Revere or Malden? (Boston, Melrose: homes, neighborhoods, pine)

[UrbanQuest]

Which town is more suburban in nature?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by UrbanQuest

Which town is more suburban in nature?

Tough call. Both are a good deal more built up than your standard suburb. As a whole, Malden is nearly as dense as Boston. And Revere, while not quite as dense, still has a higher population density than Seattle. So neither is going to come close to being your prototypical suburb.

But I don't think the city-wide numbers tell the whole story. Both cities have their fair share of triple deckers and multi-family homes. They also both have their fair share of smaller, older, single family neighborhoods with postage-stamp yards and not a ton of space between structures. Malden is pretty much split down the middle by Route 60. Malden Center is more urban than just about anything in Revere (complete with an elevated rapid transit station). And for the most part, anything south of 60 or around Malden Center is going to be quite dense. But, north of 60, and especially closer to the Melrose line, you'll find some lower density neighborhoods than you'll find just about anywhere in Revere.

TL/DR: Both are very built up. Overall, Malden is higher density than Revere. But Malden probably has more neighborhoods that are closer to stereotypical suburban neighborhoods than Revere does.

[johngolf]

I agree it is a tough call, but I would give Malden the edge.

[UrbanQuest]

After looking at street shots, I agree that Malden edges out. Revere’s lack of tree cover might give the illusion that it’s more urban than it is.

[thenewtexan]

Malden

[BostonMike7]

Malden for sure, although they are fairly close. Malden at least has Pine Banks Park and Middlesex Fells