What do you consider to be Boston's urban core? (Cambridge: home builder, neighborhoods)

[ARrocket]

The city of Boston is not that big area-wise, coming in at just under 90 square miles (with almost half of that being water, interestingly enough). Personally, I think that Somerville, Cambridge, Brookline, and Chelsea are functionally neighborhoods of Boston, and so if I could bend municipal boundaries, I'd make all 5 of those one single city. I was torn about adding Arlington in there, because the transition into Somerville does seem seamless at some points, but overall I think Arlington is too suburban in nature.

Does that seem like a fair assessment? I've never been to places like Newton, Watertown, or Quincy, so not sure if those feel like an extension of Boston as well. I think it's interesting for the purpose of comparing density with other cities that are bigger geographically.

[timberline742]

add quincy

[pennyone]

Originally Posted by timberline742

add quincy

Hate to say it, but I agree that Quincy is essentially a branch of Boston, for better or worse.

[semiurbanite]

Arlington and Belmont are definitely not urban.

[FourBuildingsDown]

If you're going to add Chelsea, I'd also add Revere, Everett, Malden, and Medford. Agree with adding Quincy. Possibly even Watertown and Waltham. Definitely not Arlington. When I scroll out of Google Maps and see more areas of white and gray than green connected to Boston, I consider that Boston's urban core.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by ARrocket

...so if I could bend municipal boundaries, I'd make all 5 of those one single city.

And you'd have quite a fight on your hands! Boston did consolidate some former towns within its borders but mostly before 1900 with the last annexation, of Hyde Park, occurring about 1912. Brookline voted twice against annexation. Charlestown joined up with Boston but only after it lost all its hinterland, which became Somerville. Chelsea is pretty small in area too and, like Hyde Park and the Charlestown peninsula, might get more benefit from joining up with Boston. But generally the mood has been for independence-- a New England thing, you know.

To me, "urban core" doesn't just mean urbanized areas but the key central sections of the city. In Boston, that would include parts of Brookline plus Cambridge and Somerville but maybe leave out parts of Boston like HP, Roslindale, West Roxbury. Roxbury has been more and more narrowly defined over the decades but at the time of annexation to Boston its limits included all of the Fenway-Northeastern Univ area, the Longwood Medical Area, Mission Hill, and Kenmore Square. So Roxbury can't be left out. I'd leave Quincy out of this. It's built up but hard to make a case for calling it "core". Urbanized areas continue northeast all the way to Beverly but we're not calling Lynn, Salem, Swampscott, etc part of the core either.

In another thread someplace comparing Boston to Austin, TX, someone (from a Texas perspective) said Boston has no suburbs: it's all city within Route 128 and country outside. Said he'd looked and couldn't find a major home builder anywhere in the state. I thought that was interesting -- that the old city and streetcar suburb areas all seem like city and everything else seemed so thinly developed he couldn't find what looked to him like a suburb.

[495neighbor]

Originally Posted by missionhill

In another thread someplace comparing Boston to Austin, TX, someone (from a Texas perspective) said Boston has no suburbs: it's all city within Route 128 and country outside. Said he'd looked and couldn't find a major home builder anywhere in the state. I thought that was interesting -- that the old city and streetcar suburb areas all seem like city and everything else seemed so thinly developed he couldn't find what looked to him like a suburb.

Most of our Boston suburbs do not look like suburbs in other parts of the country.

A post World War II. look with a town center, moderate density and blocks of residential homes uninterrupted by major roads or large conservation areas comes to mind for most.

Stoneham, all around, is pretty classic. Needham near the center, the Oakdale and Greenlodge neighborhoods of Dedham, Braintree, Warrendale neighborhood of Waltham, most of Natick, Nobscot neighborhood in Framingham, Stoughton and Randolph back in the day, and right within the city two of the most suburban areas of all, West Roxbury and Hyde Park meet the definition of suburban pretty well.

[90Cantab]

Originally Posted by missionhill

To me, "urban core" doesn't just mean urbanized areas but the key central sections of the city. In Boston, that would include parts of Brookline plus Cambridge and Somerville but maybe leave out parts of Boston like HP, Roslindale, West Roxbury. Roxbury has been more and more narrowly defined over the decades but at the time of annexation to Boston its limits included all of the Fenway-Northeastern Univ area, the Longwood Medical Area, Mission Hill, and Kenmore Square. So Roxbury can't be left out. I'd leave Quincy out of this. It's built up but hard to make a case for calling it "core". Urbanized areas continue northeast all the way to Beverly but we're not calling Lynn, Salem, Swampscott, etc part of the core either.

In another thread someplace comparing Boston to Austin, TX, someone (from a Texas perspective) said Boston has no suburbs: it's all city within Route 128 and country outside. Said he'd looked and couldn't find a major home builder anywhere in the state. I thought that was interesting -- that the old city and streetcar suburb areas all seem like city and everything else seemed so thinly developed he couldn't find what looked to him like a suburb.

Yeah that's how i read the question too. I'd leave the southern reaches of Dorchester, Rozzie, Westie, the outer reaches of Brighton. Roxbury, pre-urban renewal had a chance. The architecture of the South End used to stretch almost all the way down to Albany where it petered and stretched all the way west across Mass Ave to Ruggles St and Dudley Sq (Lower Roxbury today). You can still see some examples of what it would have looked like on Northampton St, Hammond and Greenwich Sts, and the odd building on Tremont. Since nearly everything west of Mass Ave (along with chunks taken between Washington and Albany) was demolished for 695 and the SWC it's harder to make a case for Lower Roxbury, but I'd still count it as the fringe of the core.

More to you point about Texas, what constitutes "urban". Are we counting streetcar suburbs? If so we'd have to widen the net considerably. To provide the counterpoint to your Austin example, I had a friend who grew up on 120th St in Manhattan who insisted that where I grew up (near intersection of Huron & Concord in Cambridge) was "very suburban". I disagreed, but then again I disagree on principle with all New Yorkers.

[Shizim]

Originally Posted by FourBuildingsDown

If you're going to add Chelsea, I'd also add Revere, Everett, Malden, and Medford. Agree with adding Quincy. Possibly even Watertown and Waltham. Definitely not Arlington. When I scroll out of Google Maps and see more areas of white and gray than green connected to Boston, I consider that Boston's urban core.

Maybe Everett south of rt 16, Medford/Malden in the Wellington area. I think rt 16 would be a good line of demarcation. i would not include Medford near the lakes or Lawrence estates?

Waltham is suburban. and watertown, while more dense, is suburban.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by 90Cantab

More to you point about Texas, what constitutes "urban". Are we counting streetcar suburbs? If so we'd have to widen the net considerably. To provide the counterpoint to your Austin example, I had a friend who grew up on 120th St in Manhattan who insisted that where I grew up (near intersection of Huron & Concord in Cambridge) was "very suburban". I disagreed, but then again I disagree on principle with all New Yorkers.

It's urban in the Boston context-- walkable, lots of public transp, houses close together, many multiple dwelling buildings. Not as dense as 120th St and Claremont or wherever it was, but urban.

I think we're counting streetcar suburbs, or some of them at least. What that term means now is areas that mostly people think of as urban, like Dorchester and Somerville. They were suburban when developed along the streetcar lines in the 1870-1920 period but people don't think of them as suburbs now.