U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-17-2017, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
4,461 posts, read 7,526,734 times
Reputation: 4352

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
I love suburban Philadelphia. But the constant droning on about the "rolling hills" equals rolling eyes over here. Suburban Philadelphia is gorgeous. And apart from some of Boston's more charming seaside communities, I'd definitely argue that suburban Philadelphia has more suburbs that are destinations in their own right. Boston has beautiful, charming, leafy suburbs among the rolling hills, but they're far more residential. You also can't argue with the fact that Philadelphia has much better access to the major Bos-Wash cities (DC, NYC, etc.).
Fair enough. Boston of course is not lacking in desirable suburbs; Boston excels obviously in the coastal/nautical charm department, and Philadelphia excels much more in the bucolic countryside department. It really comes down to a matter of personal preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
All that being said, I think Boston offers a much more well-rounded variety of "weekend getaways" than Philadelphia. For all of the charm of the rolling hills of suburban Philadelphia, Boston's location on the ocean gives it an edge for the immediate area. The water in Cape Cod & Islands may not be as warm as the Jersey Shore, but it's not exactly a stark contrast (we're not talking Key West vs. Maine here) and the Cape & Islands are infinitely more charming/beautiful (yes, subjective, but let's be honest). As I mentioned in the first paragraph, it's not as if Boston is lacking in the lush suburbs and rolling hills department either. Boston's more well rounded.

Beyond the immediate metro area, Boston wins as well- largely (but not only) because of the sea. Philadelphia has very little nearby that resembles Newport RI, Salem MA, Portsmouth NH, Portland ME, etc. It doesn't have anything close to the White Mountains (I'm a skier and I cringe every time someone tries to argue that the Poconos are comparable for skiing or hiking). The Catskills are equidistant from Philly/Boston and the Adirondacks are actually closer to Boston than Philadelphia. For truly rugged and isolated, there's nothing close to Philadelphia that matches the Maine Wilderness- it's truly unrivaled on the East Coast. There's nothing close to Philadelphia on par with Maine's coast either.

And while Philadelphia is closer to DC and NY, Boston's still plenty close (and well connected) to New York. An overnight or weekend in NYC is easy for anyone in Boston. It's also easy to do a weekend in Montreal (under 5 hours driving through really scenic country) from Boston. No weekend trip from Philadelphia offers a comparable cultural experience to a weekend in Montreal.
You make many valid points, although I wouldn't entirely agree with how you're framing them.

Again, for destinations involving seaside coastal charm, New England has that on lock. There's no question there. NY/NJ certainly have charming coastal areas (e.g., areas on Long Island, and select Jersey Shore towns), but it's generally just a completely different type of built environment. That being said, I generally find the Jersey Shore to be more exciting and vibrant (yes, say what you will about the stereotypes, but charm and quaintness can only carry a place so far). They're generally just different types of beach destinations (one more relaxing, peaceful and with more exclusive areas, the other more "democratic" in its socioeconomic range, and with much more activity/commerce).

You're also generally neglecting what is SOUTH of Philadelphia in terms of access (at least using the liberal range you've given Boston). Delaware beaches, the Chesapeake Bay, the Shenandoah Valley area of Virginia, historic cities/towns like Baltimore, Annapolis, Alexandria, Ellicott City, and Frederick, MD. All fantastic for weekend trips.

It also doesn't get much more remote on the East Coast than north-central Pennsylvania, including areas like Cherry Springs State Park (earning the designation of "Dark Sky" park for star-gazers).

I'll grant you that the skiing is better in a place like Vermont compared to PA, and I know from my own eyes that Maine is fantastic all around, although (since we're getting nit-picky) I personally prefer the aesthetics of the hardwoods in "Central" US forests found in the Mid-Atlantic, than the "Northern" US forests that encompass Northern New England and are much more coniferous. Just a different kind of feel.

I think, overall, much of this does come down town taste/preference and what's prioritized in a weekend trip.

