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.
I'd be interested where this data comes from. I'd always assumed that the two nearby cities with the larger number of commuters, as well as people relocating to one of the two cities, would be Baltimore and Washington DC. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I'd love to see some numbers though, either way.
And yes, as an affordable, walkable place I think Baltimore is wildly underrated. People hear about the crime there and they're scared off, but like everywhere, there are good neighborhoods, and people living in those have no need to visit the worst parts of the city. Rents and home prices, even in the most expensive neighborhoods, are relatively low, the city's got a ton of amenities, and some areas are walkable to a great extent--meaning that you could walk to shopping, dining, and for everyday necessities like a drug store or dry cleaners. Plus, the townhouse architecture is great. No huge mass transit system, but it can be car-light. I've always enjoyed myself there. I think Baltimore is a sleeper, and hope the more people will discover it.
I used to live in Baltimore and loved it there before moving to DC for work. Now I live in Philly.
While I agree that Baltimore is underrated and quite an awesome town, I think the crime spills over into the good neighborhoods more than most places. I lived in Mount Vernon for a little over a year, and spent another year in Fed Hill. I personally heard no less than 5 shootings, and there was a shootout with 40+ shots fired near my place on St. Paul Pl, and a young man killed in a robbery (in Fed - https://www.wmar2news.com/man-senten...mothy-moriconi) right in front of my place. It became a bit much for me as I knew people there personally affected by the crime. Now, 2 years into living in Philly, I've thankfully never heard a gunshot or met anyone who's had any issue.
Re: New Haven - it’s yes and no. For example, it’s default local TV stations are mostly Hartford based with a few NYC while FFC is in the NYC TV market and has all the CT local channels except Fox.
The direct line to NYC via Metro North commuter rail will always keep New Haven in the wider NYC realm, just not as tightly as FFC. New Haven also looks to NYC instead of Boston or even Hartford first as the big city nearby - generally speaking.
As for the places mentioned, you can find affordable spots but it will obviously require more work.
New Haven's also interesting as its own mini hub of sorts. Yale and associated institutions is pretty prominent and New Haven isn't just serviced by Metro-North, but also where it meets with Shore Line East and the Hartford Line. It's too bad that I-95 eats up so much of its waterfront though.
I feel like people underestimate how big a difference having large swaths of bad neighborhoods it effectively makes the city smaller.
In St Louis you more or less aren’t living in a big city if you just “don’t go north of Delmar” you’re living in a midsized city. (Which may be unfair) but there are very big gaps in the urban Fabric even if Delmar is a pretty egregious exaggeration. But it is an attitude that exists.
They only have like 10-12sq square miles of nice, walkable, urban areas. They’re “undervalued” because you don’t live your life in just your neighborhood. People go between areas for things. Most of the rest are either suburban or disinvested and so lack amenities you want in an urban neighborhood.
Like Portland v Baltimore. Well they’re “the same size” but Portland has far fewer blighted neighborhoods where outsiders don’t go so it is effectively bigger. Even if statistically it isn’t (despite Portland’s Homelessness problems as well)
I feel like people underestimate how big a difference having large swaths of bad neighborhoods it effectively makes the city smaller.
In St Louis you more or less aren’t living in a big city if you just “don’t go north of Delmar” you’re living in a midsized city. (Which may be unfair) but there are very big gaps in the urban Fabric even if Delmar is a pretty egregious exaggeration. But it is an attitude that exists.
They only have like 10-12sq square miles of nice, walkable, urban areas. They’re “undervalued” because you don’t live your life in just your neighborhood. People go between areas for things. Most of the rest are either suburban or disinvested and so lack amenities you want in an urban neighborhood.
Like Portland v Baltimore. Well they’re “the same size” but Portland has far fewer blighted neighborhoods where outsiders don’t go so it is effectively bigger. Even if statistically it isn’t (despite Portland’s Homelessness problems as well)
I think the larger emphasis to focus on is how large and connected the blocs of good neighborhoods are. Generally, blighted neighborhoods also have fairly little commercial density anyhow so they aren't all that walkable if part of the criteria for walkable are things to walk to in the first place. Portland's interesting in that there are two large blocs of very urban and walkable areas divided by a river and with one side of the riverfront mostly given over to highways--each of these blocs are smaller / less populous than the Baltimore core bloc, but not by much and the two blocs for Portland have frequent mass transit connections and pretty good bike infrastructure such that getting between the two isn't awful.
St. Louis doesn't reach very high walkscores / walkability for sizable stretches. There are pockets and the pockets often aren't so large that they expand past several city blocks. It's also riven with freeways as well as large railroad trunks that do a lot to cut parts off from each other so you end up with pockets like the Hill, Soulard, Lafayette Square, etc. that have their own individual cores that are quite nice, but aren't well-connected to others as they taper off within a relatively small area.
As far as bang for your buck goes, I think Tacoma is definitely up there. It's much less urban and much smaller than Chicago, Philly, and even Pittsburgh. It is however part of a much larger metro area which offers anything you could want. My reasons for putting it in the top is of course affordibility, and also it does offer an urban experience. The transit is good, it has a street car which has been expanded and is set to open next year, it offers urban districts outside of downtown, each with it's own personality, Tacoma has a relatively mild climate compared to East Coast or midwest cities, it rarely snows but you have access to winter fun in the nearby Cascade or Olympic mountain ranges, you have direct access to Puget Sound beaches, watersports, fishing, World Class parks (see Pt. Defiance), out standing museums, a thriving artist communtiy, quality food, and rich history. Not to mention, it's absolutely stunning and is about 20 miles closer to Mt. Rainier than Seatle which makes for an epic backdrop.
