Aurora IL - what's it like?

May 19th, 2006, 11:00 AM
  #21  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
Check the definition. The operative words are "adjacent"- NOT Aurora. "near by"- 43 miles on Mapquest NOT near- and in the near vicinty- NOT Aurora.

And as such the suburb is a "satelite" pertaining to and "growing" from or out of the base city- other definitions.

I included Dekalb at 60 miles to be facetious. It was a joke.

And Aurora was around as a separate city and entity, just as Joliet or Dekalb, long before the designation suburb hit anywhere within 30 plus miles of them.

Anybody can choose to call it what they will. I was just amused to think that people think something 40 to 60 miles away is now a suburb. But it was not an offshoot, nor a outgrowth of Chicago.

Suburbs are Adjacent, Near, and Close Vicinity. Some suburbs are Oak Park, Berwyn, Oak Lawn, Evergreen Park, etc. and at least within 20-23 miles. I don't even consider Romeoville, or Lockport or Lemont suburbs. They were towns in their own right for a 100 years before the word suburb was "loosened".

Well if you consider Aurora a suburb, than what is Joliet? It's a lot closer to Chicago.
JJ5 is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 01:15 PM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 129
Here's $.02 from a suburban Chicagoland guy. Born in Oak Park, raised in Lisle/Wheaton and returned from CA to Glen Ellyn in 1997. Times have changed. Now, I'd define suburbs as anywhere the commuter trains reach. For western suburbs, I believe that's out to Geneva and for southwest, its Aurora. Northwest is Harvard. Not sure on North and South.

Kevin
ChiDad is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 01:23 PM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 297
Elburn is now the 1st and last stop on the Metra Union Pacific West line.

JJ5 you can call which towns you want to call a Chicago suburb and I'll call the towns I want to call a Chicago suburb a suburb. Agree to disagree.
isabellasu is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 01:24 PM
  #24  
amaclise
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't agree with the commuter train theory. You can take commuter trains to all sorts of places from New York but that doesn't make places like New Haven suburbs. They're not because they don't want to be. It's a wannabe thing, Aurora doesn't have much going for it so it wants to be a suburb of Chicago. I don't see Lake Geneva or South Bend applying for suburb status. We've all been brain washed by the real estate agents.
 
May 19th, 2006, 03:37 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 281
Kane County is, according to the U.S. Census bureau, in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Any town in the metro area is a suburb. Therefore, Aurora is a suburb. Many people in Aurora commute to work in Chicago. They watch Chicago tv stations and listen to Chicago radio. They regularly go to Chicago for recreation, and their main newspaper is from Chicago. If you take the Stevenson out of Chicago, exit at Rt. 83, go north to 75th St. and then west, you will get to Aurora without ever passing through farmland. There are some forest preserves, but if forest preserves seperate the city from the country, then O'Hare airport is in the country and not part of Chicago. If you take Ogden Ave. out of the city, the only forest preserves you'll pass by before getting to Aurora are still in Cook County. Aurora's population is twice what is was 20 or 30 years ago because it is a suburb. People aren't filling up the new subdivisions on the east side of the city because they want to be near Aurora. They're moving they're because it's part of suburban Chicago.

Heading south of the Stevenson on Rt. 53 or Weber Rd. towards Joliet there is almost continuous development with just the occasional small farm left. If your are never out of sight of a subdivision or strip mall, you're in a suburb.
flamingomonkey is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 03:57 PM
  #26  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
Sorry, I just think that explanation is totally absurd. I can't believe the delusionment accomplished by marketing and real estate profiteers.

And to just judge the entire by what YOU can view from the expressway- that's silly. All the farm owners and long time landowners with tracts are not off the expressway. In fact expressway corridors are the first areas to be developed. That's why the farmers have founght 355 coming down for so long.

Well then Joliet, Minooka and onward are suburbs and Carbondale is a suberb of East St. Louis. That word has no meaning at all if it can be construted that way. If it looks like a suburb, it is a suburb- well, of WHAT.

