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.
In my own city, it would be Dormont. Population Density of 13,000 ppsm higher than all major US Cities (except NYC and San Francisco obviously). Lower COL, Train ride is 15 minutes from downtown Pittsburgh, diverse, and the rail line it's on is 15 mins from Consol Energy Center (Pittsburgh Penguins) and 20 mins from Heinz Field and PNC Park (Steelers and Pirates).
I would put Somerville above Cambridge. Cambridge is incredibly expensive if you want to live near the action (Mass Ave). If you don't it's still incredibly expensive, but also suburban and sleepy. There are also a ton of aggressive panhandlers in Cambridge near Harvard and Central square especially. I think Somerville is better. A bit cheaper and with a larger variety of people, still well connected via transit too.
I would put Somerville above Cambridge. Cambridge is incredibly expensive if you want to live near the action (Mass Ave). If you don't it's still incredibly expensive, but also suburban and sleepy. There are also a ton of aggressive panhandlers in Cambridge near Harvard and Central square especially. I think Somerville is better. A bit cheaper and with a larger variety of people, still well connected via transit too.
Not that well-connected. There are no buses or trains that go "across" Somerville, so if you live in say, Magoun Square, and want to go to the red line, you're out of luck.
Most of Somerville is also pretty sleepy (though I wouldn't call it suburban...). And I think Inman Square (Cambridge) is more lively than anything Somerville has to offer outside of Davis Square.
Not that well-connected. There are no buses or trains that go "across" Somerville, so if you live in say, Magoun Square, and want to go to the red line, you're out of luck.
Most of Somerville is also pretty sleepy (though I wouldn't call it suburban...). And I think Inman Square (Cambridge) is more lively than anything Somerville has to offer outside of Davis Square.
I do like Inman Square.
I don't know, it's like a mile from Magoun to Porter- I'd just walk. Not a big deal for a large demographic of the area, of which I am one, to be fair. (20-30 somethings).
I don't know, it's like a mile from Magoun to Porter- I'd just walk. Not a big deal for a large demographic of the area, of which I am one, to be fair. (20-30 somethings).
It is a mile, I did it daily for a year. It's not the end of the world - but, we're talking about access to transit and I think that's a major shortcoming!
In NJ you can easily toss Irvington and East Orange under the bus in terms of QOL. While each has a few decent blocks you could live on, for the most part they are terrible towns-- poor, crime-ridden, dilapidated, and dysfunctional. Patterson is slightly better off, with some really nice homes, but not a whole lot better off, for sure. Union City is blue collar, poor-to-middle-class, heavily Hispanic (Cuban IIRC), and totally unexciting. It's also sort of old and grubby looking, though I haven't been there in a while and maybe that's changed. No reason to go unless you know somebody who lives there. I don't know anything about Passaic.
Jersey City and Hoboken are the standouts in having a high quality of life, as each is full of would-be Manhattanites that have been priced out and each is a quick cheap train ride to Manhattan via PATH. That has meant lots of new construction (both residential and commercial) and plenty of bars, shopping, restaurants, to appeal to the gentrifiers. (Washington Ave in Hoboken seems like non-stop party central some nights.) There is also a good tech school in Hoboken, the Stevens Inst. of Technology. But for families with school-age children there is less appeal because of the shoddy public schools and elevated real estate prices, especially in the nicer areas of town.
Lol at 3 people so far voting Huntington Park. I'm assuming that's because it's the only one with "California" after its name? Huntington Park is a poor neighborhood in South Central LA. Though not the worst part of South Central, it's still South Central which is largely poor, dangerous, underdeveloped, poorly maintained. It's largely Latino immigrants with a low level of education and terrible schools. To choose Huntington Park over a place like Hoboken or Cambridge is just insane and must be a CA bias. Sorry. Nothing against the people that live in Huntington Park. But I'm sure the people living there would probably want to live in a safer, wealthier, more educated, and better served city in terms of retail and more.
That said, I voted Hoboken. Easy access to NYC. A lot to walk to within the city, but close to tons of other cities and attractions by public transit. Safe.
Cambridge, because I like glass bottles thrown at me by homeless guys and subway stations that smell like puke. No, seriously, because it has two world-class universities and a subway line, plus it's across the Charles River from the Red Sox stadium.
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.
