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.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,461 posts, read 44,083,751 times
Reputation: 16846
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScranBarre
I voted for Boston, but it was only after some careful consideration. I used to be an ardent opponent of "Sprawlanta," but in recent months I've taken a closer look into all of the positive things that are happening in that city that is making me reconsider my former hostilities towards it. Atlanta, while only being home to roughly 10% of the overall metropolitan population, also has a very extensive canopy of trees. Granted they do little to help mitigate the city's air quality issues, but even then MARTA expansions are planned if I'm not mistaken. The city has three distinctive "downtown" cores (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead), and if they're ever linked then Atlanta will finally have an impressive skyline that will rival those of Dallas, Seattle, Miami, and other second-tier cities in our nation.
While I'm happy to see more and more infill occurring in Atlanta proper, if you head onto the Atlanta sub-forum it's still apparent that sprawl is an issue as the vast majority of inquiries are about the suburbs. If people still don't want to inquire about city living in Atlanta, then that suggests to me that there are still many, many "issues" that need to be addressed (I'm sure Five Points is one of them). From what I've researched Atlanta is a hostile city towards pedestrians and bicyclists whereas from my own personal experience drivers in Metro Boston will actually STOP to permit pedestrians to safely cross the street. I'll never forget when my family stayed at a motel in Beverly, MA, approached a crosswalk, and had both lanes of traffic magically stop for us. You don't see that in Atlanta. Why? Their police force is apparently too lazy to enforce their state's pedestrian safety laws (or they're too busy fighting crime).
Boston is a hub for higher education. Pardon my ignorance, but what Ivy-League institutions does Atlanta lay claim to? I am impressed though that Atlanta has such a large African-American middle-class that is quite well-educated. I know from experience in my own region that most African-Americans here are impoverished, and the fact that they account for just a few percentage points of our metro population and probably 1/4 of our crime doesn't help matters much. Atlanta also hosted the 1996 Olympics, has an outstanding aquarium, has ties to Coca-Cola, CNN, and The Weather Channel, and has some respectable international notoriety.
Sorry Atlanta, but Boston still has the "edge" to me. I'd much rather saunter the Freedom Trail on a Saturday afternoon than I'd rather meander around Downtown Atlanta on a weekend.
Sorry we lost in the final analysis, Scran, but a very thoughtful and well-considered post nonetheless.
Why do people always have to go here and start attacking the people of a city or make gross generalizations? New Englanders aren't perfect by any stretch. I like Boston for many reasons too (why else would I stay in a frigid snowy climate surrounded by way left liberals for 15 years?), but it's got some real issues and isn't the paradise you want to idolize, just because there is some older architecture.
Agreed. Every place has its pros and cons, and I could certainly list some cons for Boston. On balance, though, I'd rate Boston the better of these two cities, for my tastes. Not just for old architecture--though don't discount that; a city's appearance does affect the way people feel about living and working there--but other qualities, like compactness and the convenience of getting around that this leads to, old and revered top-notch cultural venues, the funky vibe, the beauty of the natural setting interspersed with the cityscape (that great variety of water views right in the city, ya know), and, speaking of nature, if we step outside the cities themselves, the great variety of natural scenery and outdoor recreation possibilities in close proximity . . . to name a few.
Agreed, though, that there are negatives. You mentioned blue politics. Besides the locked-in, intransigent blue skewing in terms of which candidates get elected time and again, I get totally disgusted with the political corruption, patronage, and cronyism in MA. Then of course there are tradeoffs in some areas. Boston's compactness, which I see as being an advantage overall, does have its down side, that being the snarled up traffic that results when all those people pack into one compact central area.
Pros and cons. You'll find them everywhere. It's all a matter of personal preference as to which pros outweigh which cons, and vice versa.
I lived outside Boston for 15 years. I guess it depends on what you include in the "Boston metro area", but the entire state only has 6.4 million people. If you include parts of New Hampshire past Manchester, most of Rhode Island, out past Worcester, New Bedford, Leominster/Fitchnurg, Lowell, Lawrence, Taunton, Framingham/Natick, Plymouth and the outer cape, and the entire north and south shores, then OK.
I was not including the whole of eastern New England as "Boston". If you do, I bet it hits 4.5 million people. Normally, those areas are NOT considered Boston, but who knows why the census bureau has officially included them. I know the facts. They just need to be accurate facts and apples to apples comparisons. Areas of New Hampshire north of Manchester and Rhode Island are not part of Boston...no matter what the USCB says.
Most people who live in and know the area think of metro Boston area as about 2.5 million people. The rest is just the central and southeastern MA, NH, or RI.
