17 ms·

My family and I decided to stay on the north side of Chicago, a very high cost of living location, despite no longer needing to head downtown every day for work

My family and I decided to stay on the north side of Chicago, a very high cost of living location, despite no longer needing to head downtown every day for work. Why not move outside of Chicago where our cost living would be substantially lower? * We wanted to keep our kids in the same school, which is walking distance. * We like being walking distance to the grocery store, doctor's offices, etc. * Our kids can walk to their friends' houses. * Proximity to the lake is important to us. * We're close to family. Moving to the suburbs would find us losing much of that freedom that comes with living in a dense neighborhood. The size of a house and a yard is only one factor here for quality of life. I hope the trend that comes from remote work isn't just people optimizing for the size of a house and low cost of living, especially if it comes at the expense of being able to be in a community with other people around.

long_time_gone 5y ago
Also in Chicago (northwest side). After our kids were born, we stayed for many of the same reasons. +1 on school within walking distance. Walking to-and-from each day with my son has been an amazing experience. A big surprise for us has been the sense of community within our neighborhood and school.
Retric 5y ago
I think the important part is not where you decided to live, but the fact you had the freedom to seriously considering moving.
sokoloff 5y ago
I think people are social creatures and will always choose to have social interactions. The difference between high and low density living is whether you can choose the absence of these interactions, even temporarily. I live in a city and it suits me just fine overall, but I also need some of the "I don't want to deal with loads of people and their drama right now" time to remain sane.
ohples 5y ago
Its too bad we can't build new places like this, and make this a more affordable option for people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- more_corn 5y ago
  It’s funny. Every human could tell you the things that make a place pleasant. (Walkability, cute shops and cafes, green space) And yet we have people who’s whole job is “planning” and we get spaces that are aggressively unpleasant. No sidewalks let alone dedicated waking paths. Strip malls everywhere. It baffles me.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    > And yet we have people who’s whole job is “planning” and we get spaces that are aggressively unpleasant. These things are related. The person who's job is "planning," the one who demands that your store be surrounded by a sprawling parking lot, is neither the person who would build the store, nor shop there.
kerbs 5y ago
Being on the north side of Chicago, you're probably already in one of the "move-to" and not the "move-away" from areas. It's expensive, but let's be serious it's nothing compared to the coast – with a good quality of life (as the reasons you stated).
- dsizzle 5y ago
  By "move-to", not sure if you mean Chicago overall, or the north side in particular, but if the former Chicago is growing slower than the national average. 2% last decade (vs 8% nationally) https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/12/22622062/chicago-census-2020-illinois-population-growth-decline-redistricting-racial-composition https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/12/22622062/chicago-cens... I had the impression Chicago was actually losing people, but that info was old, from the previous decade where it lost 7%.
  - kerbs 5y ago
    North Chicago, or really any of the nicer parts. Chicago is a weird place for various political and economic reasons (I’m from Minneapolis, so just a neighbor), and was not growing pre-pandemic. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that trend reverse given its relative LCOL - especially with the Denver/Austins of the world no longer being very affordable.
nickysielicki 5y ago
I grew up in the north suburbs of Milwaukee. Did you consider it? Outside of keeping your kids in the same schools (and the schools north of Milwaukee are great), it hits all the same marks and it’s a LOT cheaper.
- larrymyers 5y ago
  I love visiting Milwaukee, and Wisconsin in general for the sheer amount of outdoor activities. Unfortunately it would send us the wrong direction with respect to visiting family. I want to spend less time in a car in general.
  - legerdemain 5y ago
    Have you considered remote/teleconference family visits? The last two years have shown that it's perfectly possible to lead a normal social life on Zoom, etc. There isn't really any need to get into a car and drive several hours just to see someone.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      You can't hug someone through zoom, so that's basically a non-starter for a very large portion of people.
    - oblio 5y ago
      It's not. How do even chat in a group of say, 4-6 people or more? Bigger in person groups naturally diverge and converge in real time, while with Zoom you're either completely separated or have people taking turns speaking in a very unnatural fashion that kind of works for business meetings but not for casual social interaction.
lbriner 5y ago
> isn't just people optimizing for the size of a house and low cost of living An important point! I moved recently to a small village from a large town in the UK mainly so that I could afford a good size of house compared to what I could afford in the town. Despite never considering my self a "city boy", I have found the move very challenging. I initially thought it was isolating because of lockdown but then realised that the pace here is very slow and I find the lack of activity troubling. I just have to get used to driving to everything, something I have never had to do before.
- politelemon 5y ago
  The driving aspect is the main thing that kills any daydreaming I do about moving to the Scottish Highlands. It doesn't stop the daydreaming, however.
  - mypalmike 5y ago
    Inverness might be a reasonable middle ground between the remoteness of the Highlands and the walkability of a city.
    - politelemon 5y ago
      Thank you! I was mulling Inverness and looking a bit closer, it does seem like a bit of both.
    - dboreham 5y ago
      Also Perth
  - more_corn 5y ago
    My friend moved to a little village in Scotland. Super cute, walkable, near the Spey, easy drive to a city or two for a flight back to civilization. Great schools, no healthcare costs. The equity he cashed out from selling his place in California bought the nicest place in town for cash. He’s really liking it. I’ve gone to visit a few times. Makes me reconsider spending so much for my shoebox house in SF.
