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 wanted to do a few more around the metro, like Beverly and Cohasset, but I ran out of steam. A few of the most affluent suburbs, like Dover, Weston, Carlisle, Lincoln, have few streetviews and do them no justice. But, they are absolutely stunning, especially on a drive in the spring and fall.
I'd have a really hard time choosing and accumulating the right suburbs across the different areas in the NYC metro.
For Boston, which is something I've done before, here are a few of my favorites:
It's hard for me to imagine a big city with a more well-rounded set of suburbs than Boston, and I think you're post captured them nicely. NYC would compare favorably (Gold Coast of LI, Northern Westchester, FFC, many nice towns in North Jersey), but a bit unfair as the metro area is 4-5x larger.
I also quite like Mainline Philadelphia. I don't quite "get" all the love for the DC suburbs, outside of Bethesda and that area. The Virginia suburbs mostly seemed fairly bland to me (outside of a few neighborhoods within Arlington), but will confess not being as familiar there.
My other frame of reference is Dallas, which I would not rank highly for suburbs outside of the Park Cities (which are surrounded on all sides by the city of Dallas, similar to Beverly Hills).
Not familiar with west coast suburbs outside of some of the famous ones so will leave the rankings to others there.
It's hard for me to imagine a big city with a more well-rounded set of suburbs than Boston, and I think you're post captured them nicely. NYC would compare favorably (Gold Coast of LI, Northern Westchester, FFC, many nice towns in North Jersey), but a bit unfair as the metro area is 4-5x larger.
I also quite like Mainline Philadelphia. I don't quite "get" all the love for the DC suburbs, outside of Bethesda and that area. The Virginia suburbs mostly seemed fairly bland to me (outside of a few neighborhoods within Arlington), but will confess not being as familiar there.
My other frame of reference is Dallas, which I would not rank highly for suburbs outside of the Park Cities (which are surrounded on all sides by the city of Dallas, similar to Beverly Hills).
Not familiar with west coast suburbs outside of some of the famous ones so will leave the rankings to others there.
In sheer numbers, there is no doubt in my mind NYC and LA are runaways in this poll.
As far as a city like DC, I think it’s fair to call the Metro balanced, with appeal to folks that prefer old and new, small and large. It’s likely why it has such mass appeal on CD. But I do agree, Northern Virginia is pretty vanilla once you move beyond Alexandria and Arlington.
The reality is, there are a lot of people that would rather live in a Vienna, VA, John’s Creek, GA, or Cary, NC over an area like Marblehead or Concord in the case of MA, or Scarsdale or Tarrytown in the case of NY. Newer, more modern, more space, more convenience (in some ways) and easier on the wallet. And, I can totally understand it.
I think another interesting thing about this discussion is the fundamental differences between the suburbs of different metros which makes them hard to compare, as a lot of it will boil down to personal preference. Like comparing suburbs in say Boston or Philly to those in say Atlanta, Houston, or Dallas is so difficult because of the way they’re built. The outer suburbs of Boston and Philly seem very quaint, charming, and picturesque and have nice walkable villages along commuter rail lines. These suburbs seem to know their place and take a backseat to the main city. In contrast the outer suburbs of Atlanta, Houston, or Dallas seem more developed and are much more auto oriented in nature. The suburbs in these cities seem to be bigger players though, as they actively siphon things away from their main cities like major high paying employment, high end shopping, amenities, etc. These suburbs also have lots more new construction going on and are typically more diverse. Now I know there are some exceptions like King of Prussia, which seems more sunbeltish, but KOP seems more like the exception rather than the norm in the Philly area. I just thought it’s a very interesting distinction. Suburbs in Boston definitely feel a lot more exclusive than cities like Houston and Dallas.
No doubt about it. Jersey suburbs are by far the most connected and Bergen and Hudson are the only two non-NYC counties directly connected to Manhattan. North Jersey always has been and always will be Manhattan's backyard or front door depending on one's perspective.
There are sooo many towns in North Jersey that look similar to the street view you just shared of Ridgefield. Let's put it this way...the furthest town in northwestern Bergen County (beautiful, rolling hills, bucolic Mahwah right on the state line) is closer to Central Park than basically the closest town in CT (Greenwich). No knock on those other places but of course Jersey feels more connected because it is.
