How do you think Boston ranks among other high density American cities? (Franklin: apartment)
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 hear that its even more expensive than NYC at this point! It must be way over priced.
I've never been there, but I'm sort of asking this because I'd like to leave Minnesota (I currently live in Minneapolis area) for something higher density.
(I don't own a car even though I've got my license, and I'd like to keep it that way)
I've been to Chicago and I really liked it there, but I've never been to the east coast. I've been to the west coast and I liked it there too, but the west coast usually wouldn't do me any good as far as public transit goes. (with San Francisco being an exception)
Even though I live in a nearby suburb of Minneapolis, a lot of time gets wasted here.
Boston isn't more expensive than NYC. Not even close. Boston is cheaper than both San Francisco and New York by a safe distance in almost every aspect. Like those cities, however, a good job is needed to cover expenses. With roomates, you can play around with work a little bit and live more cheaply. Of the 4 (Boston, SF, NYC and Chicago), there's no question that Chicago is the most affordable.
Boston is more dense than all major cities outside of San Francisco and New York. Yes, that includes Chicago (based on 2010 census numbers). That being said, Chicago feels like a much larger city than Boston (or San Francisco); mostly because it is. When it comes to New York and Chicago and commute times, you can live IN the city (in a dense, urban neighborhood) and still have a commute of over an hour via public transit. Sure, it may beat being in suburbia, but density doesn't mean wasted time is eliminated. In fact, if you consider the time of commute vs. the mileage in most cities, public transit is often less efficient.
My girlfriend lives in San Francisco for school. I'm out there nearly once a month (in fact, I was there last week). In my opinion, many of the transportation related comments re: San Francisco are wildly overblown. I would assume that this is probably because there are no cities nearby SF that rival it in terms of transit and density (whereas Boston isn't far from NYC, DC, Philly, etc). I think that freeway congestion in San Francisco is a pain (as one would expect given city's geographic hurdles i.e. mountains, peninsula, etc). However, driving on city streets is a breeze compared to Boston or New York. Drivers are hardly aggressive and streets flow relatively freely. Parking is also simple. Last week I parked (legally) our 7 passenger rental SUV for free (or cheaply at meters during business hours) all over San Francisco's downtown areas and inner residential neighborhoods (and some fringe neighborhoods- my GF lives in the Inner Richmond). With the exception of some friends down at Pier 39, I had no connections to work around parking payments, nor did I do anything illegally. Parking like I did in SF is impossible in Boston or New York (maybe even central Chicago). Owning a car is much more difficult in Boston.
Unfortunately, the same "overblown" remark applies to San Francisco's public transportation. It may be better than anything on the West Coast. I don't doubt it (in my experience, not even Portland, OR is close). However, compared to Chicago, NYC, DC, or Boston, San Francisco is a distant 5th place. San Francisco's local subway system (Muni Metro) is a light rail line that's very similar to Boston's Green Line. In fact, they're almost identical. Both have a number of branches that run underground in the city center area for a good distance before coming above ground and branching off in different directions. Boston's Green Line actually has more total riders than San Francisco's Muni Metro. BART in SF is a nice rapid transit line, but it has to be in order to make up for the lack of commuter rail (SF has ONE commuter rail line, Boston has 12). The Red, Blue and Orange subway lines cover the core of Bostons urban area far better than anything in San Francisco does. If you live in San Francisco North of Golden Gate Park and West of downtown (a 15 square mile area), you are limited simply to bus lines. Anyone who's ridden the 38 from the Outer Richmond to downtown (especially at rush hour) can tell you how miserable it is. My girlfriend works 3 miles from her apartment. It's a 45 minute commute AT BEST via transit in SF. Again, she's fairly centrally located as is her job. San Francisco is one of my favorite cities, but public transit is a bit of a let down over there.
Boston's a good city for public transit reliance. I did it for some time (just got a new car and am moving out of town for a bit) and had no issues. It's small enough that it's rarely too far from one area to another (unlike NYC or Chicago). It's also nice that you can walk a lot of it. It's not nearly as cold as Minneapolis (another city I really do like) or Chicago either. It may be a good fit, but it's not cheap so a good job is certainly a must. I'd recommend that anyone who moves here have one lined up beforehand too.
Boston isn't more expensive than NYC. Not even close. Boston is cheaper than both San Francisco and New York by a safe distance in almost every aspect. Like those cities, however, a good job is needed to cover expenses. With roomates, you can play around with work a little bit and live more cheaply. Of the 4 (Boston, SF, NYC and Chicago), there's no question that Chicago is the most affordable.