goostavos 5y ago
+1. Walkability is the main thing that keeps me in the city. A very large part of me wants to go back to the suburbs, rent a house, have a yard, garage -- space in general. However, every time I actually visit someone in the suburbs, the long drive there, watching things get more and more spread apart until it's just strip malls, grocery stores, and subdivisions, really saps the excitement out of having more space for me.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  There's no reason (besides inertia) that we can't have both. This is how thriving smaller downtowns are, single family homes within walking distance to amenities. It's just that all those areas get really expensive because there are so few of them. But there don't have to be so few places like that.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    How do those smaller downtowns thrive? The few I know usually have rich populations that do not mind spending more than what Costco/Target/Walmart/big grocery stores sell at. All it takes is the big box stores to setup camp 10 minutes outside of town and almost everyone with a car will opt to save money and shop there.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      Yes, it requires a population that appreciates the local amenities to the point of paying more for them. Lots of these people exist, even if they aren't the majority of people. It's just that right now they are concentrated in the dense part of cities. But many of them would love to live in a bigger house if they could still walk to amenities, and would still be willing to pay more for the privilege.
    - novok 5y ago
      You put in stores that sell things that the big boxes wont sell. Such as specialized restaurants, vacuum repair shops and so on. You can also put smaller versions of 'big boxes' or other chains in these downtowns, such as chipolte, walgreens, trader joes, "city" target, etc. Downtowns can also have rather large things like movie theaters themselves.
matwood 5y ago
I think the point of this change is you can now make a personal decision based on factors other than your commute. I want to also note there is a lot in between a dense neighborhood and having no people around.
criddell 5y ago
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Different people value different things. You prioritize your kids school and proximity to important destinations and so that neighborhood makes a lot of sense. When your kids move away after college, does that change the calculation much for you? Both of my kids are away at college and so I'm looking at where I live and what kind of life I want and am leaning more and more to moving further out of the city (I'm already in the suburbs).
- jacobolus 5y ago
  Suburbs are very unfriendly for the elderly compared to cities. The ideal suburbanite is an upper-middle-class person in their 30s–50s in good health who really likes driving their large car and has hobbies they can do individually from inside their own home (e.g. woodworking, gardening), and doesn’t mind that life is miserable* there for their kids. Everyone else is more or less a second-class citizen. * Edit: suburbs are unpleasant for kids because anyone who can’t drive is completely dependent on someone else (for kids, usually a parent) for transportation: few destinations are within walking/cycling distance, buses are few and infrequent, in general non-car transportation is discouraged by the urban design. Everything is harder to get to, and there are far fewer resources available for people with particular interests.
  - unexpected 5y ago
    Why do you automatically assume that kids are miserable in the suburbs? My kids rather like running around in our backyard, use our pool everyday in the summer, and having tons of friends on the block. At the same time, I can't imagine that they would enjoy living in 2 bedroom apartment, having no yard to play in, etc. This disdain for suburbs is quite tacky and out of touch. It's okay to think differently. I'm glad you enjoy living in the city! Luckily, this country is big and there's enough space for all of us!
    - arrosenberg 5y ago
      It wildly varies by suburb. The one I grew up in had few-to-no kids on the block, and even if there had been, there were only a couple of small, underwhelming parks within walking/biking distance. Comparing notes with other people, this seems like the more common experience of the suburbs. The disdain (at least for me) comes when you do the math and realized how absurdly subsidized the suburban lifestyle is.
duxup 5y ago
And some of us in the burbs wouldn’t mind moving down there too for the same reasons.
nradov 5y ago
Chicago, and the rest of Illinois, is in the middle of an ongoing fiscal crisis with no clear path to a solution. Will you continue to stay while taxes increase and government services decrease?
- mrep 5y ago
  At least for me, still way way cheaper than the coasts so no plans on leaving yet.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I found the difference in land price appreciation in other more expensive areas (specifically Western and Southern US) more than made up for the extra up front costs. Although it is not "coast" vs "not coast", as NJ/CT land prices changes were in a similar situation to IL land prices.
mumblemumble 5y ago
I grew up in the country, used to live in the suburbs, and currently live in Chicago. Yes, we could afford to have a lot more space that we personally own if we lived in a less dense area. But no, I don't miss it. I don't feel cooped up in a small space where I live right now. Nor did I feel cooped up living in a college dormitory, for that matter. I do feel cooped up in a small space when I'm staying with friends and family who have palatial homes out in the suburbs for any length of time. My sense of how much space I have at my disposal changes drastically when I'm in an environment where the only space I'm allowed to use freely is space I'm personally owning or renting. It hits my kids even worse. For them, one backyard, even a big one, is simply not enough room to run.
- Pasorrijer 5y ago
  Sure a small backyard isn't great... But I live in a major city and instead we just walk to the enormous park, which is way bigger than any backyard. It's a very different mindset that I thought I'd hate but now that I'm here I couldn't imagine it any other way.
  - yourusername 5y ago
    The enormous parks here were closed multiple times over the past 2 years. I'll never depend on such amenities again because they can be taken at will.
    - Pasorrijer 5y ago