Is this actually right? If so my hat is off to you, writing as a former Northern NJ resident. That belongs in the Oddities of Geography post.
I'm not trying to pick on this in any way, because the Main Line certainly is the most renowned and prestigious area of the Philly 'burbs.
It's just a shame that the ML reputation overshadows the plethora of great communities across the Philly area (many of which are very similar to the Main Line in form/aesthetic, just not as famously wealthy).
I wanted to do a few more around the metro, like Beverly and Cohasset, but I ran out of steam. A few of the most affluent suburbs, like Dover, Weston, Carlisle, Lincoln, have few streetviews and do them no justice. But, they are absolutely stunning, especially on a drive in the spring and fall.
I owned a house in Winchester. I lived in Andover and Arlington. Your streetviews are quite representative.
The problem with Boston now is affordability. The other issue is the totally broken commuter rail and subway layout. Unlike the cities with the best mass transit setup, you can change jobs and your inner suburb suddenly becomes an impossible commute. Commuter rail to north station is useless if you need to get to the new Seaport District. Logan Airport is lousy access for everyone.
If your metrics are affordability and ease of navigating the urban area without a car, Boston is last of the largest Northeast Corridor cities.
Yeah, it's interesting to see Chesterbrook topping the list perennially, but I agree that it would be nice to see some "switching up."
I think what makes the Philadelphia suburbs so prominent on the Niche ranking--and this is something surprisingly that hasn't been discussed much in this thread in an age of insane housing costs and never-ending inflation--is that the Philly 'burbs are still an incredibly good value, especially by East Coast standards.
Dare I say that the Philadelphia region has amongst the best (along with Chicago) income-to-COL ratio amongst the other comparison cities in this thread, which really boosts relative wealth?
Go ahead and say it. Among our largest metropolitan areas, Philadelphia has just about the best ratio of income to COL, and that's our ace in the hole.
(Of course, Philly also shares with Chicago a reputation for high crime in parts of the core city. That rep tends to make suburbanites out of more locals in both cities than might otherwise be the case, though it's my impression that Chicagoans don't exaggerate the problem as much as Philadelphians do.)
Your point about the Main Line sucking up most of the reputational oxygen hereabouts is also very well taken. I'm a committed urbanophile (even though the city neighborhood I live in probably wouldn't strike residents of places like Greenwich Village, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill or even Washington Square West as all that urban in appearance), but I've also often remarked that this region is lousy with attractive, walkable suburbs with very healthy Main Street-style business districts. One of them, Media, is one of only a handful of suburbs in America that has a trolley running down the middle of its main street. (Actually, the only other one I can think of right off is Shaker Heights outside Cleveland.)
But speaking of trolleys and trains:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBears02
I think another interesting thing about this discussion is the fundamental differences between the suburbs of different metros which makes them hard to compare, as a lot of it will boil down to personal preference. Like comparing suburbs in say Boston or Philly to those in say Atlanta, Houston, or Dallas is so difficult because of the way they’re built. The outer suburbs of Boston and Philly seem very quaint, charming, and picturesque and have nice walkable villages along commuter rail lines. These suburbs seem to know their place and take a backseat to the main city. In contrast the outer suburbs of Atlanta, Houston, or Dallas seem more developed and are much more auto oriented in nature. The suburbs in these cities seem to be bigger players though, as they actively siphon things away from their main cities like major high paying employment, high end shopping, amenities, etc. These suburbs also have lots more new construction going on and are typically more diverse. Now I know there are some exceptions like King of Prussia, which seems more sunbeltish, but KOP seems more like the exception rather than the norm in the Philly area. I just thought it’s a very interesting distinction. Suburbs in Boston definitely feel a lot more exclusive than cities like Houston and Dallas.
Part of what you talk about here is a function of time — specifically, when the cities in question grew.
Dallas, Atlanta and Houston have all experienced their greatest growth in the era of auto dominance, while the cities of the Northeast and Chicago grew their suburbs as the railroads and streetcars spread outward from the city core. (LA actually experienced its greatest growth in the transition period – it began growing as its streetcar network expanded, then continued to boom as cars supplanted streetcars).
A railroad suburb will of necessity differ in form from an auto-oriented one because development will cluster around the train station in the case of the former. Cars and lattices of roads make just about all land equally valuable, so all of that land will develop in a spread-out rather than clustered fashion.
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.
