Those leaving Boston, or who have left Boston. Do You Have any Regrets? Where did you move? (Quincy: apartments, condos) - Massachusetts (MA) - Page 11 - City-Data Forum

creative36 · 11-08-2009, 06:37 PM

I lived in Milton, ma and moved to just outside of philly and totally miss mass. I miss pretty much everything about it. Love the winters, love the city. People are just as rude in philly area. I missed all the marijuana that was flowing around at the time. Everyone was cool and the women. Women were everywhere. I really missed that women in pennsylvania are ugly and snobs. Snobs! go figure.

GROVE51 · 11-10-2009, 06:38 AM

i use to live in south boston (southie ) and i now live in roanoke,va and iam very glad i moved here!! Not much crime like in boston! Things are cheaper here! My rent i pay $345 with light's and heat incluted and i have a bathroom,bedroom,liveingroom and a kit!!! Now a apt. In boston like that would cost alot more money then that!! Unless you lived in houseing and i did live in houseing there in southie but i hear it has a lot of crime there now!! Did any one find whitey yet?! Lol!!

Bad2theBone · 11-10-2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creative36

I lived in Milton, ma and moved to just outside of philly and totally miss mass. I miss pretty much everything about it. Love the winters, love the city. People are just as rude in philly area. I missed all the marijuana that was flowing around at the time. Everyone was cool and the women. Women were everywhere. I really missed that women in pennsylvania are ugly and snobs. Snobs! go figure.

Where in Milton did you live? I lived on Sumner st. during the 50's & 60's. Moved to S. Florida in 1970.

Braunwyn · 11-10-2009, 10:49 AM

I love MA too. The winters suck, tho. OTOH, they're beautiful as well. I have recently moved to metro-west, and I'm digging it.There's nothing in the US like Cambridge that I've come across. As far as people coming off as rude, I don't think so. I've come across rude people in San Fran the most. People here are just real, imo.

lrfox · 11-12-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GROVE51

i use to live in south boston (southie ) and i now live in roanoke,va and iam very glad i moved here!! Not much crime like in boston! Things are cheaper here! My rent i pay $345 with light's and heat incluted and i have a bathroom,bedroom,liveingroom and a kit!!! Now a apt. In boston like that would cost alot more money then that!! Unless you lived in houseing and i did live in houseing there in southie but i hear it has a lot of crime there now!! Did any one find whitey yet?! Lol!!

That's cheap and I don't blame you for liking it much better. There's no question you wouldn't find that in Boston for the money. On the other hand, Crime is actually a bit lower in Boston than it is in Roanoke, so I don't know where you're coming from on that front (check the crime stats right here on City Data).

Highwyre237 · 11-17-2009, 09:23 AM

I'm originally from NY, came to Boston for college and Moved to Austin,TX after about a year out opf school... Within 6 months I moved back. It was great to skip a New England winter, but when you're used to and enjoy the speed of the northeast, you cant move to a southern city...

Martha Anne · 11-25-2009, 07:53 AM

In reply, in part, to the post by 1rfox:

I will assume that you are not as old as I am. I already had my 60th birthday. When I was starting college, the only tall buildings were the Pru and the Customs Building (which my cousin and grandfather worked in as customs workers <s>! My cousin is still alive and 99 or 100 years old and she worked as a clerk in that building for 40 years, can you imagine that?)

But, anyway, when I started college in the mid 60's, all of Boston, especially the Back Bay and Beacon Hill, was lovely to behold, with the tallest structures being the church steeples and the Customs House. You must remember that the Customs House is reminiscent of the occasional tower or tall building in 19th century London or even in Italy. It is not to be compared with a skyscraper-type tall modern structure, in my opinion. It's a narrow tower, and in keeping with the colonial architecture and scale of other buildings that were built in the 18th and 19th century in this city. This is just my opinion. Boston was lovely in the 50's because this period architecture was what you saw on the horizon, not some ubiquitous modern tall office building. When the John Hancock building went up, not everyone was happy, believe me! Not everyone wanted to see a tall modern design introduced into Copley Square - although I will now admit to you that I got to like it pretty fast. But I never got to like the destruction of the original roof line and atmosphere in the financial district, all the way up to Faneuil Hall, believe me! Maybe I am not for "progress" or something. I don't know. Supposedly, others might say, we "need" these tall modern office towers. But I think that the way Boston used to look was far more desirable than it looks now.

You asked what it is about height that I prefer: Well, I just want to see the original rooftop and church steeple lines of Beacon Hill and the Back Bay - too late for that now, though!

Martha Anne · 11-25-2009, 08:03 AM

To 1rfox,

Just stand on the MIT-side, the banks, of the Charles River and look over at Boston. What you see is not the wonderful roof tops of Beacon Hill and the Back Bay: You look at modern skyscrapers or tall modern buildings. This is what I am talking about. Very sad, IMO. Actually, tragic!

Martha Anne · 11-25-2009, 08:08 AM

Firefox wrote:

<<Tall buildings are necessary in order to stay competitive with other cities. Boston more than just about any city (with the exceptions of NYC, Chicago and San Francisco) has limited space.>>

OK, you finally said it. You are saying we need these tall buildings.

Even if you are right, this doesn't mean that we have a city which is anything like it was. In many ways, it's just another modern city.

Martha Anne · 11-25-2009, 08:20 AM

1Frfox wrote: <<Yes. I am serious. Manhattan (The lower half, anyway) is home to the most expensive and exclusive residential real estate in the nation. There is a reason for that and I can assure you that it's not the most elite residential area in the nation because it's "not desirable." It's expensive because it's super desirable and there's such precious little space.>>

OK, so now you are moving into a discussion of proximity, not architectural beauty and every day quality of life. New York (Manhattan) is a hard place to live in from a quality of life point of view. It is dirty, aggressive - everyone walks fast, extremely noisy and too expensive for the average person. And don't forget that much of NY (stores, the arts) is not exclusive to NY anymore. The BSO and many other orchestras are, IMO, being a classical music type, better than the NY Philharmonic. Yes, there is the Met Opera and the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Natural History, but to live in NY for that? My friend is a life long Manhattan resident and a theater director who was nominated for the Helen Hayes award. His stated opinion to me is that there is little theater you'd want to see in NY. The Irish Repertory Theater comes to town briefly every year, etc. Most of the theater in NY is not considered to be worth your time, he says.

Bands? Well, I am not into bands at all, sorry!