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.
It is true though. Everett, Chelsea, Malden, Medford, Somerville, Revere, Watertown, Quincy, Cambridge, Brookline, etc are all very safe
That’s why on a metro level Boston is safer than New York.
I’m fact last call is 1am in Everett, Chelsea and Revere and they have all the poverty and diversity of Boston but are safer, so I suppose Boston should have earlier last call if they want crime to go down.
Chelsea and Revere are not very safe at all, neither is Lynn.
I’m fact last call is 1am in Everett, Chelsea and Revere and they have all the poverty and diversity of Boston but are safer, so I suppose Boston should have earlier last call if they want crime to go down.
For one thing, this makes no sense. For another, what does it have to do with the parks?
I voted for the Boston Commons/Gaaden. More intimate, central location in the heart of things, the swan boats, Beacon Hill, State House and Freedom Trail, just lovely. Many good college memories in that park. Central Park just doesn't do it for me.
I voted for Central Park. For one reason, I am more familiar with and I used to work for one year in Manhattan. I still have a lot of fresh memories of walking from office to the park after work and took a day tour in the weekend there. It was huge and wonderful place. Central park is in a lot of movies and tv shows too, so that it is a lot more famous.
For the Boston common, I only visited once, maybe twice for the tour of Boston with family and friends. It is place where the freedom tour tickets sale and start there. I found the common is quite small, also not very well known outside New England area. Sure, if I have chance, will visit there more in the future.
Boston Common is more like Battery Park not Central Park
True, this is my impression too. I am not too familiar with Boston common, but it is quite small in my prior visit. It really never came to my mind to compare Central Park vs Boston common. It is too far apart in terms of size.
Fwiw, the Common (50 acres) is twice the size of Battery Park (25 acres). The Public Garden is an additional 24 acres.
I maintain that Columbus Park is to Downtown Boston what Battery Park is to downtown Manhattan. The Common and Public Garden are the correct Boston-equivalents for Central Park in terms of location and function, imo.
The Common/Garden are much smaller than Central Park (because Boston is much smaller than Manhattan). But they are prettier and offer more on a “pound for pound” basis. In other words, the amenities are surprisingly similar given the enormous difference in size.
Both have ice skating, a body of water with boats, a pretty bridge, a carousel, a playground, plenty of open grassland for frisbee and picnics, space for outdoor concerts and plays, food vendors, easy access to restaurants and shopping. Central Park’s biggest amenities with no equivalents in the Common/Garden are the zoo, the Bethesda Terrace, and its woodsier sections. Central Park lacks a space with the same level of flower installations as the Public Garden and a wading pool like Frog Pond.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 04-11-2020 at 02:10 PM..
Very different parks. Boston Common started out as a town common for pasturing livestock, militia training, hangings, rug-beating, rope making, and other non-park activities. The common became more of a park in the 1830s-40s when the surroundings-- Beacon Street, Park St, Tremont Street--became genteel residential addresses. Even so it has retained a very simple layout and landscape-- nothing fussy or elaborate. The paths are all straight, criss-crossing each other at odd angles. No flowers, no shrubs, just grass, trees, paths, lots of benches, and an ornamental fence. Central Park is a work of landscape art with plenty of fussy and elaborate elements. Every path but one curves, in contrast to the relentlessly orthogonal NYC street grid. The designers had specific landscape effects in mind. They had a big budget, hence the elaborate bridges and picturesque buildings. Olmsted & Vaux intended to screen out the view of the city around through lush plantings along the edges. Joke on them: one of the thrills of Central Park is the views of skyscrapers of every era from inside the park. Boston Common never attempted to hide the surroundings and one of the distinctive things about it is the views of the unusual late 18th/early 19th century public and private buildings along its edges, especially the State House and Park Street Church. This visual relationship of the state, the church and the public sphere is the essence of the puritan colony and a part of Boston's enduring character.
As parks, no contest: Central Park was meant to give the nation's leading city a public space at least as beautiful and awesome as the royal parks of Europe. It has a tremendous diversity of attractions, experiences, things to do. They raise hundreds of millions in private monies from the wealthy neighborhoods around it while parks in poorer neighborhoods get by on the city's measly park funding. Whatever criticism one might level at that bit of uneven geography, Central park is a lavish, even spectacular urban experience.
In terms of the park itself, I would throw in Stanley Park in Vancouver BC, Golden Gate Park in SF, Griffith Park(more hiking oriented) in LA as fair comparisons to Central Park. But if we include the surroundings, Central Park has UES and UWS surrounding it and Midtown within walking distance. In that sense, Central Park is by far the most iconic and vibrant area(Park+Surroundings) for sure.
Having been to a number of these.. Chapultepec Park in Mexico City tops them all for me. It also has a royal Habsburg residence and a Global Top 10 Museum.
Boston Common is less than a 10th the size of Central Park and thus really can’t be compared... Fairmount Park might be more of a contest.
It is true though. Everett, Chelsea, Malden, Medford, Somerville, Revere, Watertown, Quincy, Cambridge, Brookline, etc are all very safe
That’s why on a metro level Boston is safer than New York.
I’m fact last call is 1am in Everett, Chelsea and Revere and they have all the poverty and diversity of Boston but are safer, so I suppose Boston should have earlier last call if they want crime to go down.
Chelsea is not safer than Boston.
Boston went through unique things, SW Expressway clearance , Busing desegregation, a more entrenched local gang culture from Irish gangs in the 50s-80s and African Americans beginning in the 80s . Factors places like Everett and Revere literally never had to face The is why I said specifically “city limits” and why I said early closing time is ONE of the factors keeping Boston relatively unsafe compared to NYC.
Had Everett and Revere been a part of the city of Boston and subject to the same historical problems I’d bet good money they’d be less safe. But this is off topic.
boston common is more like battery park not central park
+1.
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.