I'm curious about what approximate area you lived in, outside of Boston. Gotta tell you, I've got you beaten there, though. Moved to the Boston suburbs as a young child, and have lived in various western 'burbs for the better part of the past forty years or so. In my experience, I have not been involved in enough discussions of metro area population to have any sense of what most people in the area believe it to be. I have the impression that MANY people aren't as interested in that sort of thing as a lot of City Data members are, and that many people really have no idea, or at best a vague idea, of the population of their metro areas. A fair number don't even seem too sure of the local population of the towns they live in.
Not trying to get into a dispute, but I'm just curious about where you've gotten the picture that most people around Boston think in terms of the 2.5 million figure. That would be a pretty limited definition of the metro area. 2.5 million would most likely be the approx. population of the area inside of 128, maybe including the towns along the outer rim of 128. At one time, that pretty much was the Boston metro area, except for a finger extending west to Framingham. Now, though, it extends to 495 and beyond, and north into southeastern NH. That's based on commuting patterns--the areas that are effectively suburbs, a large percentage of the population of which commute into the core county (Suffolk)--which is how the Census Bureau determines the boundaries of metro areas.
On that map in the link you provided, the yellow area is the area that has approx. 4.5 million. All that area going well up into NH, beyond Manchester, and out to and including Worcester, with the Providence/Fall River/New Bedford metro recently added (by the Census Bureau, again, based on commuting patterns), was intially reported, after the Providence metro was added, to have a population of eight million, and has now been adjusted to approx. 7.5.
Of course none of this has a bearing on what people feel about the quality of a city, which city they would prefer to live in, etc. Again, I'm not trying to get into an argument, but I am curious about where you've had the impression that people in the Boston area generally regard the population as 2.5 million. As I said above, my impression is that few people really are interested enough in this sort of thing to have any idea. My experience has been that the Boston metro area population could be a million or 15 million for all that many people living there actually know. Anyway, if someone throws out facts, I like to see correct facts. If your impression is different from the official numbers, I'd be interested in knowing, for the sake of discussion, what that is based on, for example, what areas you would consider to be part of the metro area, and why you would or would not include certain areas. Anyway, enough about that for now. Take care.
I'm curious about what approximate area you lived in, outside of Boston.
I lived in Leominster and worked in Waltham. According to the Census Bureau, Leominster and Worcester are part of metro Boston. Most people there don't consider that to be the case, they consider themselves to be in "central MA" and 40-50 miles away. I also know southern NH and northern RI very well, and I can guarantee you that people in Pawtucket, Providence, Cranston, Nashua, Manchester, Concord, and the surrounding towns do not consider themselves part of the "Boston area". Hell, some of these places are half way across the state or halfway across another state, and many are separated from Boston by miles of rural or semi-suburban towns.
Between Leominster and Boston you have to go through Lancaster, Harvard, Shirley, Ayer that are hardly Boston suburbs. So yes, I believe that the "Boston area" probably ends at 495 at the furthest, although people may commute to Boston or the Boston suburbs from further away. Cities 50- 75 miles away aren't part of Boston IMO...no matter what the gov't says.
Compare that with Atlanta, where 50 - 75 miles outside Atlanta isn't thought of as the metro area. Macon is that far away and definitely not considered part of metro Atlanta. Most of the population is in 7 counties (Cobb, Fulton, Dekalb, Gwinnett, Clayton, Henry, Forsyth, ) and all within 50 miles radius or much closer. The Boston are is also lumped in with with other cities with their own suburbs (like Providence/Worcester/Manchester/Nashua) in the same area.
I lived in Leominster and worked in Waltham. According to the Census Bureau, Leominster and Worcester are part of metro Boston. Most people there don't consider that to be the case, they consider themselves to be in "central MA" and 40-50 miles away. I also know southern NH and northern RI very well, and I can guarantee you that people in Pawtucket, Providence, Cranston, Nashua, Manchester, Concord, and the surrounding towns do not consider themselves part of the "Boston area". Hell, some of these places are half way across the state or halfway across another state, and many are separated from Boston by miles of rural or semi-suburban towns.
Between Leominster and Boston you have to go through Lancaster, Harvard, Shirley, Ayer that are hardly Boston suburbs. So yes, I believe that the "Boston area" probably ends at 495 at the furthest, although people may commute to Boston or the Boston suburbs from further away. Cities 50- 75 miles away aren't part of Boston IMO...no matter what the gov't says.
