Why is Boston so expensive for what it offers? (condo, buying)

[bostonguy1960]

[quote=City Guy997S;30052472]Anyone see the story about the two tandem parking spaces that sold at an IRS auction last week for 560K?
Tandem parking spots sell for $560,000 - Boston.com

Gee, I wonder if parking prices get that high in San Francisco (since it's been mentioned often in this thread). Hmmm...

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by bostonguy1960

Gee, I wonder if parking prices get that high in San Francisco (since it's been mentioned often in this thread). Hmmm...

I know that was tongue in cheek, but since you asked...

Near-Record Prices for Parking Spots in Boston, San Francisco - ABC News

San Francisco's record is $82,000 for a spot. Parking there is quite a bit easier as many residential properties, even close to downtown, were built with garages on the first floor.

I don't mind the BOS-SF comparisons. In fact, I find them fascinating as the two cities are so alike and yet so different in so many ways.

[Oistrakh12]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Street vibrancy? Really? They're nearly identical. I'd even argue that streetscapes like Hanover, Salem, the Blackstone Block, Quincy Market, Newbury, etc. are impossible to find in San Francisco.

The density is negligible in the core of the urban area (SF's burbs are denser). No one in their right mind will tell you that walking around central SF feels "denser" than central Boston.

Union Square and nearby Westfield Centre are essentially the same as Newbury St. and Prudential/Copley Place. They even have most of the same chains. The difference between the two? Newbury St. isn't overrun with panhandlers.

I am in San Francisco now (sutter st in lower nob hill) and I really have to disagree about he street vibrancy being nearly identical. The whole area around union square and Westfield center was far more packed on a Friday afternoon than anything iced experienced in Boston. The physical density around the lower nob hill - union sq -embarcadero area is far more urban than anything we have in Boston. That area can almost compete with manhattan in that respect.

[IHeartMaine]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

I am in San Francisco now (sutter st in lower nob hill) and I really have to disagree about he street vibrancy being nearly identical. The whole area around union square and Westfield center was far more packed on a Friday afternoon than anything iced experienced in Boston. The physical density around the lower nob hill - union sq -embarcadero area is far more urban than anything we have in Boston. That area can almost compete with manhattan in that respect.

I always judge cities on the density of people around me.........the more people stepping on my feet and bumping into me........the better!

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

I am in San Francisco now (sutter st in lower nob hill) and I really have to disagree about he street vibrancy being nearly identical. The whole area around union square and Westfield center was far more packed on a Friday afternoon than anything iced experienced in Boston. The physical density around the lower nob hill - union sq -embarcadero area is far more urban than anything we have in Boston. That area can almost compete with manhattan in that respect.

Sutter St. in Lower Nob Hill is, in my opinion, a fairly quiet street. My sister lives on that street in that area and I've spent time there at all hours of the day. The pedestrian activity along that street in that area isn't anything remarkable at all. Of course, it gets busier during business hours closer to Powell and Union Square, but if I were picking streets in SF to use as an example of vibrant activity, Sutter St. in Lower Nob Hill would not be on the list.

The area you're describing ("The area around union square and Westfield Center") is definitely one of SF's major hubs of activity. Most of that activity is along Powell St. between the station/ turnaround and Union Square. It's in the center of the business district and it's also one of the biggest tourist attractions in the city. The Faneuil Hall area is busier. That's a fact, not an observation. The Faneuil Hall area has 18,000,000 people pass through every year. The only urban places in the United States with more activity are Las Vegas's Strip, Union Station in D.C., Times Square and Grand Central Terminal.

I strongly disagree with the "physical" density observation. How are those areas more "urban" than anything in Boston? mostly residential lower nob hill and union square are more physically dense than the Boylston spine, Financial District, Beacon Hill, Theatre District, etc.? Really? By what measure? I'm not saying Boston's built environment is more dense, but I don't see how your examples in SF are "far more urban" than anything in Boston. Embarcadero is a terrible, terrible example of "urban" since that stretch used to be an elevated highway that was torn down. There's definitely pedestrian activity as it's a pleasant place to walk or jog, but it's not a great example of "physical density" as it's still lined with surface lots, open spaces, empty warehouse piers, etc. The Ferry Building is great (especially when there are Farmer's Markets), Pier 39 is obviously busy, and the new Exploratorium is great. However, Embarcadero is not a dense urban street. Certainly not on par with many other streets in Boston or SF.

