U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which one is the most important?
Bay Area 291 57.85%
Boston 93 18.49%
Philadelphia 98 19.48%
Confused 21 4.17%
Voters: 503. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2015, 07:11 PM
 
7 posts, read 5,659 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

I think rainrock can post better pictures still to be honest. They really don't do the area justice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2015, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 4,185,574 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by inanothercastle View Post
We're not saying its like Oregon or Washington here, but to say there's literally nothing around it is totally false.

The Philadelphia metro area has some of the most lush and green suburbs and areas of any metro I have seen.

Its not anything like Chicago with flat prairie mostly outside, and I know that not all of the Chicago area is like that, but the Midwest is certainly flatter and less forested in comparison.

Boston and Philadelphia are both very comparable metro areas in terms of forestry, rolling hills, valleys and rivers. Very, very lush areas.
You do realize that this is what I am saying, right? Your post seems to contradict me, yet we agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Boston
7,605 posts, read 15,675,535 times
Reputation: 8969
Quote:
Originally Posted by inanothercastle View Post

Boston and Philadelphia are both very comparable metro areas in terms of forestry, rolling hills, valleys and rivers. Very, very lush areas.
This is true. There are a lot of people who seem to think Boston is right on the edge of the White Mountains. It's not. They're close enough to be easy to access within a few hours, but they're not within 50-60 miles of the city. The land around both cities is very beautiful.

The coast is what sets the two apart in my opinion. There's nothing right outside of Philadelphia that really compares the South and North Shores of Metro Boston. I understand it's not a terribly long drive to the beach for those in Philadelphia, but metro Boston is much more intertwined with the sea. And while Boston does have similar rolling hills and lush forestry, rivers, etc., The coast is the focal point and most desirable part of metro Boston from an aesthetic standpoint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,896 posts, read 12,365,509 times
Reputation: 2602
Quote:
Originally Posted by inanothercastle View Post
I think rainrock can post better pictures still to be honest. They really don't do the area justice.
LOL. If you can do better? Then by all means......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 07:19 PM
 
7 posts, read 5,659 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise View Post
You do realize that this is what I am saying, right? Your post seems to contradict me, yet we agree.
No. All im doing is adding onto your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 12:02 AM
 
Location: So California
8,455 posts, read 8,671,512 times
Reputation: 4599
I see another one popped up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Naples Island
902 posts, read 559,489 times
Reputation: 1808
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
This is true. There are a lot of people who seem to think Boston is right on the edge of the White Mountains. It's not. They're close enough to be easy to access within a few hours, but they're not within 50-60 miles of the city. The land around both cities is very beautiful.

The coast is what sets the two apart in my opinion. There's nothing right outside of Philadelphia that really compares the South and North Shores of Metro Boston. I understand it's not a terribly long drive to the beach for those in Philadelphia, but metro Boston is much more intertwined with the sea. And while Boston does have similar rolling hills and lush forestry, rivers, etc., The coast is the focal point and most desirable part of metro Boston from an aesthetic standpoint.
Lush forestry? LOL, maybe from mid-May to mid-September at best.

Most years, the leaves don't even reappear on the trees in the Boston area until after May 1st and then start changing around September 15th.

It always makes me laugh when someone talks about how "green" the Northeast and Great Lakes states are.

Yeah, they're green, but only for about 4-5 full months of most years. The rest of the year, those areas are mostly brown and dead-looking with ugly grey skies.

This past year was an exception, however, because autumn in the Northeast was unusually warm overall. In parts of southern New England, the grass was still green as late as mid-December!

I haven't lived in that area for years, but neither my family - who still resides in the area, mind you - nor I ever recall such green grass so late in the year. But it's important to keep in mind that this past autumn was the exception, not the rule.

I don't know when the shoulder seasons begin or end in the Philly area because I've never lived there, but I would be willing to bet that area has green trees for a total of 4-5 weeks longer than the Boston area.

Boston, Philly and other Northeastern cities are fairly ugly in appearance for much of the year, not to mention the coast is largely unusable before June and after September (AKA most of the year).