Near, Adjacent, Close by.
JJ5 is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 03:59 PM
  #27  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
Sorry, I just think that explanation is totally absurd. I can't believe the delusionment accomplished by marketing and real estate profiteers.

And to just judge the entire by what YOU can view from the expressway- that's silly. All the farm owners and long time landowners with tracts are not off the expressway. In fact expressway corridors are the first areas to be developed. That's why the farmers have fought 355 coming down for so long.

Well then Joliet, Minooka and onward must be suburbs and Carbondale is a suburb of East St. Louis. That word has no meaning at all if it can be construed that way. If it looks like a suburb, it is a suburb- Aurora, well, of WHAT-maybe Naperville.

Near, Adjacent, Close by.
JJ5 is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 04:00 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,014
In public administration lingo, Aurora might have been classified as an exurb before growth gobbled up the greenspace between it and the closer Chicago suburbs.

Exurb is a place just beyond the suburbs where you see natural spaces with lifestock and farming acreage. These areas are beyond the limits of traditional urban growth study patterns, but are becoming more popular with the middle class families with children because of their perceived safeness.

Therefore if you cannot see cows or corn between Aurora and Chicago, it is a suburb of Chicagoland.
wsoxrebel is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 04:03 PM
  #29  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
I can see cows AND corn where I live, so that makes me NOT a suburb. What a joke.

And I see horses and corn every day going to work. I am NOT on an expressway.
JJ5 is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 04:13 PM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 297
It seems you have a problem with the nearness of a town to a large city.
It has to only be what, 10-20 miles away from Chicago to be considered a suburb. I think a town that is 40 miles away or even 60 miles away from Chicago is highly influenced by Chicago.
I grew up with Chicago TV, so the influence is there. I don't consider myself a Chicago, that would be silly, but again when I tell people that I am 60 miles away, they say...oh your near Chicago!
BTW, Joliet is actually a few miles further away from Chicago than Aurora, according to a quick check on Mapquest.
Cherish the cows and cornfields you see now on your trip to work everyday, they will be gone in a few years.
isabellasu is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 04:31 PM
  #31  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
I never said it was NOT influenced, I have only said it is NOT a suburb in any meaning that a surburb has had previous to public administration lingo mallarcky. An exburb, a suburb, is rather nonsense- it is NOT Chicago, nor Near Chicago.

And believe me the corn, horses, goats, cows and all else will NOT be gone. One of the reasons is that there are too many wise people without dollar signs for eyes that like the land as it is, thank you.

And some of them, like my son and his wife's family has put huge acreage in trusts that can't be broken, or even sold my family members, only lived on and left to another family member. There are many people who are not so easily swayed by snake oil definitions relavent to huge profiteering.

And 40 to 60 miles from anything is not NEAR. I live within 8 miles of Chicago's borders and I have corn on the 20 /30 acre size tracts being grown and rented for farming as I type this. Those explanations may be acceptable, but they are still poppycock.
JJ5 is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 297
Guess that's your Chicago view.
My view is that I am near enough to Chicago to enjoy it and be INFLUENCED by it. 60 miles is nothing but an hours away. It's nice that your family is able to keep their farmland, some other families aren't so lucky to be in that position.
isabellasu is offline  
May 19th, 2006, 05:45 PM
  #33  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 281
I'm not refering to the view from the expressway. I'm talking about leaving the expressway and traveling all the way to Joliet, it's almost entirely developed now. And yes, there are still a few small, isolated tracts of farmland about 10 miles or so due south of Chicago. The main reason those won't be developed anytime soon, though, isn't because you're not in a suburb (you are). It's because of the generally poor economic conditions in the south suburbs. Believe me, if anyone wanted to actually build an office complex out there, it would happen.
flamingomonkey is offline  
May 20th, 2006, 05:44 AM
  #34  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
They have. It won't.