      How did they close them? In Toronto they put up caution tape. The people walked through it. They placed reasonable restrictions, and the unreasonable ones were ignored. Honestly one of the biggest benefits of the pandemic (and there were very, very few) was the transition of classrooms, community and family events to the parks. I've never seen them so active and busy and it gave a liveliness to the neighbourhood that was refreshing.
  - jjav 5y ago
    > Sure a small backyard isn't great... But I live in a major city and instead we just walk to the enormous park, which is way bigger than any backyard. In the suburbs you typically have both. We have a yard to play in (not huge, but a good yard with a few trees to climb, a treehouse, etc) and we have a large park about 1 minute away on foot. It's not only the major cities that have parks.
mbesto 5y ago
No offense, but presumably your parents did the same thing when they had you for similar reasons. This is simply what happens when you have kids. However, there are separate but related trends which the articles points out: - The south's quality of living has drastically increased over the last 20~30 years - People aren't seeing state localized benefits from high state taxes (IMHO Illinois might the worst tax:benefit ratio in the country) - Work from home acceleration has accelerated lower cost of living with high quality of life centers (see -> the south) P.S.- I grew up in the north shore Chicago. /wave
- selectodude 5y ago
  >People aren't seeing state localized benefits from high state taxes I always think this, and then I leave Illinois and immediately notice that the infrastructure in neighboring states (Indiana and Missouri, namely) is abhorrent. I think it's just all relative.
temp8964 5y ago
> Moving to the suburbs would find us losing much of that freedom that comes with living in a dense neighborhood. This does not make sense. Yes, moving to the suburbs and not using a car would lose much of freedom, but it is not how you live in the suburbs... When you live the suburbs (with a car or multiple cars), you have way more choices to grocery stores, doctor's offices, friends' houses, public parks, lakes, etc. I will say, if anybody cares a lot about freedom, would want to live in the suburbs. The whole idea of prioritizing walkability is against freedom. Walkability means limiting choices, not expanding choices. You are basically shrinking the area of 15 min driving distance (radius of eight miles) to the area of 15 min walking distance (radius of three-quarters of a mile). No matter how dense you set in the area of 15 min walking distance, it will never be comparable to the area of 15 min driving distance (around x100 area space). In addition, you gain more freedom when you live in the suburbs with a backyard and a garage (or a shed in the backyard). You have lots of things you can do (like home lab, wood workshop, etc.) which aren't available to you if you live in a small house or apartment in the city. If you chose not to own a car, that's a totally separate topic.
- ceras 5y ago
  > When you live the suburbs (with a car or multiple cars), you have way more choices to grocery stores, doctor's offices, friends' houses, public parks, lakes, etc. Walkability means limiting choices, not expanding choices. Walkability doesn't strictly limit choices, especially if you consider walking+biking+transit since they go hand-in-hand. E.g. compared to a car-oriented suburb, personally I certainly have more food options within an X-minute accessible radius, but I don't have as many nature options. It's a tradeoff. I also don't need to drive, which is probably the freedom OP was talking about, and one that both of us value even if some others like yourself don't. I like that having a no-car option means it's easier to be healthy and active when walking and biking are practical choices for day-to-day errands, that I don't have to think about parking or traffic for popular events, that I'm more likely to bump into friends on the street, and that I don't have to think about designed drivers when alcohol is involved. You may not value any of that, but some people do, and so they prefer living somewhere with that choice. It's fine if you prefer living with a car, but it's rather silly to say it "does not make sense" to consider it freeing to live in a place that doesn't require one given that many people make that choice.
strikelaserclaw 5y ago
most people move to hcol areas due to jobs, they don't really have much of a community or family in those areas, so it is an easy decision for many to move away if they could. I myself have lived in dense cities, although i enjoyed the walkability of everything, i also felt myself missing time with nature, to enjoy the peace that life offers etc... and weirdly enough felt more disconnected to humanity living in the midst of a lot of humans.
phkahler 5y ago
What would you think of a combination of high density and large green space? Lay out a city like a fractal with the interior being dense, but you're always close to woodlands, open fields (farms?), or parks. I know zoning boards are incapable of maintaining such a structure without constantly making exceptions for developers, but what would you think of such an arrangement?
- rowanajmarshall 5y ago
  That's not far from London, a pretty dense city as they go, but also one that just about, technically speaking, counts as a forest thanks to the number of trees [1]. I live in one of the densest boroughs of London, on a main road, and I've got ample access to parks and green space. [1] https://www.timeout.com/london/things-to-do/did-you-know-that-london-is-the-worlds-largest-urban-forest https://www.timeout.com/london/things-to-do/did-you-know-tha...
  - Pasorrijer 5y ago
    Toronto is very similar. Outside of the very dense core, but still very much in Toronto proper, you can get lost in forests and ravines and have to be on the lookout for coyote!
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > I know zoning boards are incapable of maintaining such a structure without constantly making exceptions for developers, Also not a lot of undeveloped cities either to try it out. For what its worth, something similar (but less dramatic in scale) was already tried before [1]. People tended to not like it. The park space made it a lot harder to get around. You lose the "its ony three block away" nature of cities when you add lots of dead space, and things like rain cover along sidewalks become a problem. One of the major things that make city streets "walkable" and enjoyable is stuff happening on the street frontage. The complexity of various shops, eateries and city amenities abutting the sidewalk mean there is reason to be there and things to do. You lose that when you recess a building. I think a much better approach is just to cede some land to be in-city-grid parks, and take over some minor roads and alleys as green-walks where the road is reduced (eg. curved to force slow traffic) or removed, and theres lots of trees and gardens and walkways. Basically get that green space from incremental reclamation, and protection of existing opens spaces. Leave actual city structure as it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park