Boston is more dense than all major cities outside of San Francisco and New York. Yes, that includes Chicago (based on 2010 census numbers). That being said, Chicago feels like a much larger city than Boston (or San Francisco); mostly because it is. When it comes to New York and Chicago and commute times, you can live IN the city (in a dense, urban neighborhood) and still have a commute of over an hour via public transit. Sure, it may beat being in suburbia, but density doesn't mean wasted time is eliminated. In fact, if you consider the time of commute vs. the mileage in most cities, public transit is often less efficient.
My girlfriend lives in San Francisco for school. I'm out there nearly once a month (in fact, I was there last week). In my opinion, many of the transportation related comments re: San Francisco are wildly overblown. I would assume that this is probably because there are no cities nearby SF that rival it in terms of transit and density (whereas Boston isn't far from NYC, DC, Philly, etc). I think that freeway congestion in San Francisco is a pain (as one would expect given city's geographic hurdles i.e. mountains, peninsula, etc). However, driving on city streets is a breeze compared to Boston or New York. Drivers are hardly aggressive and streets flow relatively freely. Parking is also simple. Last week I parked (legally) our 7 passenger rental SUV for free (or cheaply at meters during business hours) all over San Francisco's downtown areas and inner residential neighborhoods (and some fringe neighborhoods- my GF lives in the Inner Richmond). With the exception of some friends down at Pier 39, I had no connections to work around parking payments, nor did I do anything illegally. Parking like I did in SF is impossible in Boston or New York (maybe even central Chicago). Owning a car is much more difficult in Boston.
Unfortunately, the same "overblown" remark applies to San Francisco's public transportation. It may be better than anything on the West Coast. I don't doubt it (in my experience, not even Portland, OR is close). However, compared to Chicago, NYC, DC, or Boston, San Francisco is a distant 5th place. San Francisco's local subway system (Muni Metro) is a light rail line that's very similar to Boston's Green Line. In fact, they're almost identical. Both have a number of branches that run underground in the city center area for a good distance before coming above ground and branching off in different directions. Boston's Green Line actually has more total riders than San Francisco's Muni Metro. BART in SF is a nice rapid transit line, but it has to be in order to make up for the lack of commuter rail (SF has ONE commuter rail line, Boston has 12). The Red, Blue and Orange subway lines cover the core of Bostons urban area far better than anything in San Francisco does. If you live in San Francisco North of Golden Gate Park and West of downtown (a 15 square mile area), you are limited simply to bus lines. Anyone who's ridden the 38 from the Outer Richmond to downtown (especially at rush hour) can tell you how miserable it is. My girlfriend works 3 miles from her apartment. It's a 45 minute commute AT BEST via transit in SF. Again, she's fairly centrally located as is her job. San Francisco is one of my favorite cities, but public transit is a bit of a let down over there.
Boston's a good city for public transit reliance. I did it for some time (just got a new car and am moving out of town for a bit) and had no issues. It's small enough that it's rarely too far from one area to another (unlike NYC or Chicago). It's also nice that you can walk a lot of it. It's not nearly as cold as Minneapolis (another city I really do like) or Chicago either. It may be a good fit, but it's not cheap so a good job is certainly a must. I'd recommend that anyone who moves here have one lined up beforehand too.
Thanks for your long response.
Do any of you have an opinion on Providence, RI? I'd assume that little city is very walkable too.
Does anyone have an opinion on making friends in Minneapolis vs urban areas on the east coast?
I lived in PVD a little bit. It's fairly walkable in the center city area. I'd suggest staying in the College Hill, Fox Point (can be a little gritty, but not too bad anymore) and Wayland Square areas in addition to Federal Hill and, of course, downtown. They're all close to the center (you can walk downtown from just about any of those areas) and are along the best bus routes. RIPTA, Providence's bus service actually does a great job of covering all of the state. You can take a bus to Bristol (great town), Newport and other beaches well outside of Providence. In addition, you have commuter rail and Amtrak to/from Boston (about an hour away).
Providence is a great little city. Great alternative if you find yourself priced out of Boston. It's also not as tiny as it may look on paper. There may only be 180,000 people in the small city limits (18.5 square miles), but there are well over a million in the urbanized area and over 1.6 million in the metro.
As far as making friends go, it depends on your age and personality. I'm 25. There are tons of people my age in both cities due to the incredible amount of colleges (most my age are grad students... there are even more undergrads) and jobs for young professionals. If you're 18-30, I'd imagine you won't have too much trouble. In fact, you'll find that many (maybe most) people that age are from somewhere else.
