Winchester, Wellesley, Lexington or Concord? (Boston, Cambridge: middle-class, houses, neighborhoods)

[Jhutt]

I am starting a job in a few weeks in Boston (financial district) and we are in the process of looking for a house. I have two kids who are 6 and 3 and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. Our budget is 1.5-2.0 million. Can somebody please tell me the pros and cons of the above towns. We really like Winchester but it seems as though there are few houses available. Where would you live? Thanks in advance.

[scarletfire]

I can share what I like about Wellesley as it's the closest to me. Great walkable downtown, easy train access, great shops & restaurants, terrific schools, lots of character, a great library, plus many pretty homes that don't look cookie cutter. Here are a few articles you might find useful:

Best Places to Live 2009

What’s to like about Wellesley, MA? « Kyle's blog

MONEY Magazine: Best places to live 2007: Wellesley, MA snapshot

[scarletfire]

Oh, and terrific trails along the Charles River

[scarletfire]

I'll add this two cents about Concord:
Steeped in history (Walden Pond, homes of Emerson, Hawthorne, Alcott, Minuteman National Park, etc), lovely walkable town center, great biking trails, train access (though further to the city than Wellesley), generally larger lot sizes, gorgeous historic homes, very well regarded school system.

If I had your budget I'd choose one of my dream homes off Monument Street so I could walk to the town center, shops, cafes, the art association, and Minuteman National Park right from my doorstep.

[CaseyB]

Another vote for Wellesley. (being prejudiced ,since I am a native of Wellesley).

[scanz]

Lexington and Concord both have very nice neighborhoods and nice town centers. They both share similar history, though I'd say Concord has done a better job preserving some of its farm lands and open spaces.

Lexington has a good school system that is usually ranked in the top 10 or 15 in the state. My biggest complaint there is that there are way too many McMansions on 1/4 acre or less lots. There are nice places to eat there though.

Concord has the commuter rail station for ease to Boston if you don't feel like driving.

They are both pretty affluent communities now, though I remember when they weren't anything very special. Of the two, I'd choose Concord for character and commute, Lexington for schools and "stuff to do".

I can't comment much on the others you listed, but as far as schools go, you may add Belmont or Brookline to your list.

[ogre]

Of these four towns, the one that stands apart from the others most clearly is Concord. All four towns have a good collection of stores in their downtowns, but outside of downtown and the closely surrounding residential neighborhoods Concord is pretty rural, while the other three have a more traditional suburban character.

Scanz's mention of the McMansions on 1/4-acre lots in Lexington points up the fact that Winchester and Wellesley have been affluent suburban towns for longer than Lexington. It's not that Lex. looks brand new. Lex. has a look of having seen a good deal of suburbanization in the '50's and '60's, while the two W towns date back to the early 20th century as affluent suburbs. Both of the W towns look more like old railroad suburbs. Wellesley is the more upscale of the two, but both are nice. With occasional exceptions neither town will have exceptionally large lots, as is characteristic of the old railroad 'burbs, but there are neighborhoods in Wellesley where there are, rather than McMansions, true mansions standing on the 1/4-acre lots, while Winchester has a solidly upper-middle-class feel.

Speaking of railroad 'burbs, another difference between Lexington and all of the other three is that Lex. is the one town in this group which has no commuter rail service. Brief descriptions of these towns would go like this:

Concord: nice downtown; moderate population density near downtown, but largely exurban in character, with lots of woods and fields outside the areas around downtown and the West Concord commercial district; commuter rail service and the longest commute to Boston of any of these four.

Lexington: nice downtown; solidly middle-class suburbia with a mid-20th-century suburban look to many neighborhoods; no commuter rail service.

Wincester: nice downtown; upper-middle-class older established-looking suburb with commuter rail.

Wellesley: nice downtown; very affluent, with some very wealthy neighborhoods scattered among a generally upper-middle-class town; another older, established-looking suburb with commuter rail.

[tuteishungry]

Originally Posted by Jhutt

I am starting a job in a few weeks in Boston (financial district) and we are in the process of looking for a house. I have two kids who are 6 and 3 and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. Our budget is 1.5-2.0 million. Can somebody please tell me the pros and cons of the above towns. We really like Winchester but it seems as though there are few houses available. Where would you live? Thanks in advance.

Wellesley is a good place to live, not sure about how I feel about Lexington though. My friend lived there for 8 months and her house got broken into. I say with the money you make, you'd be better off with Needham, Newton and natick. Why not just live in the city? Brighton, Cambridge... I'd like in Natick, Waltham, Needham or Wayland.

[brightdoglover]

They're all great towns. I'd go with whatever one had the best train ride to financial district. Believe me, you do *not* want to drive.
(Personal favorite is Concord).

[scanz]

I agree - Concord is my favorite - too bad I can't afford any of the towns on this list.