brnt 5y ago
Can you fill me in on sth? Where Ive lived in Europe, the onlt car-only areas are burbs. Small towns tend to be walkable too, on account of being small. Now, not every small town has a wide variety of shops of course, but most things are bikeable. The only things that are not where I now live are places I'd need a car anyway (furniture, construction, etc). I thought it'd be the same for small town America, but I guess you're saying it's not?
- ceras 5y ago
  You're right, it's not like that in small-town America: small towns aren't walkable in the US. There aren't many walkable or bikeable areas in the US, and those that exist are in a handful of large cities. Many US cities aren't very walkable, e.g. Los Angeles (the second largest US city).
sershe 5y ago
For me, the COVID has really opened my eyes to how little I need walkability. My preferences completely flipped from "I want walkscore 75+ and ideally 90+" to "I want walkscore to be <15" I used to be very pro-transit and walking (didn't even learn to drive till 30), and even as I was not walking as much just before COVID, I reflexively remained so. When most things closed nearby (so we went out less and finally discovered food delivery), I realized I don't really need to walk places - I don't miss them. With spotty reopenings, when some places were indoors and some outdoor-only in bad weather, we drove to go out and turns out it's much better (unless you plan to drink a lot). With more grocery shopping, walking to groceries was out of the question and turns out, even in a dense city, driving for the same amount of time to get groceries is so much more convenient. Etc. I can see benefits of a park nearby, but that's about it... and then again, in overall less walkable areas parks are less crowded, larger, and also cleaner/nicer. EDIT: reading other comments I guess I can see benefits for kids, although only with more old-style parenting. I could take a subway by myself when I was 10 or so, and walk around everywhere obviously, so that gives a lot of independence you cannot have in suburbs.
- x3iv130f 5y ago
  Automobile travel is nice in rural areas but it introduces too many problems for cities with any sort of density. Traffic, noise pollution, air quality, and auto accidents are all things the unfortunate city dweller is forced to live with because cars are given free reign on streets. Cities need to convert their freeways to toll roads and limit the registration of vehicles to what the infrastructure can actually handle.
  - sershe 5y ago
    If people prefer driving, that may just cause more people to move away.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I certainly drove more during the pandemic (though this may have been because I stopped using Lyft due to safety concerns), but I never stopped appreciating living in a walkable neighborhood. Certainly openings were a bit spotty here and there, but having a small grocery nearby, as well as a few restaurants with outdoor seating, was a boon to our mental health while otherwise stuck at home most of the time. We got food delivered more than usual, to be sure, but that still felt like a supplement, not the main mode of eating.
downrightmike 5y ago
You like your Strong Town, what living was like before cars ruined everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o
Consultant32452 5y ago
I live in the burbs. Here's my metrics relative to yours * Kid's school is technically walking distance, bike ride more reasonably * Walking distance from grocery store, doctor's office, dentist * Kid can walk to friends' house * Can ride my bike to a conservation area with camping * Lakes are all around, but not really fair since I live in FL * Multiple outdoor parks within walking/biking distance * Neighborhood/community swimming pool * Walking distance to gym * Extremely low crime rate I'm not saying you should move, especially because of the close to family bit. Nor am I suggesting most of suburbia is like where I live. But if you seek out suburban areas that are designed to be in proximity to things, you will find them.
Xenoamorphous 5y ago
I enjoy watching a couple of shows about home renovations that take place in the US (some twin brothers and love or list it, or something like that). Two things always strike me as odd as an European: * People on that show always needs a shit load of space. Especially in the kitchens, for some reason. Sometimes they are a couple without kids or maybe have one kid but they want 2 ovens? And a huge island is a must. Most of the kitchens in those shows are bigger than the average living room in my country. * Houses made out of wood and walls that you can punch through. This is a different matter though.
- mcv 5y ago
  Exactly. Those houses always strike me as simultaneously extravagant and cheap quality. A weird combination.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Do Europeans not cook all that much? I imagine most suburban US families cook most of their meals, both for cost reasons and because taking children to a restaurant is viewed as a chore here. Even without kids, my partner and I try to cook often. We have a decent-sized kitchen by urban US standards (it would probably be considered on the small side if we lived in the suburbs), but could still stand to have more counter space for food prep (and cabinet space for storage). Agree that 2 ovens is a bit much, but a huge island can be incredibly useful.
  - Xenoamorphous 5y ago
    I personally don’t cook but luckily for me my girlfriend loves it, and even though we have a decent kitchen now that we bought a place, she seemed to do fine in smaller kitchens. And I’ve never met anyone with 2 ovens. And even though kitchens are way smaller than in the US (or at least the average one in those shows), another difference is that we have the washer in the kitchen (almost no one has a drier though, and after using one in London I wonder why anyone would use one for anything other than sheets and towels, those things destroy clothes) and usually the kitchen was a separate room (due to the smell, I guess?), but nowadays an “open plan” has grown a lot in demand.

