Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which metro is more liveable for families?
Metro Boston 44 41.90%
Metro Chicago 61 58.10%
Voters: 105. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2020, 07:02 PM
 
24,559 posts, read 18,254,477 times
Reputation: 40260

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
^Mmhmm. Affordability is clearly Chicago’s ace in the hole for this particular comparison.
Which is why it is a slam dunk winner in a best place to raise a family thread. The housing in any strong school system suburban town with a non-soul crushing commute to the Boston and 128 jobs isn’t affordable on middle class income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2020, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Medfid
6,808 posts, read 6,043,031 times
Reputation: 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
I used to live in Andover. Lawrence is invisible. For retail, you shop in tax-free New Hampshire. I’ll bet that 90% of Andover residents don’t set foot in Lawrence in any given year. It’s a failed city with no retail. A classic example of socioeconomic segregation.
Really!? That’s too bad.

I just moved up here a few months ago, and I’ve been a handful of times. Lawrence has some great restaurants, and on Essex Street in particular there are some beautiful old buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Which is why it is a slam dunk winner in a best place to raise a family thread. The housing in any strong school system suburban town with a non-soul crushing commute to the Boston and 128 jobs isn’t affordable on middle class income.
Ain’t that the truth. (I just cast my vote for Chicago) Something really needs to change, but I’ll save it for the threads in the MA or Boston subforums.

Last edited by Boston Shudra; 01-15-2020 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 05:36 AM
 
817 posts, read 599,553 times
Reputation: 1174
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
^Mmhmm. Affordability is clearly Chicago’s ace in the hole for this particular comparison.
Definitely. But that alone wouldn't make Chicago a better place for families unless it were up against somewhere obscenely unaffordable like San Francisco (as opposed to sonewhere merely pricey like Boston).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 05:48 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
21,631 posts, read 12,766,606 times
Reputation: 11221
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch View Post
Definitely. But that alone wouldn't make Chicago a better place for families unless it were up against somewhere obscenely unaffordable like San Francisco (as opposed to sonewhere merely pricey like Boston).
for a lot of people Boston is obscenely unaffordable. You just named the only place more expnenisive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 05:54 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
21,631 posts, read 12,766,606 times
Reputation: 11221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119 View Post
Convenience, if you'd call that an amenity. There's more of everything, and often closer. Chicago communities maintain density- commercial and residential- far further than Boston suburbs. 95 towns in Boston, if it were like Illinois, would be as dense as Newton.
this. Most Boston suburbs have dismal practical amenities in my opinion. Even compared to metros that are far worse in QOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 07:31 AM
 
5,016 posts, read 3,918,842 times
Reputation: 4528
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade View Post
this. Most Boston suburbs have dismal practical amenities in my opinion. Even compared to metros that are far worse in QOL.
It's a big gap, no doubt.

But despite the NIMBYism and refusal of chains and box stores and just general commercial activity in a lot of 95/495 suburbs, I think Boston has the amount of amenities and luxuries that you'd expect from an MSA of it's size.

More than Seattle, less than Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 07:46 AM
 
5,016 posts, read 3,918,842 times
Reputation: 4528
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade View Post
for a lot of people Boston is obscenely unaffordable. You just named the only place more expnenisive.
As far as rental market, only SF and Manhattan are more expensive.

As far as buying homes, and other factors that play into COL, Boston is in line with DC and Seattle, and a step below San Diego and LA.

Boston IS incredibly expensive, but I think sometimes we forget about what other areas of the country are going through.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the Denver area as expensive as Boston/Seattle over the next five years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Medfid
6,808 posts, read 6,043,031 times
Reputation: 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119 View Post
Well Newton has 13 separate villages, many of which have their own main street/square, which gives it a considerable amount of walkability. But, Newton is an anomaly in this way, and functions more like Evanston in Illinois.
Not sure if I’d list Auburndale or Waban high on my list of top 50 MA urban nodes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch View Post
Definitely. But that alone wouldn't make Chicago a better place for families unless it were up against somewhere obscenely unaffordable like San Francisco (as opposed to sonewhere merely pricey like Boston).
Eh. You might be underestimating the difference in affordability. Remember men’s Deerfield/Andover comparison. The homes were almost twice as expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 07:55 AM
 
5,016 posts, read 3,918,842 times
Reputation: 4528
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
Not sure if I’d list Auburndale or Waban high on my list of top 50 MA urban nodes.
Well, if this were baseball, Newton is batting .750 for walkable vs. unwalkable areas to live.

I'd draft Newton over 95% of other Boston suburbs, based on this criteria.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2020, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Medfid
6,808 posts, read 6,043,031 times
Reputation: 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119 View Post
Well, if this were baseball, Newton is batting .750 for walkable vs. unwalkable areas to live.

I'd draft Newton over 95% of other Boston suburbs, based on this criteria.
I disagree pretty strongly with this, but this probably isn’t the thread to launch into Waltham vs Watertown vs Newton arguments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top