We've hashed this out a bunch before, but SF- Manhattan comparisons are pretty absurd. New York's population density is higher than San Francisco's by a mile. San Francisco's is a little higher than Boston's. The built environment is far more urban and expansive than anything else in the U.S. (Chicago's Loop may be the only comparable area to Midtown Manhattan). Market Street in SF's Financial District is long, straight and bounded by high rises. It does resemble a small version of the Canyons you see in Midtown Manhattan. However, that's one street and in Midtown Manhattan, every street looks like that. Market Street isn't even close to the same scale as almost any street in Midtown Manhattan. Philadelphia and Chicago also have "canyons" that are larger than SF's and more closely resemble Manhattan. On the flip side, Boston's Financial District has crooked streets lined with towers. It resembles Manhattan's Financial District more than anything else in the country. Like SF's market street, it's on a much smaller scale though. Comparing any city in the U.S. to Manhattan/ NYC is a waste of time as NYC is on a completely different level when it comes to all things urban.

[xS☺B☺s]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

I am in San Francisco now (sutter st in lower nob hill) and I really have to disagree about he street vibrancy being nearly identical. The whole area around union square and Westfield center was far more packed on a Friday afternoon than anything iced experienced in Boston. The physical density around the lower nob hill - union sq -embarcadero area is far more urban than anything we have in Boston. That area can almost compete with manhattan in that respect.

Whether it is or is not really doesn't matter. Boston has a high urban density by almost any standard. It is bustling enough for most folks - even me. If it does or does not nudge out SF, well I highly doubt anyone will change their lives on that factor.

Show us the pictures.

[miu]

Originally Posted by xS☺Be

Whether it is or is not really doesn't matter. Boston has a high urban density by almost any standard. It is bustling enough for most folks - even me. If it does or does not nudge out SF, well I highly doubt anyone will change their lives on that factor.

Show us the pictures.

The first two pictures don't count imo. One is some street festival (judging by the tents and all the people in the middle of the street with the cars not allowed to drive through)and the other photo is of a Boston Marathon event (because of the barricades along Boylston St in front of the Hynes Convention Center). And the third picture makes me think of the sidewalks just outside of Kenmore Square when a Red Sox game has ended. In my opinion, that's not representative of a typical day in Boston. Our sidewalks are not usually as densely crowded like in your pictures, and certainly not on the majority of our sidewalks all at one time.

[Oistrakh12]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I strongly disagree with the "physical" density observation. How are those areas more "urban" than anything in Boston? mostly residential lower nob hill and union square are more physically dense than the Boylston spine, Financial District, Beacon Hill, Theatre District, etc.? Really? By what measure? I'm not saying Boston's built environment is more dense, but I don't see how your examples in SF are "far more urban" than anything in Boston. Embarcadero is a terrible, terrible example of "urban" since that stretch used to be an elevated highway that was torn down. There's definitely pedestrian activity as it's a pleasant place to walk or jog, but it's not a great example of "physical density" as it's still lined with surface lots, open spaces, empty warehouse piers, etc. The Ferry Building is great (especially when there are Farmer's Markets), Pier 39 is obviously busy, and the new Exploratorium is great. However, Embarcadero is not a dense urban street. Certainly not on par with many other streets in Boston or SF.

We've hashed this out a bunch before, but SF- Manhattan comparisons are pretty absurd. New York's population density is higher than San Francisco's by a mile. San Francisco's is a little higher than Boston's. The built environment is far more urban and expansive than anything else in the U.S. (Chicago's Loop may be the only comparable area to Midtown Manhattan). Market Street in SF's Financial District is long, straight and bounded by high rises. It does resemble a small version of the Canyons you see in Midtown Manhattan. However, that's one street and in Midtown Manhattan, every street looks like that. Market Street isn't even close to the same scale as almost any street in Midtown Manhattan. Philadelphia and Chicago also have "canyons" that are larger than SF's and more closely resemble Manhattan. On the flip side, Boston's Financial District has crooked streets lined with towers. It resembles Manhattan's Financial District more than anything else in the country. Like SF's market street, it's on a much smaller scale though. Comparing any city in the U.S. to Manhattan/ NYC is a waste of time as NYC is on a completely different level when it comes to all things urban.

If you were to compare Copley square with union square (comparable in that it surrounds the cities main shopping areas), it's quite obvious that union square feels a lot more urban. It's flanked by huge department stores and hotels from all sides and the pedestrian activity there is far above anything I've experienced in Copley square. Union square also feels more cramped.

[Cliff Clavin]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

If you were to compare Copley square with union square (comparable in that it surrounds the cities main shopping areas), it's quite obvious that union square feels a lot more urban. It's flanked by huge department stores and hotels from all sides and the pedestrian activity there is far above anything I've experienced in Copley square. Union square also feels more cramped.

Excellent points. I think we can all agree the two things Copley Sq needs more of is shopping and hotels. And who doesn't want to feel cramped?

[sobo16]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

If you were to compare Copley square with union square (comparable in that it surrounds the cities main shopping areas), it's quite obvious that union square feels a lot more urban. It's flanked by huge department stores and hotels from all sides and the pedestrian activity there is far above anything I've experienced in Copley square. Union square also feels more cramped.

OK, you win! San Francisco is a bit more urban by a hair. I guess the city of Boston should just shut down now.

Seriously, what is the point?