long_time_gone 5y ago

Also in Chicago (northwest side). After our kids were born, we stayed for many of the same reasons. +1 on school within walking distance. Walking to-and-from each day with my son has been an amazing experience. A big surprise for us has been the sense of community within our neighborhood and school.

Retric 5y ago

I think the important part is not where you decided to live, but the fact you had the freedom to seriously considering moving.

sokoloff 5y ago

I think people are social creatures and will always choose to have social interactions. The difference between high and low density living is whether you can choose the absence of these interactions, even temporarily. I live in a city and it suits me just fine overall, but I also need some of the "I don't want to deal with loads of people and their drama right now" time to remain sane.

ohples 5y ago

Its too bad we can't build new places like this, and make this a more affordable option for people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
more_corn 5y ago
It’s funny. Every human could tell you the things that make a place pleasant. (Walkability, cute shops and cafes, green space) And yet we have people who’s whole job is “planning” and we get spaces that are aggressively unpleasant. No sidewalks let alone dedicated waking paths. Strip malls everywhere. It baffles me.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  > And yet we have people who’s whole job is “planning” and we get spaces that are aggressively unpleasant. These things are related. The person who's job is "planning," the one who demands that your store be surrounded by a sprawling parking lot, is neither the person who would build the store, nor shop there.

kerbs 5y ago

Being on the north side of Chicago, you're probably already in one of the "move-to" and not the "move-away" from areas. It's expensive, but let's be serious it's nothing compared to the coast – with a good quality of life (as the reasons you stated).

dsizzle 5y ago
By "move-to", not sure if you mean Chicago overall, or the north side in particular, but if the former Chicago is growing slower than the national average. 2% last decade (vs 8% nationally) https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/12/22622062/chicago-census-2020-illinois-population-growth-decline-redistricting-racial-composition https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/12/22622062/chicago-cens... I had the impression Chicago was actually losing people, but that info was old, from the previous decade where it lost 7%.
- kerbs 5y ago
  North Chicago, or really any of the nicer parts. Chicago is a weird place for various political and economic reasons (I’m from Minneapolis, so just a neighbor), and was not growing pre-pandemic. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that trend reverse given its relative LCOL - especially with the Denver/Austins of the world no longer being very affordable.

nickysielicki 5y ago

I grew up in the north suburbs of Milwaukee. Did you consider it? Outside of keeping your kids in the same schools (and the schools north of Milwaukee are great), it hits all the same marks and it’s a LOT cheaper.

larrymyers 5y ago
I love visiting Milwaukee, and Wisconsin in general for the sheer amount of outdoor activities. Unfortunately it would send us the wrong direction with respect to visiting family. I want to spend less time in a car in general.
- legerdemain 5y ago
  Have you considered remote/teleconference family visits? The last two years have shown that it's perfectly possible to lead a normal social life on Zoom, etc. There isn't really any need to get into a car and drive several hours just to see someone.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    You can't hug someone through zoom, so that's basically a non-starter for a very large portion of people.
  - oblio 5y ago
    It's not. How do even chat in a group of say, 4-6 people or more? Bigger in person groups naturally diverge and converge in real time, while with Zoom you're either completely separated or have people taking turns speaking in a very unnatural fashion that kind of works for business meetings but not for casual social interaction.

lbriner 5y ago

> isn't just people optimizing for the size of a house and low cost of living An important point! I moved recently to a small village from a large town in the UK mainly so that I could afford a good size of house compared to what I could afford in the town. Despite never considering my self a "city boy", I have found the move very challenging. I initially thought it was isolating because of lockdown but then realised that the pace here is very slow and I find the lack of activity troubling. I just have to get used to driving to everything, something I have never had to do before.

politelemon 5y ago
The driving aspect is the main thing that kills any daydreaming I do about moving to the Scottish Highlands. It doesn't stop the daydreaming, however.
- mypalmike 5y ago
  Inverness might be a reasonable middle ground between the remoteness of the Highlands and the walkability of a city.
  - politelemon 5y ago
    Thank you! I was mulling Inverness and looking a bit closer, it does seem like a bit of both.
  - dboreham 5y ago
    Also Perth
- more_corn 5y ago
  My friend moved to a little village in Scotland. Super cute, walkable, near the Spey, easy drive to a city or two for a flight back to civilization. Great schools, no healthcare costs. The equity he cashed out from selling his place in California bought the nicest place in town for cash. He’s really liking it. I’ve gone to visit a few times. Makes me reconsider spending so much for my shoebox house in SF.

goostavos 5y ago

+1. Walkability is the main thing that keeps me in the city. A very large part of me wants to go back to the suburbs, rent a house, have a yard, garage -- space in general. However, every time I actually visit someone in the suburbs, the long drive there, watching things get more and more spread apart until it's just strip malls, grocery stores, and subdivisions, really saps the excitement out of having more space for me.