As any native New Englander would say, "I'm all set."

I was just recently in the SF Bay Area for the first time in my life. I hated the urban areas because they reminded me of old East Coast cities. However, the outlying areas seem very nice.

I'm sure living in the suburbs of the Bay Area outside of the inner East Bay (i.e., Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, Hayward, etc.), such as Marin County or the 680 corridor would be a much more pleasant existence than living in the suburbs of either Boston or Philly. No contest there.

After those outlying areas of the SF Bay Area, I'd probably take the South Shore of Boston, which seems roughly equivalent to Marin County. IMO, Marshfield, Scituate, Plymouth, etc. are some of the loveliest towns in MA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,761 posts, read 54,113,678 times
Reputation: 14705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert_from_back_East
I'm sure living in the suburbs of the Bay Area outside of the inner East Bay (i.e., Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, Hayward, etc.), such as Marin County or the 680 corridor would be a much more pleasant existence than living in the suburbs of either Boston or Philly. No contest there.
What's wrong with Albany and Alameda? They are both great towns with walkable areas, great weather, great restaurants, waterfront, close proximity to the urban core, etc.

I dont get what you mean at all.

Furthermore, the East Bay Hills which runs from Oh El Cerrito all the way down to Hayward, is home to thousands of million dollar homes with great views.

I live in Piedmont. Please google it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2016, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Naples Island
902 posts, read 559,489 times
Reputation: 1808
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
What's wrong with Albany and Alameda? They are both great towns with walkable areas, great weather, great restaurants, waterfront, close proximity to the urban core, etc.

I dont get what you mean at all.

Furthermore, the East Bay Hills which runs from Oh El Cerrito all the way down to Hayward, is home to thousands of million dollar homes with great views.

I live in Piedmont. Please google it.
I am well-aware of the fact that the East Bay Hills have lots and lots of beautiful, stately multi-million-dollar homes; I was careful not to include Piedmont, Montclair, Orinda, Lafayette, etc. in my list. I was primarily referring to the flatter, denser basin areas of the East Bay.

Overall, the urbanscape of the East Bay communities seemed outdated, unkempt and unattractive with primarily older housing stock; little in the way of greenery (including trees, lawns, road verges, medians, etc.); lots of messy-looking properties; poorly maintained streets and sidewalks with cracks, potholes and weed growth; chain-link fences; etc.

I was surprised to learn that these areas are fairly high-income with very expensive homes and highly regarded public school systems because they don't have the traditional "coiffed" look of nicer, safer upscale communities with great schools.

Because of that, much of the East Bay reminded me more so of the Northeast than anywhere else in California - or the entire Western United States, for that matter.

Boston has some ugly-looking inner suburbs, too, with lots of "triple-deckers," residential properties with no lawns and chain-link fences, etc. Like many of the East Bay cities, these Boston area suburbs are also high-income and well-educated, have excellent school systems, etc.

But if you were to plop Albany, Hayward or San Leandro, for example, anywhere else in California or the United States, most people would think those areas were "ghetto," for lack of a better term, based solely on aesthetics/appearance.

There are virtually no high-cost suburban areas of the Sun Belt or adjacent states to the north (i.e., VA, OH, IN, CO, UT) that look anything remotely like that.

I'm guessing this general appearance and mindset of these East Bay communities is due to the anti-development granola-types who tend to gravitate to that area coupled with the natural and legal/regulatory constraints of building and developing in the SF Bay Area/California, but there could be more to it - I don't know.

I hear Marin County, the Peninsula south of SF and the outer East Bay (i.e., Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Dublin, etc.) are much more attractive-looking suburban areas overall with nicer-looking homes and properties; cleaner, better maintained streets and sidewalks; more greenery; etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2016, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,761 posts, read 54,113,678 times
Reputation: 14705
I dont know what you think you know about Albany but it is a rather upscale town of expensive bungalows and has an exceptional school district that compares favorably with many of the suburban areas you think are better.

Albany is not the same thing as Hayward. Lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top