Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Somerville pretty much = Cambridge sans a couple higher ed places named Harvard and MIT (though Tufts is just over the Somerville border in Medford)... But I thought I read somewhere that Somerville is had the greatest pop density in the region (and therefore the state). No wonder they're getting the GLX a couple decades after the RLX to Alewife -- apparently Deval Patrick, as governor, was largely responsible for getting the moribund GLX project back on track, literally... Upon completion, Somerville will have more intimate rapid transit service than Boston itself.
Somerville is mostly a triple-decker city, with some streets having nothing but that for its housing options. There are a number of two-family homes, and the somewhat rare single-family home, but the triple-decker dominates, thus accounting for the extremely-high-density of the city..
Denver as a "poor man's DC" is bizzare to me. I feel like those two cities would attract entirely different people. If I was gonna name a bigger and more expensive Denver I would go with Seattle. I can't really think of anything that would be a "lower cost DC" other than neighbors Philly and Baltimore.
Denver as a "poor man's DC" is bizzare to me. I feel like those two cities would attract entirely different people. If I was gonna name a bigger and more expensive Denver I would go with Seattle. I can't really think of anything that would be a "lower cost DC" other than neighbors Philly and Baltimore.
I'm not seeing the parallels between Richmond and either Portland, except maybe in the Fan District of the former, and I wouldn't call Virginia's capital a "poor man's" anything.
A certain air of gentility hangs over the entire Commonwealth of Virginia that sort of sets it off from the rest of the South.
I'm not seeing the parallels between Richmond and either Portland, except maybe in the Fan District of the former, and I wouldn't call Virginia's capital a "poor man's" anything.
A certain air of gentility hangs over the entire Commonwealth of Virginia that sort of sets it off from the rest of the South.
"Richmond, long known as a sleepy capital steeped in Confederate history, has morphed into a dynamic cultural center on the cutting edge of the arts, food and recreation. Within easy driving distance from Washington, D.C., Charlottesville, Va., and Virginia Beach, the city is a magnet for Washington expats, millennials and college students..."
Perhaps. I view this as just a figure of speech. Basically it's saying "If I wanted to live in X city but wasn't affluent enough to afford it, then Y city is a reasonable stand-in for it on a lower budget." Just because something is more expensive doesn't always make it more desirable or "better than". I mean it would cost me a LOT more money to move back to the suburban doldrums of Northern Virginia where I used to reside. I currently live and work in Downtown Pittsburgh for less money and wouldn't trade it for suburbia---ever.
My thoughts?
Denver would be a poor man's DC for the reasons mentioned by Katarina Witt upthread.
Minneapolis would be a poor man's Seattle (very white, very safe, very literate, very liberal cities with booming economies---but Minneapolis is cheaper than Seattle).
Pittsburgh would be a poor man's Portland, OR (controversial, I know, but both cities/metro areas are lush/green, are very gray/dreary/rainy, are very well-educated/literate, are very white, are similarly-sized, have a strong river orientation, have a lot of people who take pride in being "weird", have a lot of urban elitists, people seem to think both cities/MSA's are larger than they really are, etc.) I don't really see the Pittsburgh vs. Boston comparison since Boston is so much larger than Pittsburgh. I feel like you could live in Pittsburgh for cheaper than Portland while not sacrificing much in the way of quality-of-life whereas Pittsburgh is a HUGE step down from Boston that might not be fully worth the cost-of-living differential. I personally would be unhappy if someone told me "You can't afford Boston, but you can afford Pittsburgh." I'd be less unhappy if someone told me "You can't afford Portland, but you can afford Pittsburgh." I'd personally prefer to live in Boston over Pittsburgh IF I wasn't lower-middle-class (which I am). I also feel like Pittsburgh has many more yinzers than Boston has "townies".
Philadelphia would be a poor man's Brooklyn (albeit Brooklyn is NOT a standalone city).
Chicago would be a poor man's Toronto. I've often thought both of these cities were very similar and am surprised they're not compared/contrasted more often on here.