sanderjd 5y ago
There's no reason (besides inertia) that we can't have both. This is how thriving smaller downtowns are, single family homes within walking distance to amenities. It's just that all those areas get really expensive because there are so few of them. But there don't have to be so few places like that.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  How do those smaller downtowns thrive? The few I know usually have rich populations that do not mind spending more than what Costco/Target/Walmart/big grocery stores sell at. All it takes is the big box stores to setup camp 10 minutes outside of town and almost everyone with a car will opt to save money and shop there.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    Yes, it requires a population that appreciates the local amenities to the point of paying more for them. Lots of these people exist, even if they aren't the majority of people. It's just that right now they are concentrated in the dense part of cities. But many of them would love to live in a bigger house if they could still walk to amenities, and would still be willing to pay more for the privilege.
  - novok 5y ago
    You put in stores that sell things that the big boxes wont sell. Such as specialized restaurants, vacuum repair shops and so on. You can also put smaller versions of 'big boxes' or other chains in these downtowns, such as chipolte, walgreens, trader joes, "city" target, etc. Downtowns can also have rather large things like movie theaters themselves.

matwood 5y ago

I think the point of this change is you can now make a personal decision based on factors other than your commute. I want to also note there is a lot in between a dense neighborhood and having no people around.

criddell 5y ago

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Different people value different things. You prioritize your kids school and proximity to important destinations and so that neighborhood makes a lot of sense. When your kids move away after college, does that change the calculation much for you? Both of my kids are away at college and so I'm looking at where I live and what kind of life I want and am leaning more and more to moving further out of the city (I'm already in the suburbs).

jacobolus 5y ago
Suburbs are very unfriendly for the elderly compared to cities. The ideal suburbanite is an upper-middle-class person in their 30s–50s in good health who really likes driving their large car and has hobbies they can do individually from inside their own home (e.g. woodworking, gardening), and doesn’t mind that life is miserable* there for their kids. Everyone else is more or less a second-class citizen. * Edit: suburbs are unpleasant for kids because anyone who can’t drive is completely dependent on someone else (for kids, usually a parent) for transportation: few destinations are within walking/cycling distance, buses are few and infrequent, in general non-car transportation is discouraged by the urban design. Everything is harder to get to, and there are far fewer resources available for people with particular interests.
- unexpected 5y ago
  Why do you automatically assume that kids are miserable in the suburbs? My kids rather like running around in our backyard, use our pool everyday in the summer, and having tons of friends on the block. At the same time, I can't imagine that they would enjoy living in 2 bedroom apartment, having no yard to play in, etc. This disdain for suburbs is quite tacky and out of touch. It's okay to think differently. I'm glad you enjoy living in the city! Luckily, this country is big and there's enough space for all of us!
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    It wildly varies by suburb. The one I grew up in had few-to-no kids on the block, and even if there had been, there were only a couple of small, underwhelming parks within walking/biking distance. Comparing notes with other people, this seems like the more common experience of the suburbs. The disdain (at least for me) comes when you do the math and realized how absurdly subsidized the suburban lifestyle is.

duxup 5y ago

And some of us in the burbs wouldn’t mind moving down there too for the same reasons.

nradov 5y ago

Chicago, and the rest of Illinois, is in the middle of an ongoing fiscal crisis with no clear path to a solution. Will you continue to stay while taxes increase and government services decrease?

mrep 5y ago
At least for me, still way way cheaper than the coasts so no plans on leaving yet.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I found the difference in land price appreciation in other more expensive areas (specifically Western and Southern US) more than made up for the extra up front costs. Although it is not "coast" vs "not coast", as NJ/CT land prices changes were in a similar situation to IL land prices.

mumblemumble 5y ago

I grew up in the country, used to live in the suburbs, and currently live in Chicago. Yes, we could afford to have a lot more space that we personally own if we lived in a less dense area. But no, I don't miss it. I don't feel cooped up in a small space where I live right now. Nor did I feel cooped up living in a college dormitory, for that matter. I do feel cooped up in a small space when I'm staying with friends and family who have palatial homes out in the suburbs for any length of time. My sense of how much space I have at my disposal changes drastically when I'm in an environment where the only space I'm allowed to use freely is space I'm personally owning or renting. It hits my kids even worse. For them, one backyard, even a big one, is simply not enough room to run.

