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 would love to see qualitative data on WHY people decide to move to Chicago, especially from warm-weather states (SoCal, Florida, etc). I wonder if the majority come for school/work, or if they visited once and decided the city was their next move. I know this data doesn't exist, just saying.
*Note to die-hard Chicagoans, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the city. Just curious as to why.
As a relocation from Orange County, mine was a transfer. I love Chicago though and would not go back, but only if a snowbird for a few months in retirement. Chicago is a great city!
Oh you have got to be kidding me with that one. If you really think there's nothing cool to do in Chicago, then you're a complete n00b.
Oh there is stuff to do, sure. But it is stuff you could find in most large cities, or even small ones like sf, boston, dc. But you are not going snowboarding or whale watching in the midwest.
My point is really that chicago has all the problems California has, with out any of the same benefits. Though the suburbs do offer a great quality of life for families. But the city is dysfunctional beyond belief and the taxes are out of control.
Add in the lack of a niche economy, and you're not gonna be attracting young, affluent, coasties anytime soon.
My point is really that chicago has all the problems California has, with out any of the same benefits.
Benefits are different for individuals.
Think about it in the opposite direction. You can do most anything in Chicago you can do in any other city in the US. However, cost of living is probably the biggest benefit, and that's a hell of a benefit. You can either save up for a trip to snowboard in SoCal or fly out of O'Hare to spend a week in the Alps. Even the Rockies or the Appalachians can be driven to within in a day.
Think about it in the opposite direction. You can do most anything in Chicago you can do in any other city in the US. However, cost of living is probably the biggest benefit, and that's a hell of a benefit. You can either save up for a trip to snowboard in SoCal or fly out of O'Hare to spend a week in the Alps. Even the Rockies or the Appalachians can be driven to within in a day.
Exactly. My sister in law bought a 1200 sf crap shack in SF for the price I paid for an updated 3000 SF in Chicago on a double lot in a good school area. We take a family trip abroad almost every year.
She has no winter and pays like 12% in state income tax. I get some bad winters and pay 5%.
It's all preferences, but the cost of living to me is not worth it out there.
Oh there is stuff to do, sure. But it is stuff you could find in most large cities, or even small ones like sf, boston, dc. But you are not going snowboarding or whale watching in the midwest.
My point is really that chicago has all the problems California has, with out any of the same benefits. Though the suburbs do offer a great quality of life for families. But the city is dysfunctional beyond belief and the taxes are out of control.
Add in the lack of a niche economy, and you're not gonna be attracting young, affluent, coasties anytime soon.
You underestimate our ability to sojourn north of the Cheddar Curtain. Kayaking, canoeing, biking, hiking, camping, waterskiing, waterslides, etc, and all further enhanced by lovely rolling hills, excellent breweries, and an abundance of tasty dairy products.
Oh there is stuff to do, sure. But it is stuff you could find in most large cities, or even small ones like sf, boston, dc. But you are not going snowboarding or whale watching in the midwest.
My point is really that chicago has all the problems California has, with out any of the same benefits. Though the suburbs do offer a great quality of life for families. But the city is dysfunctional beyond belief and the taxes are out of control.
Add in the lack of a niche economy, and you're not gonna be attracting young, affluent, coasties anytime soon.
It's all a matter of degree. In theory, I can find the same stuff to do in anywhere, USA.
Being more specific though, from a nightlife perspective, you can't find the density of options in LA that you can in Chicago. Places are scattered and people tend to drive from scene A to scene B. SF and Boston, by comparison, are relatively sleepy compared to Chicago at 1am...if that matters to someone.
Re: taxes. Someone making a certain amount of money owning a certain type of home, say $120,000 and a 1000 sqft, 2 bed, 1.5 ba condo: who is paying the least in taxes? Boston, NYC, DC, SF, LA, or Chicago? We're talking combined taxes (sales, property, income, other fees). It's people in Chicago. The tax argument is completely bogus. Someone in NYC or SF might make 10-15% more doing the exact same work. Even with a bump, the actual disposable income someone has after meeting basic provisions is much better in Chicago.
Re: niche economies. Atlanta and Dallas don't have niche economies. They seem to be drawing young coasties just fine.
If whale watching, snowboarding, or going on trips to wine country are so central to who you are, then you're not going to live in Chicago. You're probably going to live in San Francisco or Vancouver (depending upon whether you value snowboarding or wine more). I could make an arbitrary list with something similar to whale watching (seriously, do people do this all the time in SF?) and come up with an entirely different, "this city doesn't have x, and it doesn't really offer anything different, so why move there?."
Oh there is stuff to do, sure. But it is stuff you could find in most large cities, or even small ones like sf, boston, dc. But you are not going snowboarding or whale watching in the midwest.
My point is really that chicago has all the problems California has, with out any of the same benefits. Though the suburbs do offer a great quality of life for families. But the city is dysfunctional beyond belief and the taxes are out of control.
Add in the lack of a niche economy, and you're not gonna be attracting young, affluent, coasties anytime soon.