Omaha would be a poor man's Des Moines maybe? (Flame away on that one).
I've also always found Grand Rapids, MI and Rochester, NY to be quite comparable, but I'm not sure which one is more expensive at present.
I'm not as familiar with this comparison, but could Seattle be a poor man's Vancouver, or would it be the other way around? I've always assumed Vancouver was more expensive than Seattle.
Minneapolis is very safe? Take it you havent seen all the crazy mugging videos from the past year? They're insane, go find some. St Paul had record murders last year, too. Things people don't bring up about minnieapple for some reason: the crime and humidity.
Taken from a cbsnews article from last year
"Minneapolis has above-average rates of murder and aggravated assault, but the rape and robbery rates are especially disturbing."
Last edited by dontbelievehim; 01-09-2020 at 03:58 PM..
Philadelphia would be a poor man's Brooklyn (albeit Brooklyn is NOT a standalone city).
Chicago would be a poor man's Toronto. I've often thought both of these cities were very similar and am surprised they're not compared/contrasted more often on here.
Omaha would be a poor man's Des Moines maybe? (Flame away on that one).
1. Which is why Brooklynites are moving to Philadelphia in large numbers. I think my objection to the term is that I think the phrase "a poor man's _________" implies that the place so labeled is somehow an inferior or lesser version of the place it's being compared to, and often enough, the ways in which the other place is "lesser" are trivial or superficial - one could be perfectly happy living in the "poor man's" equivalent (which I think you just said). In the case of Brooklyn and Philadelphia, a Philly rapper quoted a Brooklyn-transplant friend in a Phillymag interview as saying of his new hometown:
"It's like 80 percent of New York at 20 percent of the cost!"
I'd say that's a good bit more than sloppy seconds.
2. Omaha and Des Moines are comparable in size - in fact, I think that the city of Omaha is more populous than the city of Des Moines. The comparison that has been made upthread is more apt IMO: Omaha is a poor man's Kansas City. (Sheesh, Omaha is the home of the Kansas City Royals' Triple-A farm club.)
Perhaps. I view this as just a figure of speech. Basically it's saying "If I wanted to live in X city but wasn't affluent enough to afford it, then Y city is a reasonable stand-in for it on a lower budget." Just because something is more expensive doesn't always make it more desirable or "better than". I mean it would cost me a LOT more money to move back to the suburban doldrums of Northern Virginia where I used to reside. I currently live and work in Downtown Pittsburgh for less money and wouldn't trade it for suburbia---ever.
My thoughts?
Denver would be a poor man's DC for the reasons mentioned by Katarina Witt upthread.
Minneapolis would be a poor man's Seattle (very white, very safe, very literate, very liberal cities with booming economies---but Minneapolis is cheaper than Seattle).
Pittsburgh would be a poor man's Portland, OR (controversial, I know, but both cities/metro areas are lush/green, are very gray/dreary/rainy, are very well-educated/literate, are very white, are similarly-sized, have a strong river orientation, have a lot of people who take pride in being "weird", have a lot of urban elitists, people seem to think both cities/MSA's are larger than they really are, etc.) I don't really see the Pittsburgh vs. Boston comparison since Boston is so much larger than Pittsburgh. I feel like you could live in Pittsburgh for cheaper than Portland while not sacrificing much in the way of quality-of-life whereas Pittsburgh is a HUGE step down from Boston that might not be fully worth the cost-of-living differential. I personally would be unhappy if someone told me "You can't afford Boston, but you can afford Pittsburgh." I'd be less unhappy if someone told me "You can't afford Portland, but you can afford Pittsburgh." I'd personally prefer to live in Boston over Pittsburgh IF I wasn't lower-middle-class (which I am). I also feel like Pittsburgh has many more yinzers than Boston has "townies".
Philadelphia would be a poor man's Brooklyn (albeit Brooklyn is NOT a standalone city).
Chicago would be a poor man's Toronto. I've often thought both of these cities were very similar and am surprised they're not compared/contrasted more often on here.
.
Wait, what?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