Pasorrijer 5y ago
Sure a small backyard isn't great... But I live in a major city and instead we just walk to the enormous park, which is way bigger than any backyard. It's a very different mindset that I thought I'd hate but now that I'm here I couldn't imagine it any other way.
- yourusername 5y ago
  The enormous parks here were closed multiple times over the past 2 years. I'll never depend on such amenities again because they can be taken at will.
  - Pasorrijer 5y ago
    How did they close them? In Toronto they put up caution tape. The people walked through it. They placed reasonable restrictions, and the unreasonable ones were ignored. Honestly one of the biggest benefits of the pandemic (and there were very, very few) was the transition of classrooms, community and family events to the parks. I've never seen them so active and busy and it gave a liveliness to the neighbourhood that was refreshing.
- jjav 5y ago
  > Sure a small backyard isn't great... But I live in a major city and instead we just walk to the enormous park, which is way bigger than any backyard. In the suburbs you typically have both. We have a yard to play in (not huge, but a good yard with a few trees to climb, a treehouse, etc) and we have a large park about 1 minute away on foot. It's not only the major cities that have parks.

mbesto 5y ago

No offense, but presumably your parents did the same thing when they had you for similar reasons. This is simply what happens when you have kids. However, there are separate but related trends which the articles points out: - The south's quality of living has drastically increased over the last 20~30 years - People aren't seeing state localized benefits from high state taxes (IMHO Illinois might the worst tax:benefit ratio in the country) - Work from home acceleration has accelerated lower cost of living with high quality of life centers (see -> the south) P.S.- I grew up in the north shore Chicago. /wave

selectodude 5y ago
>People aren't seeing state localized benefits from high state taxes I always think this, and then I leave Illinois and immediately notice that the infrastructure in neighboring states (Indiana and Missouri, namely) is abhorrent. I think it's just all relative.

temp8964 5y ago

> Moving to the suburbs would find us losing much of that freedom that comes with living in a dense neighborhood. This does not make sense. Yes, moving to the suburbs and not using a car would lose much of freedom, but it is not how you live in the suburbs... When you live the suburbs (with a car or multiple cars), you have way more choices to grocery stores, doctor's offices, friends' houses, public parks, lakes, etc. I will say, if anybody cares a lot about freedom, would want to live in the suburbs. The whole idea of prioritizing walkability is against freedom. Walkability means limiting choices, not expanding choices. You are basically shrinking the area of 15 min driving distance (radius of eight miles) to the area of 15 min walking distance (radius of three-quarters of a mile). No matter how dense you set in the area of 15 min walking distance, it will never be comparable to the area of 15 min driving distance (around x100 area space). In addition, you gain more freedom when you live in the suburbs with a backyard and a garage (or a shed in the backyard). You have lots of things you can do (like home lab, wood workshop, etc.) which aren't available to you if you live in a small house or apartment in the city. If you chose not to own a car, that's a totally separate topic.

ceras 5y ago
> When you live the suburbs (with a car or multiple cars), you have way more choices to grocery stores, doctor's offices, friends' houses, public parks, lakes, etc. Walkability means limiting choices, not expanding choices. Walkability doesn't strictly limit choices, especially if you consider walking+biking+transit since they go hand-in-hand. E.g. compared to a car-oriented suburb, personally I certainly have more food options within an X-minute accessible radius, but I don't have as many nature options. It's a tradeoff. I also don't need to drive, which is probably the freedom OP was talking about, and one that both of us value even if some others like yourself don't. I like that having a no-car option means it's easier to be healthy and active when walking and biking are practical choices for day-to-day errands, that I don't have to think about parking or traffic for popular events, that I'm more likely to bump into friends on the street, and that I don't have to think about designed drivers when alcohol is involved. You may not value any of that, but some people do, and so they prefer living somewhere with that choice. It's fine if you prefer living with a car, but it's rather silly to say it "does not make sense" to consider it freeing to live in a place that doesn't require one given that many people make that choice.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago

most people move to hcol areas due to jobs, they don't really have much of a community or family in those areas, so it is an easy decision for many to move away if they could. I myself have lived in dense cities, although i enjoyed the walkability of everything, i also felt myself missing time with nature, to enjoy the peace that life offers etc... and weirdly enough felt more disconnected to humanity living in the midst of a lot of humans.

phkahler 5y ago

What would you think of a combination of high density and large green space? Lay out a city like a fractal with the interior being dense, but you're always close to woodlands, open fields (farms?), or parks. I know zoning boards are incapable of maintaining such a structure without constantly making exceptions for developers, but what would you think of such an arrangement?

rowanajmarshall 5y ago
That's not far from London, a pretty dense city as they go, but also one that just about, technically speaking, counts as a forest thanks to the number of trees [1]. I live in one of the densest boroughs of London, on a main road, and I've got ample access to parks and green space. [1] https://www.timeout.com/london/things-to-do/did-you-know-that-london-is-the-worlds-largest-urban-forest https://www.timeout.com/london/things-to-do/did-you-know-tha...
- Pasorrijer 5y ago
  Toronto is very similar. Outside of the very dense core, but still very much in Toronto proper, you can get lost in forests and ravines and have to be on the lookout for coyote!
vineyardmike 5y ago
> I know zoning boards are incapable of maintaining such a structure without constantly making exceptions for developers, Also not a lot of undeveloped cities either to try it out. For what its worth, something similar (but less dramatic in scale) was already tried before [1]. People tended to not like it. The park space made it a lot harder to get around. You lose the "its ony three block away" nature of cities when you add lots of dead space, and things like rain cover along sidewalks become a problem. One of the major things that make city streets "walkable" and enjoyable is stuff happening on the street frontage. The complexity of various shops, eateries and city amenities abutting the sidewalk mean there is reason to be there and things to do. You lose that when you recess a building. I think a much better approach is just to cede some land to be in-city-grid parks, and take over some minor roads and alleys as green-walks where the road is reduced (eg. curved to force slow traffic) or removed, and theres lots of trees and gardens and walkways. Basically get that green space from incremental reclamation, and protection of existing opens spaces. Leave actual city structure as it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_in_the_park

brnt 5y ago

Can you fill me in on sth? Where Ive lived in Europe, the onlt car-only areas are burbs. Small towns tend to be walkable too, on account of being small. Now, not every small town has a wide variety of shops of course, but most things are bikeable. The only things that are not where I now live are places I'd need a car anyway (furniture, construction, etc). I thought it'd be the same for small town America, but I guess you're saying it's not?