And there are still farms and huge tracts of land, forest preserves, grasslands, wetlands and other designated perserves in quantity SW and S of Chicago.

There are still large tracts in Homer Unincorporated that are preserved from even Public Domain.

These definitions are pure poppycock marketing, public development lingo or what ever you want to call them, but they are still extremely misleading.

If that is the definition of suburb "to" a center city now- then the entire state of Virginia is a suburb to Washington D.C. and the entire state of N. Carolina is one suburb to the Atlantic Ocean.

That doesn't change the 100 to 180 year old histories of Aurora or the Village of Lockport, or the City of Joliet, or the Town of Lemont as entirely separate entities apart from Chicago.

JJ5 is offline  
May 20th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  #35  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
And isabellasu, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with luck. I am one of the most unlucky people you would ever come across, as far as fate goes. It had to do with someone not related to me in any way having a brain and wisdom over 100 years ago.

Quite similar to Wards and Burham's vision in Chicago, there are some people who can see and plan ahead more unselfishly than others.

And perceived yes, perceived to the point where you can brainwash people into thinking far is near, or that influence is identity. In that case we all listen to NYC broadcasted news or news based print, so we must all be suburbs of NYC.

I have never disputed the designation of anything CLOSE - under maybe 18 to 20 miles as a real suburb or satelite, but not 60 miles and with its own separate history.
JJ5 is offline  
May 20th, 2006, 06:23 AM
  #36  
amaclise
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
JJ5 is right. It has nothing to do with development. If that were true then Boston is a suburb of New York and vice versa. And what do we do with LA?
 
May 20th, 2006, 07:23 AM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 281
Where do you draw the line since there is a continuous line of development from Chicago to Aurora? And I guess Oak Park and and Evanston aren't suburbs either, since they have long histories independent of Chicago. It goes in order, city, suburb, farmland. An isolated farm completely surrounded by development really doesn't count.
flamingomonkey is offline  
May 20th, 2006, 08:45 AM
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 297
I know what I see. I see some of the best soil on earth gone for good with developement of townhome after townhome, shopping center after shopping center. That is what I see when I drive from DeKalb to Aurora to Chicago.
If you don't venture to travel out into the "hinterlands" then I guess you can't see the disappering farmland.
I can also see that this discussion/debate is pointless now, no swaying either side.
isabellasu is offline  
May 21st, 2006, 08:29 AM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 972
As someone who has never been to Aurora but who is very interested in demographics, I thought I'd weigh in. There are towns all over this country that used to be "places" in their own rights which are now being swallowed up by various metropolitan areas. Atlanta has many nearby municipalities that are very much like this. The point is that shifting demographics means shifting definitions. It sounds like Aurora didn't used to be a suburb, but now, as people move further away from the city center and use it to commute to Chicago, it is becoming one. Although I wouldn't want to do it, 60 miles is not a long distance for people to commute anymore (we'll see what the price of gas does to this trend). JJ5, it sounds like you don't want to adjust your way of thinking about things.
Guy18 is offline  
May 22nd, 2006, 06:33 AM
  #40  
JJ5
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
No, it's not MY thinking. It's existing archives, history and identity issues that conflict with this "definition".

There are areas that MUCH closer than Aurora that do not designate themselves as "suburbs" of any humongous city complex, nor are they in living arrangements attached economically any more now to the city of Chicago then they were 100 years ago. What happens BETWEEN here and there- or at a big city of that distance should never be a central definition of the primary unit.

Do you think many people are commuting to Chicago from Aurora? Not only would that be a minor level minority, but it is a fact that a majority have not VISITED Chicago in years, if ever. And they have a separate self-identity and history, far different from the "suburban" concept you describe.

And in many cases, Aurora- and especially Joliet, Lemont, Lockport etc. don't even LOOK like suburbs. They have vibrant 100 plus year old urban downtowns of their own.
JJ5 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:57 PM.