Why is Boston so expensive for what it offers? (Springfield: low crime, homes)

[Oistrakh12]

It's cost of living is almost as high as NYC or SF, yet doesn't offer nearly as many things to do. It's more expensive than Chicago, which has tons more offerings in every category (restaurants, music, museums, etc). It just seems way overpriced for what it offers... which is comparatively little compared to other similarly-priced US cities (like SF and NYC).

[lrfox]

Sort of an easy question to answer if you have even the most basic comprehension of simple economics. Supply and Demand. Boston's strong job market, good schools, low unemployment, and low crime make it very desirable for many people. The demand for homes in the area in relation to the supply is fairly high. That's why Boston is as expensive as it is. If people didn't think Boston "offered" much, demand would be lower and the price would be lower. It's not all that difficult to understand.

Obviously Boston isn't as big as NYC or Chicago, but Boston and SF are in the same tier. I'm quite familiar with both Boston and San Francisco and I'm curious as to what you think SF "offers" that Boston doesn't? Given the fact that they're so comparable and that SF is quite a bit pricier, I would argue that SF is the more overpriced of the two by a good margin.

[Oistrakh12]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Obviously Boston isn't as big as NYC or Chicago, but Boston and SF are in the same tier. I'm quite familiar with both Boston and San Francisco and I'm curious as to what you think SF "offers" that Boston doesn't? Given the fact that they're so comparable and that SF is quite a bit pricier, I would argue that SF is the more overpriced of the two by a good margin.

More diversity, better food, better weather, bigger Chinatown, Japantown, more beautiful natural surroundings, better suburbs, proximity to great getaways (Lake Tahoe), more street vibrancy, higher density, better shopping (Union Square), etc.

[TAM88]

Do you live in SF?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

More diversity, better food, better weather, bigger Chinatown, Japantown, more beautiful natural surroundings, better suburbs, proximity to great getaways (Lake Tahoe), more street vibrancy, higher density, better shopping (Union Square), etc.

Most of what you're saying is incredibly subjective. I would argue that Boston has better "getaways" in that it's within 6 hours drive of NYC, Philadelphia, the White Mountains, Montreal, Cape Cod, Coastal Maine, etc.

The weather is highly dependent on the individual. I prefer Boston's seasons as do many others. SF residents constantly awaken to a foggy mist. It doesn't matter what time of year it is, nights will always be in the 50s in SF. Sure it doesn't snow there, but there is no "summer." Good luck swimming at Bay Area beaches. Good luck even finding good beach weather.

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.

Food? Depends on what you want. SF is better as far as Asian and creative cuisine goes. Boston does better in the European department AND local seafood. Same for neighborhoods. SF has a better Chinatown. Boston's Little Italy blows SF's out of the water.

Diversity? They're both very diverse in different ways. SF has a large Asian and Mexican population. Boston has a bigger European and Caribbean population.

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.

Suburbs? I think Boston's are better. SF doesn't have much that competes with places like Rockport, Newburyport, Salem, Manchester-by-the-Sea, etc. Many of Boston's suburbs are incredibly historic.

SF has more raw natural beauty. Boston's beauty is in it's quaint, New England charm... a coastline dotted with quaint towns and villages. It's a matter of preference.

In addition, the Boston area has far better schools (both k-8 and higher ed.), lower unemployment, lower crime, and a transit system that's FAR better and farther reaching than San Francisco.

[kingeorge]

Boston is expensive because of huge number of institutions of higher learning and economy that is fairly vibrant, on a very small "patch of land". We are overpriced for sure, in comparison to many cities, but we here sort of grin and bear with it. I love to hear different perspectives on Boston, people experiences with the area, and I am personally very curious about direction this area will take in the next decade. Will extreme COL deter and start hindering its attractiveness, and its economy, or huge COL will help this area stay where it is now?

[bjimmy24]

I don't know, when I first moved here, I would have agreed with you. Now I completely disagree though. I'd take Boston over those other cities. For me, it's worth it. Just a very pleasant place we've got here. Give it some time, if you're new here. It grows on you.

[xS☺B☺s]

IrFox pretty much handled the SF question - I'll emphasize the added bonus of a $1 bus ride to NYC any hour any day is a significant advantage to BOS - not to mention MTL, TOR, PHL, and DC all within reach. Even CHI is a short flight. Then if that's not enough London's only five hours away too.

Now regarding CHI, I love CHI, and yes it too has more in it's city. But is it nicer? I don't think so. BACK BAY is definitely sleeker than the Loop. I love the Lakeshore, but I love that Dirty Water too - and it's not even so dirty anymore. Castle Island's pretty damn sweet too.

And again, when you've seen all the sights in CHI, where do you go? Milwaukee? Detroit? Our short ride to NYC is a nice addition.

Also, Boston is just plain safer than Chicago, no doubt.

Finally, no place beats Boston's universities. Only London is competitive on this planet. And with those high brow schools comes a whole LOT of good looking students. Boston has better eye candy than any city I've every been with only London and Miami possibly better. And BOS might edge out MIA cuz though the MIA chicks are hot, they always have a bit of that dumb model look - while the Boston girls have a smart look about 'em.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

It's cost of living is almost as high as NYC or SF, yet doesn't offer nearly as many things to do. It's more expensive than Chicago, which has tons more offerings in every category (restaurants, music, museums, etc). It just seems way overpriced for what it offers... which is comparatively little compared to other similarly-priced US cities (like SF and NYC).

Oh, it's very, very simple.
12,752 people per square mile within the city limits. Even though they have before, they aren't adding to the 48 square miles of Boston any time soon.

SF: 17,000 people per square mile. 47 sq miles, and you can't add more land into the bay (but you could around SFO really - the land is really, really crappy)

Simply, there are more people who want to live here than can fit here.
SF is exactly the same. SF is hemmed in by South SF and Daly City, and water. Any place you'd want to live in in the bay are either hemmed in by water, mountains, or places you don't want to live. People will, and do, commute to SF from Elk Grove and Sacramento, 100 miles away - that's like living in Springfield and commuting to Boston...

[bostonguy1960]

Good answers above...

This stupid system won't let me rep people on the thread. Not uncommon, and don't know why. I hadn't just repped them, I don't believe.

What about our three dental schools (Harvard, BU, Tufts) and NEU's Forsyth Dental School for hygienists?

Mass Eye and Ear, I'm certain, can't be beat in most cities. Children's Hospital always ranks #1 or #2.

Berkeley, New England Conservatory, Boston Conservatory, and Longy School of Music in Cambridge.

As said, much better employment than Chicago, SF and likely NYC.

Safe overall, but with some bad pockets, like anywhere.

I've been thinking of moving to Chicago the past 15 years, but frankly, am frightened by the shootings. And, yes, some of it does come close to the good neighborhoods. Oh, and we don't have the flash mobs Chicago has endured the last few years. Yikes.

I like Seattle. But they're not much cheaper than here, and arguably offers less.

We have a modern arena downtown for concerts, NBA and NHL. SF does not, though I hear one is soon on the horizon.

I do have my complaints about Boston, as I would anywhere, but I'm simply pointing out some of the obvious pros for now..

Even if the Cape and Islands didn't even exist, life here still would be fine for most.