launch Orbitz. I know a number of ex-Orbitzers who started their own companies and many more who work at those or other startups. One of the guys at the startup I'm currently at left to be the third person at another startup.
So while it isn't the Silicon Valley, we've got startups in Chicago. And if Groupon manages to cash in with an IPO so that the founders can pull out a lot of cash, I have a feeling we'll be seeing even more. Even without that extra cash, they're already seeding like crazy. When I started at Orbitz, I hardly knew of any startups in Chicago. But today I hear about new ones almost every single day.
Maybe I'm just more plugged into the startup scene here than most people, but a very high percentage of the tech workers I know (and I'm a tech worker, so I know a lot) are at startups. I'm at a startup now. I was also at pre-launch Orbitz. I know a number of ex-Orbitzers who started their own companies and many more who work at those or other startups. One of the guys at the startup I'm currently at left to be the third person at another startup.
So while it isn't the Silicon Valley, we've got startups in Chicago. And if Groupon manages to cash in with an IPO so that the founders can pull out a lot of cash, I have a feeling we'll be seeing even more. Even without that extra cash, they're already seeding like crazy. When I started at Orbitz, I hardly knew of any startups in Chicago. But today I hear about new ones almost every single day.
This is true, we are just saying in comparison. I don't have much experience with Seattle, so I'm going on a limb and assuming it is more similar to SV than it is to Chicago, which from what I have always gathered it is.
Saying it isn't Silicon Valley is an understatement. They aren't even comparable really. Groupon I consider a marketing company that leverages technology and Chicago's MBA workforce, orbitz is an airline company that leverages technology and Chicago's airline industry connections. I don't really consider these tech companies in my mind like google, hp, intel, amd, 3com, adobe, cisco, oracle, sun, symantec, nvidia, and all of your related startups which routinely get bought up by these. Chicago has some things like 37signals and advent of ruby on rails, but really it's kind of small time in comparison. Chicago is still far far behind. It has tech b/c it is so large it would have to, SV and to a lesser extent Seattle are just far more tech/R&D oriented and cutting edge in their workforce. Tech is the star of the show you could say. It's also for instance in daily conversations and your average person there is just more into it I noticed living in both.
Thanks everyone. The discussion so far speaks to staying in place with the only outweighing factor being work-life balance. I work at one of those high tech companies right now and am a MBA grad Rarely see my wife being that I work over 80 hour weeks and travel over 100k per year...really need to consider if it is worth it. Currently living in Bellevue and considering a move to Northbrook/Morton Grove (after reading through the forums).
I grew up in the Pacific Northwest and have a brother who still lives in Seattle.
I think the difference is that the entire metro region of Chicago is bigger, and has some severely downtrodden areas. When you look at the overall averages, they are lower than Seattle because of that. However some agencies have attempted to control for that by providing an estimate for Chicago that really only includes areas that working professionals would be likely to choose. In that second sense, Chicago and Seattle are pretty close overall in cost and it would come down to a comparison of individual suburbs or neighborhoods. Both are big enough to have a number of options, though.
I'll have to let people who know the suburbs better than I do answer that, but I think you'll be able to find something in that range, especially if you're okay with older stock and/or maybe converting an unfinished basement.
Not compared to Seattle it isn't. Having driven in both cities a fair bit, I'd say that Chicago's traffic is not worse than Seattle's. Both can be hellish, and I actually prefer driving here over Seattle.
Like I said, I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and I have two brothers. One still lives in Seattle. The other also lives in the Chicago area with me. 2/3 brothers can't be wrong ;-)
Chicago and Seattle have other ties, too. You probably know Boeing moved their corporate headquarters to Chicago a few years ago. You may not know that the first major market Starbucks expanded to outside of the Northwest was Chicago.
Anecdotes aside, Seattle and Chicago are different, but if you're going to be flying to a lot of different places around the U.S. and/or world, O'Hare is better than SeaTac unless all your destinations would be on the West Coast.
Seattle beats Chicago hands-down when it comes to Nature. The Chicago area and Midwest in general is not as devoid of nature as the West Coast likes to believe, however. There are still forests and hills (no mountains, though). We have no saltwater, but the Great Lakes really are enormous inland seas.
Chicago beats Seattle hands-down when it comes to being a huge city. Seattle is no small city, but it's not huge. For relative size comparison purposes, Seattle compared to Chicago is like Chicago compared to New York. They are both of a size that can be compared, but it's still very clear which is bigger and has more urbanity.
I like both Seattle and Chicago, but the primary reason I live in Chicago doesn't really apply to your situation as you've described it. I like living here because I like living in a city. Even in the more urban parts of Seattle it felt like it was just somewhere people stayed between trips to the mountains or the beach. In Chicago, I feel like the city attracts more people for the city itself whereas Seattle attracts people for the natural environment, and I think that results in a lot of the culture differences between the two. Seattle proper only makes up 18% of its metro area. Chicago proper makes up 28% of the Chicagoland metro area. That's a substantial difference.