ceras 5y ago
You're right, it's not like that in small-town America: small towns aren't walkable in the US. There aren't many walkable or bikeable areas in the US, and those that exist are in a handful of large cities. Many US cities aren't very walkable, e.g. Los Angeles (the second largest US city).

sershe 5y ago

For me, the COVID has really opened my eyes to how little I need walkability. My preferences completely flipped from "I want walkscore 75+ and ideally 90+" to "I want walkscore to be <15" I used to be very pro-transit and walking (didn't even learn to drive till 30), and even as I was not walking as much just before COVID, I reflexively remained so. When most things closed nearby (so we went out less and finally discovered food delivery), I realized I don't really need to walk places - I don't miss them. With spotty reopenings, when some places were indoors and some outdoor-only in bad weather, we drove to go out and turns out it's much better (unless you plan to drink a lot). With more grocery shopping, walking to groceries was out of the question and turns out, even in a dense city, driving for the same amount of time to get groceries is so much more convenient. Etc. I can see benefits of a park nearby, but that's about it... and then again, in overall less walkable areas parks are less crowded, larger, and also cleaner/nicer. EDIT: reading other comments I guess I can see benefits for kids, although only with more old-style parenting. I could take a subway by myself when I was 10 or so, and walk around everywhere obviously, so that gives a lot of independence you cannot have in suburbs.

x3iv130f 5y ago
Automobile travel is nice in rural areas but it introduces too many problems for cities with any sort of density. Traffic, noise pollution, air quality, and auto accidents are all things the unfortunate city dweller is forced to live with because cars are given free reign on streets. Cities need to convert their freeways to toll roads and limit the registration of vehicles to what the infrastructure can actually handle.
- sershe 5y ago
  If people prefer driving, that may just cause more people to move away.
kelnos 5y ago
I certainly drove more during the pandemic (though this may have been because I stopped using Lyft due to safety concerns), but I never stopped appreciating living in a walkable neighborhood. Certainly openings were a bit spotty here and there, but having a small grocery nearby, as well as a few restaurants with outdoor seating, was a boon to our mental health while otherwise stuck at home most of the time. We got food delivered more than usual, to be sure, but that still felt like a supplement, not the main mode of eating.

downrightmike 5y ago

You like your Strong Town, what living was like before cars ruined everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o

Consultant32452 5y ago

I live in the burbs. Here's my metrics relative to yours * Kid's school is technically walking distance, bike ride more reasonably * Walking distance from grocery store, doctor's office, dentist * Kid can walk to friends' house * Can ride my bike to a conservation area with camping * Lakes are all around, but not really fair since I live in FL * Multiple outdoor parks within walking/biking distance * Neighborhood/community swimming pool * Walking distance to gym * Extremely low crime rate I'm not saying you should move, especially because of the close to family bit. Nor am I suggesting most of suburbia is like where I live. But if you seek out suburban areas that are designed to be in proximity to things, you will find them.

Xenoamorphous 5y ago

I enjoy watching a couple of shows about home renovations that take place in the US (some twin brothers and love or list it, or something like that). Two things always strike me as odd as an European: * People on that show always needs a shit load of space. Especially in the kitchens, for some reason. Sometimes they are a couple without kids or maybe have one kid but they want 2 ovens? And a huge island is a must. Most of the kitchens in those shows are bigger than the average living room in my country. * Houses made out of wood and walls that you can punch through. This is a different matter though.

mcv 5y ago
Exactly. Those houses always strike me as simultaneously extravagant and cheap quality. A weird combination.
kelnos 5y ago
Do Europeans not cook all that much? I imagine most suburban US families cook most of their meals, both for cost reasons and because taking children to a restaurant is viewed as a chore here. Even without kids, my partner and I try to cook often. We have a decent-sized kitchen by urban US standards (it would probably be considered on the small side if we lived in the suburbs), but could still stand to have more counter space for food prep (and cabinet space for storage). Agree that 2 ovens is a bit much, but a huge island can be incredibly useful.
- Xenoamorphous 5y ago
  I personally don’t cook but luckily for me my girlfriend loves it, and even though we have a decent kitchen now that we bought a place, she seemed to do fine in smaller kitchens. And I’ve never met anyone with 2 ovens. And even though kitchens are way smaller than in the US (or at least the average one in those shows), another difference is that we have the washer in the kitchen (almost no one has a drier though, and after using one in London I wonder why anyone would use one for anything other than sheets and towels, those things destroy clothes) and usually the kitchen was a separate room (due to the smell, I guess?), but nowadays an “open plan” has grown a lot in demand.