Compare that with Atlanta, where 50 - 75 miles outside Atlanta isn't thought of as the metro area. Macon is that far away and definitely not considered part of metro Atlanta. Most of the population is in 7 counties (Cobb, Fulton, Dekalb, Gwinnett, Clayton, Henry, Forsyth, ) and all within 50 miles radius or much closer. The Boston are is also lumped in with with other cities with their own suburbs (like Providence/Worcester/Manchester/Nashua) in the same area.
I worked with a guy from Castleton, VT several years back and I asked him what city the people of Castleton identified with and he said "absolutely Boston!". He said that if most people in NE were asked what major city represented them, most would answer the same.
I voted for Boston, but it was only after some careful consideration. I used to be an ardent opponent of "Sprawlanta," but in recent months I've taken a closer look into all of the positive things that are happening in that city that is making me reconsider my former hostilities towards it. Atlanta, while only being home to roughly 10% of the overall metropolitan population, also has a very extensive canopy of trees. Granted they do little to help mitigate the city's air quality issues, but even then MARTA expansions are planned if I'm not mistaken. The city has three distinctive "downtown" cores (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead), and if they're ever linked then Atlanta will finally have an impressive skyline that will rival those of Dallas, Seattle, Miami, and other second-tier cities in our nation.
While I'm happy to see more and more infill occurring in Atlanta proper, if you head onto the Atlanta sub-forum it's still apparent that sprawl is an issue as the vast majority of inquiries are about the suburbs. If people still don't want to inquire about city living in Atlanta, then that suggests to me that there are still many, many "issues" that need to be addressed (I'm sure Five Points is one of them). From what I've researched Atlanta is a hostile city towards pedestrians and bicyclists whereas from my own personal experience drivers in Metro Boston will actually STOP to permit pedestrians to safely cross the street. I'll never forget when my family stayed at a motel in Beverly, MA, approached a crosswalk, and had both lanes of traffic magically stop for us. You don't see that in Atlanta. Why? Their police force is apparently too lazy to enforce their state's pedestrian safety laws (or they're too busy fighting crime).
Boston is a hub for higher education. Pardon my ignorance, but what Ivy-League institutions does Atlanta lay claim to? I am impressed though that Atlanta has such a large African-American middle-class that is quite well-educated. I know from experience in my own region that most African-Americans here are impoverished, and the fact that they account for just a few percentage points of our metro population and probably 1/4 of our crime doesn't help matters much. Atlanta also hosted the 1996 Olympics, has an outstanding aquarium, has ties to Coca-Cola, CNN, and The Weather Channel, and has some respectable international notoriety.
Sorry Atlanta, but Boston still has the "edge" to me. I'd much rather saunter the Freedom Trail on a Saturday afternoon than I'd rather meander around Downtown Atlanta on a weekend.
Atlanta's skyline already rivals those other cities skylines.
Since I lived in Massachusetts for 15 years and just moved to the Atlanta area, it's like comparing apples and oranges. You will have some people who love or hate either for different reasons, and there is no way to make an accurate comparison. They are two very different areas with different strengths and weaknesses.
I personally loved Boston for the history, sports, and when I took part in it it, the nightlife in Boston. Atlanta can't hold a candle to Boston for any of these things.
Having said that, Atlanta is a breath of fresh air (for me at least) politically, and an escape from the political correctness run amuck in MA. I love being able to afford a nice new home and the lack of the small town thinking that seems to be very prevalent in New England...even in Boston. I love the warmer and snow free winters here in Atlanta, and I love the welcoming business climate. Some people complain about "sprawl" but I love it. I grew up in the city but now I love suburbia.
Winters are not "snow-free" in Atlanta. We usually have at least one snow fall. The past five to seven years have been unusual, though, in that we've been skipped over on a lot of the snowfalls that have hit neighboring states.
Sorry, Boston kicks Atlanta's butt any day of the week in almost any category.
Boston's a true, urban, large & vibrant city with great culture and an amazingly fantastic location. It is a REAL city.
Atlanta's a very young, sprawling, traffic-laced, growing city with no thriving, true downtown area anything like Boston's. It's funny, because they have just about the same metro populations, but Boston just feels like a city much larger than Atlanta.
Boston's metro area feels much smaller. It's fairly obvious driving throughout it that it seems like a much smaller city. It has small freeways, many of them unkempt. It has less traffic, and the built-up area is much smaller. It's skyline is also smaller. Boston does have a larger, very dense area within the actual city, but as a whole, the region is much smaller.
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.
Atlanta also hosted the 1996 Olympics, has an outstanding aquarium, has ties to Coca-Cola, CNN, and The Weather Channel, and has some respectable international notoriety. 
Moved to the Boston suburbs as a young child, and have lived in various western 'burbs for the better part of the past forty years or so.