I meant accessible from Chicago by car for weekend trips and the like, similar to how people in Seattle make weekend trips, I didn't mean really in Chicago itself.
There are plenty of places you could make a weekend of that have hills and bluffs, especially in southern Wisconsin, and some in central Illinois, even some in north central Illinois.
There are other kinds of nature, too, with some nice river features like Starved Rock State Park, which is less than 2 hours west of Chicago, and the hilly, forested areas in Wisconsin west of Madison.
Many people don't realize that before Chicago became hog butcher to the world, it was a HUGE timber town even before Seattle was, with sawmills and lumber processing plants handling huge runs of lumber and even raw timber coming down from the upper Midwest. The areas have changed, but there are still vestiges of those massive "Big Woods" reachable within a few hours drive from Chicago, and most of those vestiges are around because they were too hilly to accommodate the kind of lumberjacking practiced when it was big here.
I grew up in Oregon and Idaho, so don't go telling me I'm just some booster - I know what the Northwest has to offer when it comes to nature. But some of the river features, like Starved Rock, are beautiful but different from anything I've seen in the Northwest because the soil and underlying bedrock is so different. And along Lake Superior (which admittedly is a bit too far to be considered a weekend excursion), there are stretches that really remind me of the Oregon coast, rocky and pine trees and cool breezes coming off the water. The only thing missing is the salt air.
Like I said, Chicago can't win a comparison with Seattle when it comes to natural wonder. But from Chicago you are still within driving distances of a far wider array of nature than most people - especially most West Coast people - realize. I'm just trying to point out that just because the center is called "fly-over country" doesn't mean that in reality there's nothing here.
And along Lake Superior (which admittedly is a bit too far to be considered a weekend excursion), there are stretches that really remind me of the Oregon coast, rocky and pine trees and cool breezes coming off the water. The only thing missing is the salt air.
emathias, excellent post, and I agree completely. I'm always heartened to hear of somebody recognizing and appreciating the excellent and underrated natural beauty and outdoors attractions accessible in Chicago's hinterlands. I find unfortunately that even many native Chicagoans (or maybe, especially many native Chicagoans) rarely leave the city or its suburbs for day trips or weekend excursions, and haven't done very much exploration of the surrounding areas. That's partly because the Chicago area is so vast and the traffic is often so bad that it can take a discouragingly long time just to get out into the country, especially if you're coming from the city. But it's too bad, for a lot of reasons. There really are a lot of beautiful spots within a short drive of Chicago, and even more so if you can expand the radius to 300 or 400 or 500 miles. Obviously the landforms are different from those on the West Coast, and probably less dramatic or conventionally spectacular. But the Midwestern landscape has its own unique, soulful, earthy charm, and it rewards someone with an open mind and a spirit of curiosity and adventure.
But I disagree with your specific point that Lake Superior is too far away for a weekend excursion. The Canadian side of the Lake is a bit of a haul, but I find the portions of the Lake Superior shores in northern Wisconsin and the U.P. to be pretty easy to get to, generally between seven and nine hours from most parts of Chicagoland. That means it is a nice place to go for a quick overnight weekend trip, and is absolutely spectacular over a three-day weekend. I've done it several times, and I enjoy it immensely. I'd particularly recommend Porcupine Mountain State Park and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, both in Michigan.
Sounds like a personal choice you need to make. Since the Chicago area is so big, you can live here for far cheaper than many large metro areas. Really just depends on what type of life you are looking for.
Like I said, Chicago can't win a comparison with Seattle when it comes to natural wonder. But from Chicago you are still within driving distances of a far wider array of nature than most people - especially most West Coast people - realize. I'm just trying to point out that just because the center is called "fly-over country" doesn't mean that in reality there's nothing here.
It is very worth pointing out that many of us have zero interest in nature. This weird obsession with forests and large piles of dirt, I do not get it. If you're a hardcore urbanite, as the original poster may enjoy, go Chicago.
I always considered the PacNW to be flyover. There has never been anything there, and it is so isolated. Really anything west of the Mississippi. I never thought I would end up on the west coast, which is so far removed from civilization, but here I am.
It is very worth pointing out that many of us have zero interest in nature. This weird obsession with forests and large piles of dirt, I do not get it. If you're a hardcore urbanite, as the original poster may enjoy, go Chicago.
I dont know if I consider myself a "hardcore urbanite" but I have spent my entire life living in Manhattan, so im sure that counts...but I actually love having nature easily accessable. Its not all about concrete, and lattes for me, I enjoy fly fishing, boating, and generally being outdoors. Not that im wearing rubber waders and fishing lures in my hat walking around the city.
I like being able to get away from the City for a short weekend. Chicago is close to many options, no mountains, but plenty of nature.
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.
Rarely see my wife being that I work over 80 hour weeks and travel over 100k per year...really need to consider if it is worth it. Currently living in Bellevue and considering a move to Northbrook/Morton Grove (after reading through the forums).
