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 am aware of many suburbanites who, on the other hand, would definitely drive further to go to a suburban location rather than cross a border into a city location.
Why? I would think if one preferred one location over the other, it doesn’t have anything to do with the city proper boundaries but rather 1) who frequents the gym (the one in the city may attract more seedy people than the suburban ones), 2) the ones in the suburb might be better kept, which isn’t so much the city boundary’s fault but management, 3) the one in the suburb might offer different services than the one in the city - like a particular Zumba class, etc. again, not having anything to do with the city boundary themselves
Only 1 may or may not have anything to do with the city boundary.
If you’re just looking to work out, like most people who go to the gym, none of those things matter.
I don't think anyone's saying Somerville issues are Boston issues? The point was that Somerville and Rosslyn have some influence on the region, even to first time visitors. We've hashed it out repeatedly, but visitors to Boston find themselves in Somerville for breweries, shopping, dining, etc. Visitors to DC often have hotels in Rosslyn, Crystal City, etc. and some of DC's most famous attractions are on that side of the river.
Assuming Boston and DC are among the cities whose core exceed their city limits, you still have to admit that group is exceedingly small, yet this board likes to pretend that city proper is completely irrelevant.
For what it’s worth, I lived in Boston (proper) for three years and spent fewer than five hours in Somerville. I’ve also lived in the DC metro (Alexandria), and I really think you’re overstating the draw of Old Town, The Pentagon and Arlington cemetery.
I am aware of many suburbanites who, on the other hand, would definitely drive further to go to a suburban location rather than cross a border into a city location.
Again, this is a case where city matters. The relationship between the city and the suburbs vary dramatically depending upon what metro you live in. In some many suburbanites are borderline terrified to visit the city. In others they have no issue socializing and working, but wouldn't be caught dead raising their kids there. And in a few (Seattle, Portland, etc) there's really functionally speaking no difference at all.
And if we’re being honest, with the exception of Cambridge, none of those other towns really add anything to Boston.
I lived in Brighton for a number of years growing up, and it was pretty common for my family to travel down to Beacon Street (in particular Coolidge Corner) to go shopping or when we wanted to go out to a nice restaurant. So I’d say that Brookline adds value to Boston at least from a resident’s perspective if not a tourist’s one.
Somerville also has a lot of unique amenities, many arising from the fact that it’s the most densely populated town in MA. Assembly Square is already a destination at least among my friends for movies and drinks. When the green line extension is complete, Somerville’s ties to the city will be strengthened further.
You might be right about Chelsea: I personally don’t know a lot of people who live in Boston and travel there frequently for any reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
and no reason to visit Somerville or Brookline.
They’d be more likely to visit Somerville than Roslindale or Hyde Park, and the latter are “city proper”.
Assuming Boston and DC are among the cities whose core exceed their city limits, you still have to admit that group is exceedingly small, yet this board likes to pretend that city proper is completely irrelevant.
For what it’s worth, I lived in Boston (proper) for three years and spent fewer than five hours in Somerville. I’ve also lived in the DC metro (Alexandria), and I really think you’re overstating the draw of Old Town, The Pentagon and Arlington cemetery.
Saying "the core exceeds the city limits" and "the suburbs don't impact the experience of visiting a place" are two entirely different concepts and I hope that's pretty clear. I've also never heard anyone pretend city proper is irrelevant. I've heard that it's not a good way to gauge the size of a city because some cities are are 17 square miles (Hartford), and others are 747 square miles (Jacksonville). And while most attractions may be within the city limits, the population of the region as a whole significantly impacts how the city feels. There's a reason why Jacksonville doesn't feel nearly as large as Boston or San Francisco in spite of the fact that it has more people living in the city proper. The smaller metro area means less "stuff" (attractions, shopping, dining, nightlife, etc.) concentrated in the core. It's as simple as that.
I think it's fair to say that most cities have most of their primary attractions within the city limits. That's the entire point of having a concentrated "core" or "center." It's the focal point for the region. But the premise of this thread goes way too far in that your sweeping generalization ignores the fact that suburbs influence the "experience" of visiting or living in most cities, both in terms of attractions that are outside of the city proper and in terms of the influence the regional population has on the core. The regional population impacts the "experience" in the core of every city. Every. Single. One. And I listed 15 significant cities in the past few pages where vitally important destinations associated with the principal city were outside of the city limits. I could list more, but 15 should pretty much drive the point home that the whole region matters more than you're claiming.
Also, Arlington National Cemetery gets 3+ million visitors annually and it's a top 10 attraction in the DC area in terms of visits. Iwo Jima gets 1.5 million. Those are too big to ignore. I'm not sure what the numbers are on the Pentagon or Old Town, but they're on every "what to do when you're visiting DC" flyer out there.
Assuming Boston and DC are among the cities whose core exceed their city limits, you still have to admit that group is exceedingly small, yet this board likes to pretend that city proper is completely irrelevant.
Is it though? I feel like most people don't live like that. Radius more than boundary determines where people live, play and work. There are real life implication of city propers of course, but not the ones you are pointing to.
Why? I would think if one preferred one location over the other, it doesn’t have anything to do with the city proper boundaries but rather 1) who frequents the gym (the one in the city may attract more seedy people than the suburban ones), 2) the ones in the suburb might be better kept, which isn’t so much the city boundary’s fault but management, 3) the one in the suburb might offer different services than the one in the city - like a particular Zumba class, etc. again, not having anything to do with the city boundary themselves
Only 1 may or may not have anything to do with the city boundary.
