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.
So is Chicago's, but neither Cleveland nor Chicago are in the running here.
As for the relative merits of skiing: I'm with Duderino on the relative merits/importance of skiing, but it is nice to hear that not-that-rich kids in Greater Boston can join ski clubs or ski teams at school. I suspect, however, that once you leave northern New England (Massachusetts is in the middle, but it counts too), you won't find too many of those at schools elsewhere save maybe Colorado. And you do have to travel for a bit from Denver to get to the slopes there as well. Growing up where I did in the Central Plains, it certainly wasn't something lots of people talked about — not even my affluent classmates in high school, who could certainly afford heading off to Aspen or Vail in the winter. (You should have seen the "Ski Kansas" posters produced when I was in high school. They were a hoot. One depicted someone ski-jumping over a cow; another showed a guy slogging a pair of skis through a field of sunflowers.)
But I am aware that ski buffs tend to look down their noses at Pennsylvania's ski runs. I've heard the acronym "MASH" ("Mid-Atlantic Ski Hell") tossed out once or twice.
I wouldn't say it's limited to only New England. Growing up in Northern NJ a long time ago, we had the same ski clubs after school to local mountains in NJ/NY starting in grade school. I know a lot of towns in NNJ and across the border in NYS had ski clubs/organizations. I remember Friday night skiing under the lights was always fun.
I think Madison is also very competitive in terms of its downtown setting, being on an isthmus between Lakes Mendota and Monona. They aren't the Great Lakes but still substantial bodies of water and very accessible from throughout the city.
This makes me wonder if/why the Detroit area isn’t a consideration. In part because OP would probably really enjoy areas like Grosse Point and Birmingham, but more because Ann Arbor is a great place to live with a large Healthcare presence.
Just something to think about OP.
I for one prefer MI to WI, and the Ann Arbor area to Madison. Though I do realize Madison is a large city than Ann Arbor itself.
Very pretty, no doubt. But I wouldn’t know if this was Massachusetts or PA or NY. Only the last picture, to me, is clearly not Massachusetts. It’s too lush/lacks the heavy forestation you’d see in MA.
I’ll post some pictures of Eastern Massachusetts that I’ve taken. On the flip side, you tell me if it could be in the Philadelphia metro.
I understand what you're saying. I mean, it's certainly not a difference between, say, the landscape of Miami versus Seattle, but there's a distinctive feel "on the ground" of the Piedmont that's hard to capture in pictures.
You really feel it on Pennsylvania's backroads--multiple times I've heard it referred to by outsiders as the "Shire."
You're right in that forestation is more intermittent but non-tree vegetation is denser (during "green" seasons, of course).
at half a million the place with the highest ranked sckools and the highest ranked hospitals is the obvious choice. with half a million c-o-l/q-o-l is a non-factor. what are we arguing here ?
at half a million the place with the highest ranked sckools and the highest ranked hospitals is the obvious choice. with half a million c-o-l/q-o-l is a non-factor. what are we arguing here ?
LOL.
I mean, you're basically just asserting that every potential doctor should just up and move to Boston. Think of the demographic nightmare that would create!
I'm sure the OP is well aware of Boston's medical and educational reputation, but my sense is that relocation decisions need to be quite a bit more nuanced than that factor alone.
I mean, you're basically just asserting that every potential doctor should just up and move to Boston. Think of the demographic nightmare that would create!
I'm sure the OP is well aware of Boston's medical and educational reputation, but my sense is that relocation decisions need to be quite a bit more nuanced than that factor alone.
Have you looked at housing prices in the Boston blue chip suburbs? The “demographic nightmare” happened many decades ago. Those towns were fully built out 50 years ago. However, a physician making mid-6 figures is going to have no problem buying into that housing market. The biggest change is that the working class towns of 50 years ago gentrified. For example, Natick was working class with little starter homes in 1980. It’s now 70% college educated adults and $125k household income. As the oldest Boomers die off, it will be close to 100% white collar. There are 30 or 40 towns in metro Boston with a similar trajectory.
Have you looked at housing prices in the Boston blue chip suburbs? The “demographic nightmare” happened many decades ago. Those towns were fully built out 50 years ago. However, a physician making mid-6 figures is going to have no problem buying into that housing market. The biggest change is that the working class towns of 50 years ago gentrified. For example, Natick was working class with little starter homes in 1980. It’s now 70% college educated adults and $125k household income. As the oldest Boomers die off, it will be close to 100% white collar. There are 30 or 40 towns in metro Boston with a similar trajectory.
This is what I fear might happen to Philadelphia if it chases "superstar city" status.
Both Greater Boston and the San Francisco Bay Area are becoming places where only two classes of people can afford to live: The very affluent and the very poor — if indeed they haven't completed this transition. The people in the middle, the ones who perform many of the services like picking up trash, teaching, staffing libraries and operating public transit vehicles — the basic services that keep the gears turning in the city — are increasingly unable to afford living where their jobs are.
I certainly don't want to see the middle disappear from the Philadelphia polity, society or economy.
I understand what you're saying. I mean, it's certainly not a difference between, say, the landscape of Miami versus Seattle, but there's a distinctive feel "on the ground" of the Piedmont that's hard to capture in pictures.
You really feel it on Pennsylvania's backroads--multiple times I've heard it referred to by outsiders as the "Shire."
You're right in that forestation is more intermittent but non-tree vegetation is denser (during "green" seasons, of course).
Here are a few photos of some of my favorite places in Massachusetts within ~60 miles of Boston, to play off of what dirtypirate posted. Frankly, all but one are within ~40 miles/in the Boston Metro. If we extended out, we'd start getting into VT/NH/ME and the Berkshires, but I decided not to go that route.
Some will look like the Philadelphia area posted above, but others most certainly will not. Apologies, as a few of these were taken from my old iphone.
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.