Yep. I just purchased a condo in Point Ruston (Tacoma) a few months ago. Umm, wow. It's amazing. The waterfront is .. spectacular (I don't typically use adjectives like that). The particular area is a bit pricey as far as real estate goes, but in other parts of the west coast (California) including Seattle, the cost to live in an area like this would be absurd. I'm blown away by the area and the waterfront and don't get me started on the views of Mt. Rainier from the waterfront. During the summer it's like living on the water in San Diego, but with a huge snow capped mountain in the backdrop. It's a VERY popular place to visit with the locals ....... uh, anyways, I'm going to shut up now before the rest of the country discovers this place.
I think the larger emphasis to focus on is how large and connected the blocs of good neighborhoods are. Generally, blighted neighborhoods also have fairly little commercial density anyhow so they aren't all that walkable if part of the criteria for walkable are things to walk to in the first place. Portland's interesting in that there are two large blocs of very urban and walkable areas divided by a river and with one side of the riverfront mostly given over to highways--each of these blocs are smaller / less populous than the Baltimore core bloc, but not by much and the two blocs for Portland have frequent mass transit connections and pretty good bike infrastructure such that getting between the two isn't awful.
St. Louis doesn't reach very high walkscores / walkability for sizable stretches. There are pockets and the pockets often aren't so large that they expand past several city blocks. It's also riven with freeways as well as large railroad trunks that do a lot to cut parts off from each other so you end up with pockets like the Hill, Soulard, Lafayette Square, etc. that have their own individual cores that are quite nice, but aren't well-connected to others as they taper off within a relatively small area.
That’s kind of what I’m talking about. Like nobody walks across New York, but the fact you have a large cohesive region makes a difference.
Like lots of West Baltimore is technically urban/relatively high transit/bike shares, dense etc. but it’s not like some Fells Point resident is going to hop in a bus out to West Baltimore to do whatever, like someone from Williamsburg might to go LIC or Morning-side Heights.
So effectively Baltimore is not as urban/walkable of a city compared to what it says “on paper”
That’s kind of what I’m talking about. Like nobody walks across New York, but the fact you have a large cohesive region makes a difference.
Like lots of West Baltimore is technically urban/relatively high transit/bike shares, dense etc. but it’s not like some Fells Point resident is going to hop in a bus out to West Baltimore to do whatever, like someone from Williamsburg might to go LIC or Morning-side Heights.
So effectively Baltimore is not as urban/walkable of a city compared to what it says “on paper”
Right, I think walkable isn't just transit and residentially dense though that helps. It also needs commercial density and the jobs that go with it and the jobs accessible to the community to support those commercial establishments. It's why I like walkscore to some extent as a rough proxy because it strongly factors commercial density of a variety of things which I think is a good proxy for a lot of what we're talking about.
Re: New Haven - it’s yes and no. For example, it’s default local TV stations are mostly Hartford based with a few NYC while FFC is in the NYC TV market and has all the CT local channels except Fox.
The direct line to NYC via Metro North commuter rail will always keep New Haven in the wider NYC realm, just not as tightly as FFC. New Haven also looks to NYC instead of Boston or even Hartford first as the big city nearby - generally speaking.
As for the places mentioned, you can find affordable spots but it will obviously require more work.
A footnote supporting the argument that New Haven is perhaps better thought of as a satellite city or lesser hub rather than a suburban center à la Stamford:
One of the commercial broadcast network TV stations serving the New Haven-Hartford market is licensed to New Haven: the ABC station, WTNH (channel 8).
As far as bang for your buck goes, I think Tacoma is definitely up there. It's much less urban and much smaller than Chicago, Philly, and even Pittsburgh. It is however part of a much larger metro area which offers anything you could want. My reasons for putting it in the top is of course affordibility, and also it does offer an urban experience. The transit is good, it has a street car which has been expanded and is set to open next year, it offers urban districts outside of downtown, each with it's own personality, Tacoma has a relatively mild climate compared to East Coast or midwest cities, it rarely snows but you have access to winter fun in the nearby Cascade or Olympic mountain ranges, you have direct access to Puget Sound beaches, watersports, fishing, World Class parks (see Pt. Defiance), out standing museums, a thriving artist communtiy, quality food, and rich history. Not to mention, it's absolutely stunning and is about 20 miles closer to Mt. Rainier than Seatle which makes for an epic backdrop.
Yep. I just purchased a condo in Point Ruston (Tacoma) a few months ago. Umm, wow. It's amazing. The waterfront is .. spectacular (I don't typically use adjectives like that). The particular area is a bit pricey as far as real estate goes, but in other parts of the west coast (California) including Seattle, the cost to live in an area like this would be absurd. I'm blown away by the area and the waterfront and don't get me started on the views of Mt. Rainier from the waterfront. During the summer it's like living on the water in San Diego, but with a huge snow capped mountain in the backdrop. It's a VERY popular place to visit with the locals ....... uh, anyways, I'm going to shut up now before the rest of the country discovers this place.
Thanks. On my bucket list in the coming years is a week in the Puget Sound area, and I am going to make sure I take a day-trip to Tacoma.
Thanks. On my bucket list in the coming years is a week in the Puget Sound area, and I am going to make sure I take a day-trip to Tacoma.
Go to the Hoh Rainforest! It's so awesome!
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.
