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.
The poster replied said "better". Better does not equal more very wealthy places.
It doesnt NECESSARILY equal more very wealthy places, yes, however "Better" in the context of places to live usually means best schools, lowest crime, best amenites(or proximity to) and a high concentration of highly educated and highly skilled adults.
perhaps in the context of weekend trips, it's different but as far as livability and desirability, looking at the wealthiest places gives an idea.
Quote:
Boston has less extremely wealthy areas, I don't see that as a negative, it may make it more down-to-earth and liveable.
Well, I never said it was a negative at all...simply pointed out that SF is not lacking in any 'better' satellite cities which is what the person I was replying to implied.
Alright, before this gets out of hand, I will say it again, both Boston and San Francisco are fantastic cities and easily among the best cities/areas this country has to offer. In my opinion, they are 2 of the top 5 hands down.
This thread prompted me to start a thread basically about these either being the top 2 or certainly top 5. Philadelphia and LA are the two most love/hated metros. Whereas, most of people who love diverse big cities almost certainly love Boston/SF equally. I generally don't like to use NY in queries because it has stuff that nobody else really has so it's an unfair matchup. I feel like notwithstanding NYC, the actual top 5 has to to include these cities, along with Seattle and Chicago. I am torn between DC and Philly for the 5th spot.
Pleasanton is pretty characterless for the Bay Area. It's downtown is tiny and most people go to Stoneridge or all the other strip malls for their needs. It's probably one of the most cookie-cutter suburbs in the East Bay except for it's tiny downtown and a handful of older homes.
Yeah I agree, I just said the downtown was not characterless. Yes it is pretty small.
Personally I strongly dislike Pleasanton. I just happened to live there for a little while which is why I brought it up.
I wasn't refering to the economic output of Boston's suburbs vs those of San Francisco.
You werent very specific.
Quote:
When I said that Boston had better satellite cities, I was assuming that the small cities in metro Boston (like Newport, Providence, Lowell, Salem, Cambridge, Portsmouth, Waltham etc.) were more walkable and vibrant than those of metro SF (Berkeley, Oakland, Carmel, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, etc.) because of the fact that they are older and more established.
Yes, I can see how you might feel this way. Indeed I do appreciate vibrant town environments as much as the next guy and New England is amazing in this respect.
But even within the Bay Area, there are a lot of vibrant areas that are walkable and teeming with charm and many of us dont really even think about it.
I wasn't refering to the economic output of Boston's suburbs vs those of San Francisco.
When I said that Boston had better satellite cities, I was assuming that the small cities in metro Boston (like Newport, Providence, Lowell, Salem, Cambridge, Portsmouth, Waltham etc.) were more walkable and vibrant than those of metro SF (Berkeley, Oakland, Carmel, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, etc.) because of the fact that they are older and more established.
If that assumption was totally off-base, than I apologize and admit defeat.
It's fairly off-base... For one thing Oakland is a real city and a walkable one at that; Berkeley and San Mateo are walkable as well. For another the Bay Area is not a characterless region; the subregions (Peninsula, East Bay, Marin, South Bay, etc.) are very distinct and offer something entirely different from each other.
SF and Boston are both great and small cities, but the adjacent and nearby cities and towns of Boston are much more to my liking than those of SF. Most of the Bay Area was developed fairly recently and never had the sort of interesting architecture, history or urban layout that the Boston area has in spades. I, unfortunately for me, find a good deal of the Bay Area outside of SF and the older parts of the East Bay bland and without much character though often flanked with beautiful natural surroundings.
SF and Boston are both great and small cities, but the adjacent and nearby cities and towns of Boston are much more to my liking than those of SF. Most of the Bay Area was developed fairly recently and never had the sort of interesting architecture, history or urban layout that the Boston area has in spades. I, unfortunately for me, find a good deal of the Bay Area outside of SF and the older parts of the East Bay bland and without much character though often flanked with beautiful natural surroundings.
There's certainly bland places in the Bay Area and if you're an urbanophile then much of the Bay would be too car-centric for your liking, but much of the Bay Area is also decently walkable and not devoid of character. People tend to be unaware that there actually is a lot of historic architecture in the South Bay and the Peninsula... San Jose, Redwood City, Daly City, San Mateo, Santa Clara, etc. all have a mix of historical character and new development.
There's certainly bland places in the Bay Area and if you're an urbanophile then much of the Bay would be too car-centric for your liking, but much of the Bay Area is also decently walkable and not devoid of character. People tend to be unaware that there actually is a lot of historic architecture in the South Bay and the Peninsula... San Jose, Redwood City, Daly City, San Mateo, Santa Clara, etc. all have a mix of historical character and new development.
It's hard to compete with the Boston on historical character. Many towns have a part dating from the early 19th century or even earlier. The counties compromising the current limits of the Boston MSA had 75% of their current population in 1950. That said, it looks like a number of Bay Area suburbs have an older downtown portion, but it's very different from Boston.
It's hard to compete with the Boston on historical character. Many towns have a part dating from the early 19th century or even earlier. The counties compromising the current limits of the Boston MSA had 75% of their current population in 1950. That said, it looks like a number of Bay Area suburbs have an older downtown portion, but it's very different from Boston.
I'm not disagreeing that greater Boston is generally a more historical region, but I also don't think it's really honest to only look at colonial history... the Bay Area has easily been one of the most historically relevant regions in the country since the 1840's in a number of ways.
Also, Boston is not alone on having pre-19th century architecture; some of the missions throughout the Bay Area date back to the late 1700's.
I'm not disagreeing that greater Boston is generally a more historical region, but I also don't think it's really honest to only look at colonial history... the Bay Area has easily been one of the most historically relevant regions in the country in the 20th century in a number of ways.
Not as far as architecture is concerned though.
Quote:
Also, Boston is not alone on having pre-19th century architecture; some of the missions throughout the Bay Area date back to the late 1700's.
That's not really the same thing or comparable as you're talking about only 5 or so sites. Those places aren't really a significant part of the Bay Area's historical architecture either.
The Bay Area is probably one of the better places for older architecture in the western half of the US though but I think the Northeast is just on a different level.
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.
Yes it is pretty small.
