Why is Boston considered urban/vibrant on city data? (Lowell: theater, gated)

[BitofEndearment]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

Reputations take a long time to change. Recent census data proves that the six New England states are in the top ten for oldest median age. It will take some more time but Boston's reputation will eventually catch up with the reality of our population demographics.

I don't think you can apply these generalities if you're talking about the city of Boston. You can't say: Here is a trend, overall, the six New England states are getting older; therefore, everywhere in these states is getting older. Boston and Cambridge are probably two of the youngest cities in the nation, simply because of the massive population that is permanently aged about 18-25. And as more and more kids go to college, that number will at least stay the same, or increase.

[scratchie]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Resident: You take that long twisty road over there. Then you're going to make a right turn at some point. Not sure what street that is. But it'll get ya there for sure. But I think there might be construction on the long twisty road, so I'm not sure.

LOL. I used to work near South Station and had to give tourists directions like that occasionally.

"Take a right, go down a few streets, take a left, and ask someone else."

[mdovell]

I remember I had a mtel test once at a testing center in boston. I couldn't exactly find the street so I asked a cop.

Apparently one side of a street had one name and one had another...huh?!?

[xS☺B☺s]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I remember I had a mtel test once at a testing center in boston. I couldn't exactly find the street so I asked a cop.

Apparently one side of a street had one name and one had another...huh?!?

Must be near Washington St. Every street in Boston changes its name on either side of Washington St cause nobody crosses Washington. Until Melnea Cass.

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I always get a kick out of posts from people who are either surprised by the driving in Boston or say that Boston's a "bad place" because the driving is so tough. If a city is a bad place because driving is difficult, traffic is bad, and drivers are aggressive, then London, New York, Rome, Tokyo, San Francisco, Madrid, Milan, Paris, etc. are all just simply awful cities.

If you come to Boston (or any of the cities I just listed) and expect to have little/no trouble driving, then you're the problem. Traffic sucks here. It's not a secret or a mystery. It's also not unique to Boston. Thankfully, Boston's a dense, walkable city with an extensive transit system to reduce/ eliminate the need to drive for most. If you move here (or any dense, urban city for that matter) and expect to live exactly like you do in the auto-centric place you came from, you're going to be miserable and I have very little sympathy for the folks that run into this problem. Because, as has been mentioned, Boston's traffic woes are no secret and certainly not unique to Boston.

I also get a chuckle out of people who complain that a city is, "full of gays." I get it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you don't like a group of people because of their preferences in the bedroom, nobody is going to change your mind. However, there's a word for people who deride an entire group of people based on their gender, race, or sexual preference, and that word is, "bigot." If you poll the entirety of America and ask whether they'd rather live in a city "full of gays" or a city full of bigots, the overwhelming majority will pick the city "full of gays." And the overwhelming majority of people who choose the city full of bigots are also going to be bigots. So every time a bigot says they don't like Boston because of [insert group of people here], most of us are quite happy that they choose not to live here.

Also, when you choose to attack a city and claim that its "high education" is just "sensationalism," it helps to avoid using an endless stream of run-on sentences and grammatical errors. You know, because they make it difficult to take your opinion on the matter seriously.

Oh, and GoldCountry80, three of the four posts before mine were written by you criticizing Boston and the people who live here. When you accuse someone else of "stirring up the pot," it's the pot calling the kettle black.

+1 Ouch....

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by BitofEndearment

I don't think you can apply these generalities if you're talking about the city of Boston. You can't say: Here is a trend, overall, the six New England states are getting older; therefore, everywhere in these states is getting older. Boston and Cambridge are probably two of the youngest cities in the nation, simply because of the massive population that is permanently aged about 18-25. And as more and more kids go to college, that number will at least stay the same, or increase.

Actually Boston is about 30.
MA Municipalities By Median Age | MetroBoston DataCommon

Amherst is the youngest at 21

The Berkshires and Cape (especially the arm of it) are older. Cities tend to be younger in general.

[jackshaw]

I travel all over the world and even in the US. There are cities in the US that are much more vibrant in terms of night life and cities that are much more vibrant in terms of culture (but there are few -- NY, LA, SF probably, Chicago). But most of the big cities in the US roll up the sidewalks pretty early or are pretty devoid of any kind of culture except barbeque. Boston is easily in the top 10 in terms of high culture. Not clear about night life -- that is not high on my list. Boston is uniquely vibrant intellectually. There are more interesting people per capita than in any other city in the world (in my estimation, though artists would probably pick NY or maybe Berlin).

Interestingly, the vibrancy of cities is probably highly correlated with the size of the gay population as gays tend to frequent cultural institutions, restaurants, etc. So, the comments referenced above are both bigoted and go in the opposite direction of the vibrancy claim.

Boston is lacking racial diversity relative to some big cities and that diversity no doubt adds to the perceived vibrancy of a city. NY, LA, SF. But, not so much compared to Minneapolis or Portland.

[bjimmy24]

^ Go live in other cities that aren't on coasts. There is plenty of culture in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Louis, Austin, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia. Saying that these places have no culture outside of barbeque is really ignorant. Really really really.

I like how "vibrancy" appartently means people going to bars and the mere presence of brown people and gay people. I mean, first of all, Boston does not lack in either category (majority minority city at that). I used to live in Moscow, Russia. It's like 90% ethnic Russian and a generally homophobic place (not a good thing, but that's just how it is), but definitely vibrant, 24 hour city. I think you need a readjustment of criteria here.

[lrmsd]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

Okay I see what you are getting at now. The City-Data forums have a "new urbanist" presence on it. New urbanists believe that if society builds environments where people are forced into close proximity to each other as pedestrians that said people will automatically interact and become friends. The truth of the matter is that this does not reliably work. How many people do you see of the "T" wearing headphones or avoiding eye contact? Strangers do not interact in any meaningful way just because they are sharing a sidewalk space or train seat at a given moment.

Were you taking your companions to planned events where attendees have much in common or were you going to Back Bay, Prudential, Chinatown, etc on the fly?

Excellent comment!
Boston Commons is pretty cool, especially in the summer. Head of the Charles is great [though only one a year]. First Night on New Year's even is a really sweet deal-and unique. I couldn't imagine taking anyone 'to Chinatown'. It's tiny. And there isn't much happening there. Boston has many unique events that are not daily, too. Anyway....different strokes, as they say.

[lrmsd]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

^ Go live in other cities that aren't on coasts. There is plenty of culture in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Louis, Austin, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia. Saying that these places have no culture outside of barbeque is really ignorant. Really really really.

I like how "vibrancy" appartently means people going to bars and the mere presence of brown people and gay people. I mean, first of all, Boston does not lack in either category (majority minority city at that). I used to live in Moscow, Russia. It's like 90% ethnic Russian and a generally homophobic place (not a good thing, but that's just how it is), but definitely vibrant, 24 hour city. I think you need a readjustment of criteria here.

Totally agree. The PC indoctrination has given people a formula to insert instead of actually thinking.
To be fair, that person did qualify 'culture' by saying high culture and intellectual environment. Boston does have a fair share of this atmosphere. But so does Pittsburgh. Lots of high art in the rust belt cities b/c they were very wealthy and had institutional [education, civic infrastructure, museums, etc) investment from the barrons.