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 liked Salem NH and you know, while NH can develop with the success of Boston, VT can't. Most of VT looked like run down upstate NY/PA with a few resort towns here and there. Its pretty... but its all incredibly expensive to live in. I think VT is great to vacation in, but living there seems like hell. NH also has a pretty waterfront. But NH seems to have no identity, developed poorly and it looks hodge podge. I edge it based off of the fact, it is close to Boston. If this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7711...!1e3?entry=ttu development didn't exist and Portsmouth wasn't there, I would 0 hope for NH.
CT>MA still in my opinion because the transit is better and mroe affordable. It feels like home in CT too. MA is great, but its busting at the seams.
I just thought Worcester would be further a long in the 'development' cycle. There are a few streets of nice development. But that is about it. It is kinda trash outside of it.
I had some typos.. I meant NH can feel overdeveloped.
CT had improved transit since I first got there with the addition of CT rail and CT fastrak- but I can say it's better- how can it be they don't have a subway system with 100+ stops or a commuter rail system that's as sprawling and massive as the MBTA commuter rail. And we've got ferries, so many free school/hospital shuttles, multiple bus networks, on top of that. I don't see it. In 95% of CT you need a car whereas it's probably 85% of MA.
MA busting at the seems gives it an energy and identity I felt lacked in CT- but to each their own.
I mean Worcester.. Is an artificially desirable place it's onto got downtown redevelopment because Boston is so expensive. If that ever ceases Worcester will deflate promptly. No nice rivers, no waterfront, very hilly old, no ritzy areas. It's got some hospital like everywhere else a couple good schools a couple mediocre ones. But nothing too too crazy, nothing too big. IMO development will only go but so far in the flat downtown area but who will want to move to Worcester as a first choice city? Very very few people. So many of it's neighborhoods are obscure, semi-secluded, ugly, hodgepodge's of urbanity, lacking grid, restaurants, walkability or good weather.
How did you feel about Lowell? I recall you were never high on Lowell to begin. I think there are no “Boomtowns” in MA. They're all too expensive with interest rates for small flippers but not lucrative enough for large numbers of corporate developers. They also doing ahevpoliticla leadership that reflects the demography if the cities and I think that cripples then honestly . Major disconnects between the bulk fi the citizenry and the politicians age wise, race wise, background wise, ideologically...
The one chance at a booming town was Lynn but thats on hold until their Commuter Rail station is reopened. Rather than taking steps to electrify CR for gateway cities especially nearby ones like Lynn...were shutting their stations down for an indefinite amount of year's?
Vermont is hard, very hard, to live in- probably why there are so few people there. But I just can't deal with NH attitudes/people.
I liked Salem NH and you know, while NH can develop with the success of Boston, VT can't. Most of VT looked like run down upstate NY/PA with a few resort towns here and there. Its pretty... but its all incredibly expensive to live in. I think VT is great to vacation in, but living there seems like hell. NH also has a pretty waterfront. But NH seems to have no identity, developed poorly and it looks hodge podge. I edge it based off of the fact, it is close to Boston. If this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7711...!1e3?entry=ttu development didn't exist and Portsmouth wasn't there, I would 0 hope for NH.
This is an interesting perspective. Of the three Northern New England states, I feel like VT is the least run down as a whole. Maine is the worst, and New Hampshire is middle of the pack. Maine has the benefit of being so large that many people don't see much beyond Portland and the coastal resort towns which are all pretty nice. But if you've ever spent time away from the coast, it's kind of hard to miss. There are a lot of pretty beat up old mill and manufacturing towns of varying sizes. Lewiston/Auburn is the largest of the old manufacturing towns, but Maine has a ton of medium sized towns (by Maine standards) like Rumford, Livermore Falls, Madison, Skowhegan, Pittsfield, Bingham, Lincoln, Dover-Foxcroft, Millinocket, Caribou, etc. that look pretty beat up between abandoned mills an factories and vacant/blighted storefronts in their centers. And many of the even smaller towns look like borderline ghost towns. New Hampshire has a good degree of this too (Berlin always jumped out to me as being really sad), but less so than Maine.
Vermont has some of that. Rutland isn't amazing, but it's not as bombed out as some comparable places in ME. Ditto for Barre. And Since Vermont has always been more of an agricultural state than manufacturing/mills like NH/ME, many of the smaller towns are still healthier since agriculture is still a big part of what VT does whereas the mills and manufacturing have been in decline for some time. The NE Kingdom is the part of VT that is reputed to to be the "worst" on that front, and to me, it still doesn't compare to much of Western, Central, and Northern, ME since there's still a good deal of agriculture there.
I wouldn't want to live in any of them, but if I had to choose, it would be Portsmouth, NH.
