Just moved out of Chicago. Would not recommend. Besides the north corner and downtown the city and state are broke poor and crime ridden.

Enjoy your insane taxes without much to show for it. Chicago is notorious for corruption and the massive state budget routinely evaporates and screws everyone

FWIW, I moved back to Chicago from SF. Would totally recommend. World class cultural institutions (SFBA can feel a little provencial at times), great quality of life, super affordable for a city of its stature so starting a business is much much cheaper here.

To each their own, but if you think taxes or politics are broken here, you've clearly not experienced SF. :)

Didn't move there either for many of the same reasons :) . Nicer weather but otherwise most of the same issues

I'm from Indiana.

Chicago is its own beast, and most midwesterners don't really identify with it and it has its own sort of issues and problems and isn't so representative of the other cities.

And so it goes that you are gonna wind up with different moving benefits if you go to Chicago rather than Detroit, Cincinatti, Louisville, Indianapolis, and so on. (and Different disadvantages as well).

> Chicago is its own beast, and most midwesterners don't really identify with it

This is certainly not true with people in the Detroit area, in my experience. Maybe it's true in the rural Midwest but in urban and suburban Midwest, Chicago is definitely viewed as an integral part as was Detroit some time ago (and possibly still today).

This seems like a case of "if it doesn't fit the argument, let's not count it."

It isn't that it isn't integral - in fact, I see it as integral enough that I truly think Chicago keeps the midwest alive, at least portions of it. It is just different. A lot of the problems that other midwestern cities have - decline of factories, for example - chicago is able to make up for to an extent. And to me, that is the main thing: The chicago experience doesn't match the average Midwestern city experience - and discussing chicago directly takes a bit of time. Hence the exclusion in the article.

This seems like you're justifying the "if it doesn't fit the narrative, it doesn't count" case that I mentioned. Chicago is still a Midwestern city whether it's doing well or it's doing poorly, just as Detroit is a Midwestern city when it was booming decades ago and when it's not currently. "Midwest" is a geographic and perhaps cultural term, not a term that refers to failing cities.

   the third largest city in the US

Well, it already is large. Apart from the "Chicago issues", what's the point of moving from one overcrowded place to another?

What does the city's size have to do with this discussion? I think you are actually giving points to the other side of your argument.

A large amount of comments are mistakenly conflating the Midwest as rural and this move as de-urbanization though the author mentioned moving to Midwestern cities.