Anyone else excited about moving back South? (Boston, Leominster: apartment, new home)

[waccamatt]

There are quite a few large southern cities on the water: Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Hampton Roads, Jacksonville, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa/St. Pete and Houston is on a bay, not far from the Gulf. Other than Boston and New York, most of the larger northeastern cities are on inland waterways, like Philadelphia, Providence, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and DC.

[eevee]

Originally Posted by orangeyaglad

There aren't hurricanes or tropical storms in the Northeast. The most they worry about it snow storms and heavy rain. Houses on the water in Miami or Florida will be wiped away from hurricanes. It is a waste of money unless you can afford to build a new house every year.

actually, I think at least one major hurricane (or a very bad tropical storm) has hit MA in the past, did a bit of damage. I think (don't quote me on this; I'll have to look this up again) that there was even a hurricane that made it as far north as Canada and did some damage there

it's rare, but it does happen, just like NE does get earthquakes at times. major difference is that it's unlikely Boston/most of NE would ever be destroyed by a hurricane like NOLA and other parts of the South was (yeah it's cold in NE and it snows a lot, but snow doesn't kill and doesn't do as much damage as other natural disasters.)

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by HowGoesIt

I don't think charol was trying to preach, but I think she got a little off topic. Personally, I wouldn't want to move to the South, unless it was Miami (which isn't the South) or Charleston.

There is one thing I never understood about the South. Why isn't there a major city on the water. The big cities in the south, like Atlanta, Nashville, and Charlotte are land locked and far from the beach. What makes Boston, NY, LA, and SD great is that they are right on the water. Easy access to the beach is huge IMHO.

Many of the main southern cities were on the water back in the 1700's and 1800's. Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA, and Wilmington, NC were all major ports and main cities. Also, cities being located away from the water allows more land to be developed and can be more cost efficient for companies and people moving there.

Even though Boston is on the water, I don't consider the waterfront to be that great. I always thought cities with rivers going through them looked better. Of course anytime water is near a city you need bridges and that usually doesn't help traffic.

[Bostonian08]

Originally Posted by eevee

actually, I think at least one major hurricane (or a very bad tropical storm) has hit MA in the past, did a bit of damage. I think (don't quote me on this; I'll have to look this up again) that there was even a hurricane that made it as far north as Canada and did some damage there

it's rare, but it does happen, just like NE does get earthquakes at times. major difference is that it's unlikely Boston/most of NE would ever be destroyed by a hurricane like NOLA and other parts of the South was (yeah it's cold in NE and it snows a lot, but snow doesn't kill and doesn't do as much damage as other natural disasters.)

There was a tremendous Hurricane that hit the northeast in 1938. When I lived in PVD my 70 year old neighbor told me that the dead floated out of their mausoleums. The water was 16ft deep in Downcity.

New England Hurricane of 1938 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Bostonian08]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Many of the main southern cities were on the water back in the 1700's and 1800's. Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA, and Wilmington, NC were all major ports and main cities. Also, cities being located away from the water allows more land to be developed and can be more cost efficient for companies and people moving there.

Even though Boston is on the water, I don't consider the waterfront to be that great. I always thought cities with rivers going through them looked better. Of course anytime water is near a city you need bridges and that usually doesn't help traffic.

I think the waterfront is fab. Castle Island is beautiful. Granted Miami Beach is better, but Boston sure beats the tar (dust) out of Dallas in this category. Also we have a gorgeous river called the Charles. You should check out these places, they are nice!

[Bostonian08]

Originally Posted by basketcase33

I'm moving back to Houston this summer after my 4th semester at BU! I had a great experience here, but not only is my wallet not lovin' it--I got into some health related trouble. I also gotta be with the family. I'm just wondering if anyone else is coming. If so..where and why are you going?

I'm moving to Dallas this summer and not happy about it at all. I sure won't miss the NE winter, but I will miss the downtown. Dallas ain't got none. I'll also miss the architecture and the history. Dallas ain't got none of that either. I also will miss convenience to a major city (NY). Texas ain't got no major cities. I will look forward to the friendly women and the great shopping though. But I don't look forward to the endless driving. What a waste of life being couped up in a car is!

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by Bostonian08

I'm moving to Dallas this summer and not happy about it at all. I sure won't miss the NE winter, but I will miss the downtown. Dallas ain't got none. I'll also miss the architecture and the history. Dallas ain't got none of that either. I also will miss convenience to a major city (NY). Texas ain't got no major cities. I will look forward to the friendly women and the great shopping though. But I don't look forward to the endless driving. What a waste of life being couped up in a car is!

I've been to Boston plenty of times, but I don't think the waterfront is that well used compared to other cities.

Dallas isn't as bad as you make it out to be. The state fair is a blast in the fall. Fort Worth is nearby and is a great area. I read somewhere that Dallas has more restaurants per capita than any other city in the U.S. The skyline in Dallas is very nice looking at night in my opinion, one of the nicest in the U.S. You can still go to Austin and San Antonio. Are the Texas cities the same as Boston, no...but thats what makes it Texas and you just have to appreciate what is there.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

I've been to Boston plenty of times, but I don't think the waterfront is that well used compared to other cities.

Maybe you forgot the Esplanade which is quite well-used and well-loved and can rival any waterfront in the nation. Have you heard about the nationally televised Boston Pop's 4th of July celebration? The Charles is an amazing resource considering how many universities are along its banks not to mention events such as the dragon boat races and the head of the charles regatta, the world's largest 2 day rowing event. If that is not well used I don't know what is.

[TomDot]

Originally Posted by basketcase33

Well, I'm actually happy to go back, (I'm counting the days) and I'm sure there are other people who couldn't stand to permanently live in the NE. This wasn't a thread to preach about why you don't want to go back to the South..so please don't. Next time read the post and contribute something relevant to the thread. It'd be much appreciated. Thanks.

The fact that you included "couldn't stand to permanently live in the NE" in your post, most likely means you were looking for a fellow NE basher to jaw with.
BTW, I know people who have been to Houston and they said that it was the "world's biggest strip mall". Sorry, i'm just telling you what I heard.

[TomDot]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

I've been to Boston plenty of times, but I don't think the waterfront is that well used compared to other cities.

Dallas isn't as bad as you make it out to be. The state fair is a blast in the fall. Fort Worth is nearby and is a great area. I read somewhere that Dallas has more restaurants per capita than any other city in the U.S. The skyline in Dallas is very nice looking at night in my opinion, one of the nicest in the U.S. You can still go to Austin and San Antonio. Are the Texas cities the same as Boston, no...but thats what makes it Texas and you just have to appreciate what is there.

With the exception of commercial trade, most cities historically turned their backs on their water bodies and Boston was no exception. The Charles River was the city's septic system up until the 1890's. most cities have also, over the past 50 to 100 years, learned to embrace their water bodies and again Boston is no exception. In fact Boston has great riverfront usage.