If you’re just looking to work out, like most people who go to the gym, none of those things matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Again, this is a case where city matters. The relationship between the city and the suburbs vary dramatically depending upon what metro you live in. In some many suburbanites are borderline terrified to visit the city. In others they have no issue socializing and working, but wouldn't be caught dead raising their kids there. And in a few (Seattle, Portland, etc) there's really functionally speaking no difference at all.
Exactly. My (ex) son-in-law became physically ill when entering a city limits, and on his one ride in a metro rail car (filled with suburban teenage girls, even) he literally seemed terrified of everything, as if 1970s-style NYC gangs were going to attack everyone on the car. And this was just a couple of years ago!
Why? I would think if one preferred one location over the other, it doesn’t have anything to do with the city proper boundaries but rather 1) who frequents the gym (the one in the city may attract more seedy people than the suburban ones), 2) the ones in the suburb might be better kept, which isn’t so much the city boundary’s fault but management, 3) the one in the suburb might offer different services than the one in the city - like a particular Zumba class, etc. again, not having anything to do with the city boundary themselves
Only 1 may or may not have anything to do with the city boundary.
If you’re just looking to work out, like most people who go to the gym, none of those things matter.
This post is why some suburbanites fear the city....the assumption that the city gym is dirty and full of seedy people. Personally I would avoid the suburban one, because I assume it would be full of an obnoxious amount of basic suburban housewives and weekend warrior cross-fit dads that would most likely be there.
This post is why some suburbanites fear the city....the assumption that the city gym is dirty and full of seedy people. Personally I would avoid the suburban one, because I assume it would be full of an obnoxious amount of basic suburban housewives and weekend warrior cross-fit dads that would most likely be there.
Yeah, I mean I tried to think of why such an arbitrary border made a difference and those are the 3 possible explanations I can come up with. None of those things have to do with the city or suburb by the way, its all about management of that particular gym. I personally do LA Fitness and the one I go to is in the core of DC. It's much cleaner than a lot of the suburban gyms I go to.
As an aside - you should avoid going to Equinox then, city or suburb. its full of people snapchatting or IG'ing their workout.
When comparing amenities and lifestyle, city proper is relevant. Most cities’ suburbs aren’t all that different, but the cities themselves vary wildly. Metro, in most cases, is only relevant when comparing population, and I honestly don’t care about population, but rather lived experience and tourism appeal.
I could see your point if you suggested that parts of the city differ from the rest of the city and the metropolitan area in the experiential/amenities/lifestyle aspects you suggest.
But only parts. There are two American cities where the concept of "city", the defining sense of place, only transfers to their core parts and the periphery of them.
New York and Los Angeles.
These megacities differ from all others in the way they look and function as a city. Both NY and LA have cores that are pure-city, pure-NY, pure-LA. For New York obviously Manhattan. For Los Angeles, obviously the Basin.
New York, of course, has urbanized areas outside of Manhattan that function and look like core cities. #1 without question is Brooklyn which in some ways still seems like it is the independent city it once was. And lifestyle, Brooklyn, the areas near its downtown have the amenities and feel of a big city. Other than Brooklyn and without the same degree of amenities that Brooklyn has, the Bronx is the most "New York" of the four outer boroughs since basically the Bronx is the only one of the four that was built, by and large, as an extension of New York (Manhattan). The western Bronx was not part of the consolidation of Greater New York around the turn of the 20th century. It was already a part of the city with no differentiation on which side of the Harlem River you were.
But if you look at Queens (which is made up of a slew of former villages) or Staten Island (more of the same and the least New York part of New York), Brooklyn (past the core areas along the East River, there is more of a Queens like setting) and the Bronx (Riverdale is definitely suburban, high end suburban) what you see is areas that could be suburbia.
In NY, Manhattan is "the City"; In LA, the Basin is. Neither SFV or the harbor seem part of the city of Los Angeles other than through municipality. The valley is like Queens, only more so.....a series of former towns that still feel there are that today. And the Basin is strange because it contains independent cities surrounded by LA (BH, SM, WH) which are still pure LA in a way that parts of the city (Northridge, Encino, San Pedro) are not.
So New York and Los Angeles are just plain different.
If I look at my own city, Chicago, I see a downtown core (pretty much extending along the lakefront from the southern end of Lincoln Park all the way down to McCormick Place....then going west to around the United Center. This is pure urban lifestyle, pure Chicago. Lifestyle Chicago, however, extends past the core, certainly up the lakefront to at least Wrigleyville/Lakeview and a little west to incorporate Bucktown and Wicker Park. And although there is a little jump from McCormick Place down to Hyde Park, Hyde Park fully relates to lifestyle Chicago.
But much of the rest of the city, the outer portions are urban, of course, but not lifestyle Chicago. Some are similar to the more urbanized of Chicago suburbs, Evanston and Oak Park, both across the street (north and west respectively) from the city. And Chicago also has true suburban neighborhoods in the city on the far northwest side (Sauganash, Edgebrook, Edison Park, etc.) and far southwest (Beverly).
In summary, my point here: yes, there is an urban lifestyle, a part of the city that make the city different...but this does not necessarily extend to the entire city.
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.