This is an interesting perspective. Of the three Northern New England states, I feel like VT is the least run down as a whole. Maine is the worst, and New Hampshire is middle of the pack. Maine has the benefit of being so large that many people don't see much beyond Portland and the coastal resort towns which are all pretty nice. But if you've ever spent time away from the coast, it's kind of hard to miss. There are a lot of pretty beat up old mill and manufacturing towns of varying sizes. Lewiston/Auburn is the largest of the old manufacturing towns, but Maine has a ton of medium sized towns (by Maine standards) like Rumford, Livermore Falls, Madison, Skowhegan, Pittsfield, Bingham, Lincoln, Dover-Foxcroft, Millinocket, Caribou, etc. that look pretty beat up between abandoned mills an factories and vacant/blighted storefronts in their centers. And many of the even smaller towns look like borderline ghost towns. New Hampshire has a good degree of this too (Berlin always jumped out to me as being really sad), but less so than Maine.
Vermont has some of that. Rutland isn't amazing, but it's not as bombed out as some comparable places in ME. Ditto for Barre. And Since Vermont has always been more of an agricultural state than manufacturing/mills like NH/ME, many of the smaller towns are still healthier since agriculture is still a big part of what VT does whereas the mills and manufacturing have been in decline for some time. The NE Kingdom is the part of VT that is reputed to to be the "worst" on that front, and to me, it still doesn't compare to much of Western, Central, and Northern, ME since there's still a good deal of agriculture there.
I wouldn't want to live in any of them, but if I had to choose, it would be Portsmouth, NH.
I was thinking the same thing, I see Vermont as the least rundown regarding rural areas and small towns not just for New England or the Northeast but the entire North. That does not mean the entire state is picture perfect but just on average its nicer.
And what you say about Maine is also true. Larger states like Maine (and for that matter the mentioned New York and Pennsylvania) are going to have more areas that are not tourist areas. Not every town is a tourist town and not everybody in the country cares what tourists think about their property.
And finally, you raise a great point about the agricultural industry propping up the economy of Vermont compared to the old dying mill towns of New Hampshire or Maine. Great post.
This is an interesting perspective. Of the three Northern New England states, I feel like VT is the least run down as a whole. Maine is the worst, and New Hampshire is middle of the pack. Maine has the benefit of being so large that many people don't see much beyond Portland and the coastal resort towns which are all pretty nice. But if you've ever spent time away from the coast, it's kind of hard to miss. There are a lot of pretty beat up old mill and manufacturing towns of varying sizes. Lewiston/Auburn is the largest of the old manufacturing towns, but Maine has a ton of medium sized towns (by Maine standards) like Rumford, Livermore Falls, Madison, Skowhegan, Pittsfield, Bingham, Lincoln, Dover-Foxcroft, Millinocket, Caribou, etc. that look pretty beat up between abandoned mills an factories and vacant/blighted storefronts in their centers. And many of the even smaller towns look like borderline ghost towns. New Hampshire has a good degree of this too (Berlin always jumped out to me as being really sad), but less so than Maine.
Vermont has some of that. Rutland isn't amazing, but it's not as bombed out as some comparable places in ME. Ditto for Barre. And Since Vermont has always been more of an agricultural state than manufacturing/mills like NH/ME, many of the smaller towns are still healthier since agriculture is still a big part of what VT does whereas the mills and manufacturing have been in decline for some time. The NE Kingdom is the part of VT that is reputed to to be the "worst" on that front, and to me, it still doesn't compare to much of Western, Central, and Northern, ME since there's still a good deal of agriculture there.
I wouldn't want to live in any of them, but if I had to choose, it would be Portsmouth, NH.
Granted, I have not been to much of Maine. Kittery, York, Ogonquit, Portland, York and Old Orchard Beach. My experiences in Maine are very limited.
Maybe my also limited experience in Northern NH is also swaying my opinion there as well. While I have been to places like Lincoln, Littleton and Plimouth... not really much north of Concord or away from 93.
NH/ MA - best combo . if you just took these two states you get a solid cross section of what NE has to offer. Arguably ME/MA would be a better combo in some ways, but it's pretty close. NH has a better QOL and economy than Maine by far.
ME - Still a really good one. AS a single state it has the most distinctive feel and the most charm. Downside is its Its too cold and the economy is bad.
CT/RI - About equal. The highs in CT are higher and the lows are lower compared to RI. They dont offer as much nature experience but they have their own offerings. alot better food options than the northern NE states. RI for the best urban experience beyond Boston CT for the best suburban experience beyond 128
VT - haven't spent a lot of time there seems like a less interesting version of NH with worse proximity to the other good parts of New England. Nothing wrong with it to me but there isn't a lot that stands out about it to me
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.