You may find that people up here are "tough nuts to crack." It's no secret. At the time being, I'd consider myself one and I'll explain why. It could give you some insight into the "cold New Englander" stereotype. I'm fairly outgoing but I have grad school, work and a fairly active social life (not limited to spending a lot of time on the other side of the country with my GF). I've found that it's hard to balance being polite at a bar or elsewhere in public with keeping people at arms length. I simply don't have time for many new friends. It may sound horrible, but I also believe that's where some of the perceived "New England rudeness" comes from. I hear a lot of people run into the same type of attitude and are confused by it when they get here. They'll say, everyone's so polite, but they don't want to go beyond being superficial friends. It's true. You may find people like me who are just too busy making ends meet to try to make new friendships work and you'll find others that keep "outsiders" at arm's length. Still, there are literally hundreds of thousands of young adults in those two cities. You'll find friends. I'm hoping that I'll eventually get a good enough job when I finish grad school to afford me the time to add to the social circle. Bottom line, New Englanders are great people; but it's expensive to live here. That often means less time spent on building new friendships and more time making ends meet. And of course, some people are just plain cold.
Either way, don't take it to heart and you'll be fine. Some people take it incredibly personally that strangers don't stop, make eye contact and wave at them. Don't expect that. But certainly don't expect everyone to be a stuck up prick. We're just not like that.
I've heard its a little more difficult for those who are older (at 25, I can't really speak from experience) to make friends. As a rule, New England isn't the easiest place to make friends. It takes a while regardless of the age or situation. People certainly aren't as outgoing here as they are in the Midwest. However, I'd give it time and you'll likely be fine; especially if you're young.
I grew up in the Minneapolis suburbs and have lived in Eastern MA for over 30 years now.
There is no way to truly compare Boston and Massachusetts with Minneapolis and Minnesota. They have a few things in common: a high number of colleges and universities, excellent healthcare facilities, passionate sports fans, a true 4-season climate, etc. But the comparisons end there. No where in the country do you get the same proximity to all of that plus the ocean, mountains and over 300 years of history that you get in the Eastern MA and Southern NH area.
I've lived just outside of Boston my whole life and for a good portion of that life I just took the city for granted. There are many things wrong with the city. For a city with such a small footprint it can be difficult to get around by car. The streets can be confusing and I do feel bad for out of stators trying to get around. The streets downtown were laid out organically, cow paths if you will, over the first 200 years or so. On the other hand there is so much at my disposal within 5 or 10 miles of my front door. Over the last 10 years I have researched my home town and find few places can match Boston or Massachusetts for the number of things that happened here first whether it's in the U.S. or the world. From the first subway, public school, newspaper, college, Ben Franklin was born here, the first free public library, the telephone, oldest marathon, first public park, first lighthouse, the telegraph, first police department, first Christmas card, Fanny Farmer, first World Series, first computer, first paper money, first savings bank, first use of anesthetic, first disposable razor and the first kidney transplant. That's just Boston. If take in the whole state it's even more incredible. From the first American auto manufacturer, vulcanized rubber, the first iron works and many other things, and oh yeah, the United States of America. Check out the cities GDP. It's around 12th of all the cities in the world. That includes the heavy weights like Tokyo, New York, London, Paris etc. Not bad for this little city. I know this sounds like bragging and to be truthful there is some of that, but these are facts. Yes it's congested, yes it can be difficult to get around and we can be snobby without sometimes even realizing that we're snobby. The weather stinks in the winter and it's one of the most expensive cities in the country to live in. We are aggressive and drivers, partially driven by the screwy street layout but we have some world class museums, symphony, not to mention the schools and colleges.
There's also the fact that New York City is down the road apiece. You could drop Boston in a corner of New York City and yet we do OK. Name another city that has had the sporting championships that Boston has had over the last decade.
I have come to appreciate the city now. Despite all that's wrong, there's so much that's right.
I hear that its even more expensive than NYC at this point! It must be way over priced.
I've never been there, but I'm sort of asking this because I'd like to leave Minnesota (I currently live in Minneapolis area) for something higher density.
(I don't own a car even though I've got my license, and I'd like to keep it that way)
I've been to Chicago and I really liked it there, but I've never been to the east coast. I've been to the west coast and I liked it there too, but the west coast usually wouldn't do me any good as far as public transit goes. (with San Francisco being an exception)
Even though I live in a nearby suburb of Minneapolis, a lot of time gets wasted here.
Statistically speaking only San Fran and NYC are denser, the southern suburbs are much less dense, the northern "suburbs" if you can call them that are super urban, some more dense than Boston itself but the MetroWest is the biggest region by far and just a bit more dense than to the south.
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.
