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.
From a purely built form standpoint are Sunbelt suburbs really that much more monotonous than Northeastern metros.
Like Miami looks nothing like Atlanta which looks nothing like Dallas which looks nothing like Phoenix.
And within metro areas Roxbury and Everett basically look identical. Hyde Park and Revere are basically the same Malden and Dorchester are not radically different. Malden might have a few more pitched roofs but that’s basically it
The biggest difference is coastal colonial towns vs inland mill towns but all the mill towns basically look the same wherever it is
Unless you’re talking segregation (Eg Everett feels very different cause it’s very Brazilian/White while Roxbury is very Black/West Indian) not because the physical build is different.
The two-family house style common in Greater Boston from the 1910s into the early part of the Great Depression was the immediate fruit of the adoption of state legislation in 1912 to allow municipalities to essentially zone-out triple-plus decker multi-family housing.
Ironically, the suburban areas of these cities are not too different. They are mostly low-density and woodsy. I know Atlanta gets hit with the 'sprawl' word, and Boston doesn't, but that's more because Boston's suburbs were first established as small, independent farming communities in the 1700's (and I should know as I grew up in one of them). But given that they now serve the same purpose as Atlanta's suburbs, i.e. funneling well-heeled commuters into the major employment nodes, I don't think they are actually that different.
The difference to me is in the core, where Boston is old and high-density, and Atlanta is new'ish and medium density. Boston is certainly more walkable. Atlanta's core is physically larger due to the lower density. But from an amenities perspective they seem about evenly matched, you just need to drive to more of them in Atlanta. So preference comes down to whether walkable & well preserved is worth the $$$ premium to live in.
At one point in my life I would have said yes, but now I'm not so sure (acknowledging that where I am now is much more similar to Boston on every level than Atlanta). Boston and similar cities lack 'easy living', which I got a taste of when I lived in Dallas. By that I mean, you could live in a leafy, in-town neighborhood close to cool restaurants & bars (and able to walk to a small handful of them), but also have my car in my driveway and make quick trips to Target or drive the kids to soccer and have plenty of parking when I need to and it's not a huge hassle. That's frankly not possible in Boston, though there you could walk to 50 restaurants instead of 5. Tradeoffs I suppose.
Ironically, the suburban areas of these cities are not too different. They are mostly low-density and woodsy. I know Atlanta gets hit with the 'sprawl' word, and Boston doesn't, but that's more because Boston's suburbs were first established as small, independent farming communities in the 1700's (and I should know as I grew up in one of them). But given that they now serve the same purpose as Atlanta's suburbs, i.e. funneling well-heeled commuters into the major employment nodes, I don't think they are actually that different.
The difference to me is in the core, where Boston is old and high-density, and Atlanta is new'ish and medium density. Boston is certainly more walkable. Atlanta's core is physically larger due to the lower density. But from an amenities perspective they seem about evenly matched, you just need to drive to more of them in Atlanta. So preference comes down to whether walkable & well preserved is worth the $$$ premium to live in.
At one point in my life I would have said yes, but now I'm not so sure (acknowledging that where I am now is much more similar to Boston on every level than Atlanta). Boston and similar cities lack 'easy living', which I got a taste of when I lived in Dallas. By that I mean, you could live in a leafy, in-town neighborhood close to cool restaurants & bars (and able to walk to a small handful of them), but also have my car in my driveway and make quick trips to Target or drive the kids to soccer and have plenty of parking when I need to and it's not a huge hassle. That's frankly not possible in Boston, though there you could walk to 50 restaurants instead of 5. Tradeoffs I suppose.
Ironically, the suburban areas of these cities are not too different. They are mostly low-density and woodsy. I know Atlanta gets hit with the 'sprawl' word, and Boston doesn't, but that's more because Boston's suburbs were first established as small, independent farming communities in the 1700's (and I should know as I grew up in one of them). But given that they now serve the same purpose as Atlanta's suburbs, i.e. funneling well-heeled commuters into the major employment nodes, I don't think they are actually that different.
The difference to me is in the core, where Boston is old and high-density, and Atlanta is new'ish and medium density. Boston is certainly more walkable. Atlanta's core is physically larger due to the lower density. But from an amenities perspective they seem about evenly matched, you just need to drive to more of them in Atlanta. So preference comes down to whether walkable & well preserved is worth the $$$ premium to live in.
At one point in my life I would have said yes, but now I'm not so sure (acknowledging that where I am now is much more similar to Boston on every level than Atlanta). Boston and similar cities lack 'easy living', which I got a taste of when I lived in Dallas. By that I mean, you could live in a leafy, in-town neighborhood close to cool restaurants & bars (and able to walk to a small handful of them), but also have my car in my driveway and make quick trips to Target or drive the kids to soccer and have plenty of parking when I need to and it's not a huge hassle. That's frankly not possible in Boston, though there you could walk to 50 restaurants instead of 5. Tradeoffs I suppose.