Actually you can go snowboarding in the midwest easily. It's frivolous to think otherwise. You aren't going to be shredding on a massive mountain (which 99.8% of snowboards are not good enough to do anyway), but if you really think that you can't snowboard within an hour or two drive of Chicago then you don't know that much about the area. I have two good friends here who are big time snowboarders - yes they travel to places like Utah when they want a HUGE fix, but they're always out in northern Illinois and Wisconsin snowboarding every weekend during the winter. If half pipes are your thing, there's those too in plenty of ski areas. I can't believe you don't think you can snowboard in the midwest. Hell, I was snowboarding near Milwaukee less than a year ago.
Anyway, there's just as much to do here as SoCal. Sure there are things you can't do like go to the mountains close by, but there's just as much. And I am very familiar with SoCal - my entire dad and his side are from LA. I grew up visiting LA every year for weeks on end and other CA cities. My dad is one of the only one in his family who does not live in LA. On top of that, my cousin held a high position in LA government for 2 decades and then went on to hold a high position in the state government for a few years until recently.
Very, very familiar with it, and it's absolutely frivolous to think that Chicago has nothing to do. Most cities in the US are like this that you describe - this is nothing new. Culturally, there's some obvious differences in the US in some regions, but it's such a new country that the difference between Boston and Chicago isn't MASSIVE like in other cities I've visited. I've visited countries where one city is ****ing drastically different than the other and you wonder if you're in the same country anymore. There's almost nowhere in the US that's like that.
I don't think you know what "nothing to do" actually means. Go live in a town of 1000 people with no major wildlife around, and tens of miles from a city over 10,000 people. Then you'll know what "nothing to do" actually means.
Actually you can go snowboarding in the midwest easily. It's frivolous to think otherwise. You aren't going to be shredding on a massive mountain (which 99.8% of snowboards are not good enough to do anyway), but if you really think that you can't snowboard within an hour or two drive of Chicago then you don't know that much about the area. I have two good friends here who are big time snowboarders - yes they travel to places like Utah when they want a HUGE fix, but they're always out in northern Illinois and Wisconsin snowboarding every weekend during the winter. If half pipes are your thing, there's those too in plenty of ski areas. I can't believe you don't think you can snowboard in the midwest. Hell, I was snowboarding near Milwaukee less than a year ago.
Anyway, there's just as much to do here as SoCal. Sure there are things you can't do like go to the mountains close by, but there's just as much. And I am very familiar with SoCal - my entire dad and his side are from LA. I grew up visiting LA every year for weeks on end and other CA cities. My dad is one of the only one in his family who does not live in LA. On top of that, my cousin held a high position in LA government for 2 decades and then went on to hold a high position in the state government for a few years until recently.
Very, very familiar with it, and it's absolutely frivolous to think that Chicago has nothing to do. Most cities in the US are like this that you describe - this is nothing new. Culturally, there's some obvious differences in the US in some regions, but it's such a new country that the difference between Boston and Chicago isn't MASSIVE like in other cities I've visited. I've visited countries where one city is ****ing drastically different than the other and you wonder if you're in the same country anymore. There's almost nowhere in the US that's like that.
I don't think you know what "nothing to do" actually means. Go live in a town of 1000 people with no major wildlife around, and tens of miles from a city over 10,000 people. Then you'll know what "nothing to do" actually means.
I agree.
There's also the age factor, as the need to go snowboarding or make the trek from SF to Napa Valley won't be an every-week ( or every-month) need forever. At some point, people will say "enough" to sky-high coastal housing prices. It gets tiresome to work just to feed the enormous mortgage monster that the typical CA household represents..
I agree.
It gets tiresome to work just to feed the enormous mortgage monster that the typical CA household represents..
California is one of the best places in the U.S. to own a home, because the home price appreciation in prime parts of California have been so amazing.
I would MUCH rather own an "enormous mortgage monster" home in California that's giving me 10% annual equity increases than some cheap home somewhere else where I'm lucky to get 1%-2% annually.
My aunt is a multi-millionaire despite not ever making more than 50k her entire life. She bought a home in a prime part of coastal California during the 70's (she had some inheritance money) and her home is currently worth around $4-5 million.
Granted, that's an extreme case, but, generally speaking, a 400k home in California has been a much more solid long-term investment than an equivalent 200k home in a less desirable part of the country.
California is one of the best places in the U.S. to own a home, because the home price appreciation in prime parts of California have been so amazing.
I would MUCH rather own an "enormous mortgage monster" home in California that's giving me 10% annual equity increases than some cheap home somewhere else where I'm lucky to get 1%-2% annually.
My aunt is a multi-millionaire despite not ever making more than 50k her entire life. She bought a home in a prime part of coastal California during the 70's (she had some inheritance money) and her home is currently worth around $4-5 million.
Granted, that's an extreme case, but, generally speaking, a 400k home in California has been a much more solid long-term investment than an equivalent 200k home in a less desirable part of the country.
However, a young person hoping to buy a home in the LA/SF areas will very likely not inherit such fortunate circumstances, esp when they would have all kinds of trouble even raising the initial down payment, let alone experience favorable annual equity raises..
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.