Last edited by Duderino; 05-17-2017 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2017, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,252,873 times
Reputation: 11726
NYC is a weekend getaway destination for Bostonians. So Boston is the clear winner here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 02:50 PM
 
149 posts, read 93,863 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
NYC is a weekend getaway destination for Bostonians. So Boston is the clear winner here.

Zing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 03:04 PM
 
149 posts, read 93,863 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris410 View Post
Reading through this thread has been mind numbing reading your posts. First comparing the Adirondacks to the White Mountains and now comparing Philly to Boston.

I agree with the other posters you are arguing with have been saying, I have run out of karma to give to them.

From Boston

In 1-2 hours you can be here:
-Cape Cod
-Martha's Vineyard
-Nantucket
-Newport RI
-Newburyport
-Portsmouth NH
-Lakes region of NH
-Portland ME
-Maine Seacoast
-White Mountains

In 2-4 hours you can be here:
-Green Mountains
-Rolling hills of Vermont
-Burlington VT
-NYC
-Lake George NY

In 4-5 Hours you can be here:
-Acadia National Park
-Adirondacks
-Montreal Canada
-Philly
-Jersey Shore

Most of the points you are making are personal preference. To me the mid Atlantic is kind of all the same, however I am not much of a city person or a beach person for that matter. For me, small colonial towns and places of natural beauty tends to be where I spend my weekends. Most of the places listed below have much more of that then cities and mid-Atlantic beaches. I am positive some parts of upstate NY off this, but its no different or better than what I can get closer to home.
Sorry, I shouldn't have compared the vast prairies and open space of the Adirondacks to the 15,000' behemoths in the White Mountains. My apologies. They're not even in the same league, and Philadelphia might as well be a suburb in comparison to vast metropolis of Boston. You're so right on.

You were saying mind-numbing? I'd rather use the word delusional, on your part.

Your points are also personal preference, and literally add nothing novel to the discussion. Boston is practically in a ****ing corner. It's very isolated in what it has. Great options, sure. But here's the kicker - it's not really superior to anywhere else.

Philadelphia has something in all directions. Which also includes Virginia and Maryland.

If the basis is options, Philadelphia simply has more, no contest. Do I really have to list them all for you?

The difference in distance for the Adirondacks between Philadelphia and Boston is negligible. I know this, because I live literally minutes from them, and frequent the Philadelphia area quite often.

Small colonial towns is what you like? You're in luck. It's a common trait shared in the entire Northeast. New England doesn't own colonial history by itself. Far from it.

The Mid-Atlantic is much warmer for a beach getaway, which is preferable. But I get it, New England has to win everything. It's just part of the DNA there. Arrogance abound.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 03:44 PM
 
149 posts, read 93,863 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
I love suburban Philadelphia. But the constant droning on about the "rolling hills" equals rolling eyes over here. Suburban Philadelphia is gorgeous. And apart from some of Boston's more charming seaside communities, I'd definitely argue that suburban Philadelphia has more suburbs that are destinations in their own right. Boston has beautiful, charming, leafy suburbs among the rolling hills, but they're far more residential. You also can't argue with the fact that Philadelphia has much better access to the major Bos-Wash cities (DC, NYC, etc.).

All that being said, I think Boston offers a much more well-rounded variety of "weekend getaways" than Philadelphia. For all of the charm of the rolling hills of suburban Philadelphia, Boston's location on the ocean gives it an edge for the immediate area. The water in Cape Cod & Islands may not be as warm as the Jersey Shore, but it's not exactly a stark contrast (we're not talking Key West vs. Maine here) and the Cape & Islands are infinitely more charming/beautiful (yes, subjective, but let's be honest). As I mentioned in the first paragraph, it's not as if Boston is lacking in the lush suburbs and rolling hills department either. Boston's more well rounded.