Isn’t that just like Waltham? Or Quincy? Or Woburn? Or all of Newton
Tons of 128 towns are like that but those are the only ones I wouldn’t describe as simply cute.
. By that I mean, you could live in a leafy, in-town neighborhood close to cool restaurants & bars (and able to walk to a small handful of them), but also have my car in my driveway and make quick trips to Target or drive the kids to soccer and have plenty of parking when I need to and it's not a huge hassle. That's frankly not possible in Boston, though there you could walk to 50 restaurants instead of 5. Tradeoffs I suppose.
This is obviously possible in the Boston area...you just have to pay for it.
Quincy Dedham Newton Waltham Canton...its exists.
But overall, your comparison of the suburbs is still fairly surface-level.
Aside from being low-density and un gridded, what else is the similarity?
No they don't both exist to funnel workers into the core city. Boston has many satellite cities serving regional hubs and suburban office parks. Many of the workers are going into Cambridge too btw.
This ignores the huge difference in the age of homes, the difference in New England town centers, the huge racial differences, the dense inner ring suburbs of Boston, lower crime rates in Bostons' suburbs in general, and its old Mill cities. All major differences between its suburbia and Atlanta's.
Ironically, the suburban areas of these cities are not too different. They are mostly low-density and woodsy. I know Atlanta gets hit with the 'sprawl' word, and Boston doesn't, but that's more because Boston's suburbs were first established as small, independent farming communities in the 1700's (and I should know as I grew up in one of them). But given that they now serve the same purpose as Atlanta's suburbs, i.e. funneling well-heeled commuters into the major employment nodes, I don't think they are actually that different.
The difference to me is in the core, where Boston is old and high-density, and Atlanta is new'ish and medium density. Boston is certainly more walkable. Atlanta's core is physically larger due to the lower density. But from an amenities perspective they seem about evenly matched, you just need to drive to more of them in Atlanta. So preference comes down to whether walkable & well preserved is worth the $$$ premium to live in.
At one point in my life I would have said yes, but now I'm not so sure (acknowledging that where I am now is much more similar to Boston on every level than Atlanta). Boston and similar cities lack 'easy living', which I got a taste of when I lived in Dallas. By that I mean, you could live in a leafy, in-town neighborhood close to cool restaurants & bars (and able to walk to a small handful of them), but also have my car in my driveway and make quick trips to Target or drive the kids to soccer and have plenty of parking when I need to and it's not a huge hassle. That's frankly not possible in Boston, though there you could walk to 50 restaurants instead of 5. Tradeoffs I suppose.
I think it's more accurate to say it costs more to have that in Boston with the corollary that there are probably more jobs that pay more in Boston as well.
I also think the many and density of local downtowns / main streets often with a public square is a lot higher and more active in the Boston area and often also have some commuter rail service which overall gives it more foot traffic. Target is still usually out in sprawlsville, but there are more alternatives to Target in the Boston area, spread among smaller stores.
Isn’t that just like Waltham? Or Quincy? Or Woburn? Or all of Newton
Tons of 128 towns are like that but those are the only ones I wouldn’t describe as simply cute.
But none of those places are centers of top restaurants & nightlife like you would get in the equivalent 'within-city-limits' neighborhoods in a city like Atlanta (or Dallas, which is similar in that regard and in which I'm more familiar), which will have craftsman & bungalow-style houses and a block away a club that's open until 3am. Outside of Waltham, all of those places roll up their sleeves at 9pm, and regardless of closing time they are simply not very good and certainly not cool (and that includes Waltham). That's not a knock on those places btw, it's how suburbs were designed, and you could likely say that about the Atlanta suburbs as well. I.e. nobody from the South End or Camberville is trekking out to Woburn to check out a new restaurant. Newton is the only example where that may be possible, but a livable 3 bedroom home would be $1.5M+. I say this as someone from the Boston area who still likes it (a lot).
Atlanta would have some of their top restaurants & nightlife accessible to a more medium-density & suburban neighborhood (will leave direct compares to the Atlanta crowd, but a Dallas neighborhood example would be Knox-Henderson and I know Atlanta has similar).
I guess my entire point was that it is possible to live a more urbane lifestyle but also have more suburban-style creature comforts in cities outside of the Northeast. It's certainly not possible where I live now in the NYC area, except for possibly Montclair (which is an outlier). I'm surprised this point is controversial, I assumed this was well established?
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.
