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.
Also, the city limits of Boston proper are tiny compared with NYC (although almost the same as San Francisco). When comparing either Boston or San Francisco to New York you really have to compare them to Manhattan alone (or possibly Brooklyn alone). Neither city has places similar to the Bronx within the city limits.
The interesting thing about Westchester County is that much of it was comparatively poor, or at least not nearly as wealthy as it is today, until quite recently. It's only after they extended the electrified commuter trains in the 70s and 80s that property values really took off.
If you're studying suburbs, it would be interesting to look at the relationship between public transportation and property values. For example, The Main Line, which has always been a near synonym for deciduous affluence, is named after the train line. Nearly all of these grand old suburbs were built around public transportation and attracted wealthy because of the access to transportation (see also "streetcar suburbs").
Contemporary critics seem to think that public transportation is for the dirty masses and that it lowers property values. In fact the opposite it true.
The interesting thing about Westchester County is that much of it was comparatively poor, or at least not nearly as wealthy as it is today, until quite recently. It's only after they extended the electrified commuter trains in the 70s and 80s that property values really took off.
I believe they electrified the lines into Westchester around the time GCT was built, about 1910. What extensions of electrification do you have in mind? I would think Westchester has become, if anything, less exclusive over the years, as the big turn-of-the-century estates were subdivided into house lots for the merely affluent.
obviously NYC. Boston is expensive but NYC is way more expensive.
In regards to whoever brought up Boston and SF's relative small size compared to NYC: It is a very valid point, however: I think there are areas in Boston comparable to the Bronx. There are even areas in Hyde Park and West Roxbury that are very suburban a la Staten Island.
NYC's enormous size pushes everything further out. Boston has downtown area for about a mile, inner city for another 5, and then streetcar suburbs. multiple that by about 3 for NYC..... if that makes any sense.
Real estate and rentals are more expensive in NYC , but there are many more bargains in quality goods and services such as food, furniture, etc. due to the huge volume of people and merchandise that go through there compared to Boston.
In Boston people LOVE to pay a lot of money for crap. That doesn't happen in NYC.
For example, no matter how much money you shell out in Boston you can't get decent hair color, while NYC is awash in talented, skillful hair colorists.
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.