Beyond the immediate metro area, Boston wins as well- largely (but not only) because of the sea. Philadelphia has very little nearby that resembles Newport RI, Salem MA, Portsmouth NH, Portland ME, etc. It doesn't have anything close to the White Mountains (I'm a skier and I cringe every time someone tries to argue that the Poconos are comparable for skiing or hiking). The Catskills are equidistant from Philly/Boston and the Adirondacks are actually closer to Boston than Philadelphia. For truly rugged and isolated, there's nothing close to Philadelphia that matches the Maine Wilderness- it's truly unrivaled on the East Coast. There's nothing close to Philadelphia on par with Maine's coast either.

And while Philadelphia is closer to DC and NY, Boston's still plenty close (and well connected) to New York. An overnight or weekend in NYC is easy for anyone in Boston. It's also easy to do a weekend in Montreal (under 5 hours driving through really scenic country) from Boston. No weekend trip from Philadelphia offers a comparable cultural experience to a weekend in Montreal.
And the constant droning on over coastal charm is probably the most overrated aspect of Boston. It's not exactly ****ing Miami or Honolulu here. I grew up in the Mohawk Valley in Upstate NY. Not much different than most of upper New England. Upper New England does not impress me. New England in general is a mostly miserable climate 6-9 months of the year, and cold. Very similar to Upstate. You can have it.

Philadelphia suburbs are larger than Boston's. There is more green area and parkspace in the Philadelphia metro.

Sorry, I'll take Cape May over Cape Cod, architecturally and climate. I personally don't give a **** for seaside charm. If I wanna go to a beach getaway, it's certainly not going to be in New England, of all places. Nothing like it being 65 and oceanside with a hoodie on! I wanna be in the water escaping the heat.

Philadelphia's landscape lends to much more claustrophobic fauna. I've never been anywhere near Boston that had the same effect or vibe that being in the Main Line area of Philadelphia gives. I'll even say architecturally as well (I'm sure you know the regional differences). The Mid-Atlantic is definitely different in vibe and overall greenspace in comparison to New England. I think the only comparable state in that regard is Connecticut, which may be my favorite state in that region. As Duderino points out, most of New England is coniferous forest.

Boston lives and dies by it's seaside charm. It's not particularly interesting terrain wise until you get into Upper New England. No rolling farmland coupled with colonial history. That's a notable difference. Lack of rolling hills and farmland (not your typical Iowa farmland I'm talking about either).

The Maine wilderness is not unrivaled in the East. That's the kind of delusional drivel only New England people come up with, and that's the most annoying aspect by far of New Englanders. They act like what they have is the best, and nobody else has it.

Boston is not closer to the Adirondacks than Philadelphia. They're both roughly 4-5 hours. Do you actually know how large the ADKs are? They both don't have to arrive at the same location. If you're cutting through NH and VT it's 5 hours. If you're going through Albany it's 4. Philadelphia is 4-5 hours from them (Forestport for example).

Boston is closer to Montreal, Portland and Hartford. Philadelphia is closer to New York, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Pittsburgh, Toronto, WNY/CNY, etc.

Philadelphia has Virginia and Maryland to it's immediate southwest for hiking options (Washington/Jefferson Forest) in addition to everything north and west, quaint historic cities/small towns and Delaware beaches. It's slightly closer to the Hudson Valley (Catskills) than Boston is.

Salem? Really? Pretty sure the leaves change in Philadelphia, with it's share of haunted locations. I really have no idea what the point of bringing up Salem was. Witches? Vinyl siding?

The silliest part of the entire debate is that Philadelphia and Boston are both in the Northeast and their weekend destinations overlap. We're not comparing Denver to Pittsburgh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 03:51 PM
 
9,383 posts, read 9,546,239 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalentedDrinker View Post
Sorry, I shouldn't have compared the vast prairies and open space of the Adirondacks to the 15,000' behemoths in the White Mountains. My apologies. They're not even in the same league, and Philadelphia might as well be a suburb in comparison to vast metropolis of Boston. You're so right on.

You were saying mind-numbing? I'd rather use the word delusional, on your part.

Your points are also personal preference, and literally add nothing novel to the discussion. Boston is practically in a ****ing corner. It's very isolated in what it has. Great options, sure. But here's the kicker - it's not really superior to anywhere else.

Philadelphia has something in all directions. Which also includes Virginia and Maryland.

If the basis is options, Philadelphia simply has more, no contest. Do I really have to list them all for you?

The difference in distance for the Adirondacks between Philadelphia and Boston is negligible. I know this, because I live literally minutes from them, and frequent the Philadelphia area quite often.

Small colonial towns is what you like? You're in luck. It's a common trait shared in the entire Northeast. New England doesn't own colonial history by itself. Far from it.

The Mid-Atlantic is much warmer for a beach getaway, which is preferable. But I get it, New England has to win everything. It's just part of the DNA there. Arrogance abound.
The East Coast south of New England is basically all the same. Barrier Islands, with a back bay and sandy beaches. Meanwhile Boston has easy access to coastal bluffs and inlets and long sandy beaches. So while Philly may be closer to many beaches there really is no difference between Lewes DE and Sandy Hook, NJ. While York, ME and Hyannis, MA are very different locations.
And Boston is just minutes closer to the Adirondacks than Philly, 100 minutes.
You people act as if Boston is at the edge of the Continent, there is about as much land around Boston as there is Philly or NY, its not Cape Brenton. Boston is about 10 Hours from the Northeast corner of the Continent, far beyond the weekend getaway threshold which is about 4 hours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 03:55 PM
 
149 posts, read 93,863 times
Reputation: 132


What parks in New England come close to matching the diversity and size of the Adirondacks? None. You can literally fit Vermont and New Hampshire respectively, in the Adirondacks by land area.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 03:59 PM
 
9,383 posts, read 9,546,239 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalentedDrinker View Post

What parks in New England come close to matching the diversity and size of the Adirondacks? None. You can literally fit Vermont and New Hampshire respectively, in the Adirondacks by land area.
Northern Maine has 18,000 square Miles with a population density of 11 ppsm. Its not all one park, but Northern Maine is about 2x the size of the Adirondacks and 1/2 as densely populated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 04:02 PM
 
149 posts, read 93,863 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
The East Coast south of New England is basically all the same. Barrier Islands, with a back bay and sandy beaches. Meanwhile Boston has easy access to coastal bluffs and inlets and long sandy beaches. So while Philly may be closer to many beaches there really is no difference between Lewes DE and Sandy Hook, NJ. While York, ME and Hyannis, MA are very different locations.
And Boston is just minutes closer to the Adirondacks than Philly, 100 minutes.
You people act as if Boston is at the edge of the Continent, there is about as much land around Boston as there is Philly or NY, its not Cape Brenton. Boston is about 10 Hours from the Northeast corner of the Continent, far beyond the weekend getaway threshold which is about 4 hours.

False. Here's a map of the Adirondacks to show you the closest part to both cities.

It's 4 hours for Boston on the SE side of this map, and 4 hours for Philadelphia on the SW side. Negligible difference. Same as the Catskills for Philadelphia (30 mile difference).


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2017, 04:41 PM
 
149 posts, read 93,863 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
The East Coast south of New England is basically all the same. Barrier Islands, with a back bay and sandy beaches. Meanwhile Boston has easy access to coastal bluffs and inlets and long sandy beaches.

Because nowhere else on the continent has long sandy beaches..

I'm not driving two to three hours out of the way to look at coastal bluffs. Sorry dude. I'm going to the beach to swim.

https://www.google.com/search?q=adir...rondack+hiking

You can fit a couple national parks and states inside the Adirondacks. It's a massive, massive, massive park.

Tallest peaks in New England (basically just Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...undred_Highest

Tallest peaks in the Adirondacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adirondack_High_Peaks

Yeah, New England is totally blowing the Adirondacks away.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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.
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 · Bug Bounty

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