Is Sharon, MA the best place to live in the USA? (Boston: for sale, real estate)

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by Parsec

It doesn't have the best test scores or the most parks or the most jobs/restaurants/shops or the highest median family income or anything else that you can subjectively measure, but it's possible it has the highest overall score depending on how the publication weighs each category. I'd be curious to see their methodology and criteria for testing.

Originally Posted by 495neighbor

Money magazine uses objective data crunching (commute time, school rating, income) not subjective criteria to come up with these annual lists. They unlikely interview few if any people living in these towns.

In the end, even if objective measures are used, they still will be weighted differently by different people. A short commute to Boston may be good to one person but useless to another. So, "best" will always be purely subjective.

Originally Posted by pennyone

This is one of the worst ranking crap there is.

Most rankings are worthless. People believe them though and perception is reality in the end.

[pennyone]

"They probably want as many different towns on the list as possible each year so everyone gets their turn for bragging rights."...

Yes, sort of like Award Day in any random elementary school, where every kid gets an award for something....mom and dad get bragging rights, and the kid is happy. Totally pointless in the end.

[missionhill]

If you read the Money mag blurb, the ranking is plausible: recreational and scenic assets, rail access to big employment hubs, cultural diversity, and good schools. These are all good things that people want. They're making a virtue of cultural diversity, which seems good to me as so many people still count wealth and exclusivity as an asset rather than a demerit. The one thing that people want that's missing in Sharon is walkability. I imagine Money could find towns that have all of Sharon's pluses and a walkable downtown as well.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by missionhill

If you read the Money mag blurb, the ranking is plausible: recreational and scenic assets, rail access to big employment hubs, cultural diversity, and good schools. These are all good things that people want. They're making a virtue of cultural diversity, which seems good to me as so many people still count wealth and exclusivity as an asset rather than a demerit. The one thing that people want that's missing in Sharon is walkability. I imagine Money could find towns that have all of Sharon's pluses and a walkable downtown as well.

Why should anyone consider living in a town where a majority of the people are well off a demerit? I'm not saying it's necessarily a massive asset (I like economic diversity as much as the next guy) but there are definite pluses to it such as good schools and low crime rates along with a general aesthetic appeal to the town.

I would also agree with your assessment of Sharon. It's major negative is lack of walkability. That's most due to the fact that there's nothing in town to walk to. There's very little in the way of shops, restaurants, or really any kind of commercial zoning what so ever which largely contributes to one of the town's other negatives: some of the highest RE taxes in the state. The third major negative the town has IMO is the driving commute into Boston. Taking the train from Sharon is a pleasure but driving in on I93 North gets ugly.

I know tons of people that live in Sharon and love it. For me, the town has no appeal. Is it the best place in the country to live? Well, as I've said all along that's a highly personal decision.

[SpringMom3]

I think driving from anywhere about 25-30 miles away from boston is ugly, including from the west. traffic seems to be slightly better from the west, but it's still there. there doesn't seem like any amazing way to drive from anywhere into the city on a daily basis.

I agree, Mike, there is not much in the town of sharon when you think about restaurants/shops, but since you are driving anyway foxboro place, legacy place, wrentham outlets are all pretty close. Braintree mall is nearby for shopping as are the shops/restaurants in cobb's corner and the walpole mall.

So while there really is nothing (or at least not much) within the town, for a suburb its pretty comparable to other suburbs in terms of what's around.

For us, we are pretty bummed to leave the city (live in Cambridge) but going to a suburb has its different pluses and since we couldn't stay in the city and do private school for the kids, we have to accept that there won't be 100 things walkable from us. Every suburb seems to need you to get into your car, so what's the difference in 5 extra mins in your car when going out to dinner and if its in the same town's lines or the next town over...since you can't walk anyway.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by SpringMom3

I think driving from anywhere about 25-30 miles away from boston is ugly, including from the west. traffic seems to be slightly better from the west, but it's still there. there doesn't seem like any amazing way to drive from anywhere into the city on a daily basis.

I agree. There's no particularly wonderful way to drive into Boston.

In the past, I've commuted from the south and the west into Boston and my experience was that driving from the west was significantly easier than driving from the south.

Originally Posted by SpringMom3

I agree, Mike, there is not much in the town of sharon when you think about restaurants/shops, but since you are driving anyway foxboro place, legacy place, wrentham outlets are all pretty close. Braintree mall is nearby for shopping as are the shops/restaurants in cobb's corner and the walpole mall.

So while there really is nothing (or at least not much) within the town, for a suburb its pretty comparable to other suburbs in terms of what's around.

For us, we are pretty bummed to leave the city (live in Cambridge) but going to a suburb has its different pluses and since we couldn't stay in the city and do private school for the kids, we have to accept that there won't be 100 things walkable from us. Every suburb seems to need you to get into your car, so what's the difference in 5 extra mins in your car when going out to dinner and if its in the same town's lines or the next town over...since you can't walk anyway.

I would agree with you that compared to any other suburb around there is a good amount of shopping/restaurants in surrounding areas. However, some suburbs definitely require more car time than others. If you live in a town with a half decent town center, it cuts down on the time you spend in your car significantly. Even though we live on the edge of town, my wife and I walk into the center frequently during the warmer months for breakfast, to hang out at the town green, or just for fun. If you have kids, you'll won't have to be their chauffeur all day because they can walk or ride a bike into the center as well. Having a real town center (Sharon does not) provides a different type of lifestyle and a center of activity for the town.

[495neighbor]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

If you live in a town with a half decent town center, it cuts down on the time you spend in your car significantly. Even though we live on the edge of town, my wife and I walk into the center frequently during the warmer months for breakfast, to hang out at the town green, or just for fun. If you have kids, you'll won't have to be their chauffeur all day because they can walk or ride a bike into the center as well. Having a real town center (Sharon does not) provides a different type of lifestyle and a center of activity for the town.

I like this advice, good point. This will influence me in search of my next happy place. And Mike, doesn't having a town center, especially with locally owned businesses, contribute to that elusive community spirit many are seeking?

[tribechamy]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

Why should anyone consider living in a town where a majority of the people are well off a demerit? I'm not saying it's necessarily a massive asset (I like economic diversity as much as the next guy) but there are definite pluses to it such as good schools and low crime rates along with a general aesthetic appeal to the town.

I'll bite. Besides the obvious higher housing costs, it's partly a golden handcuffs kind of thing, especially if you have kids. Even if you are immune to wanting to keep up with the Joneses, your child is likely to come home asking why your house/car/stuff isn't as nice as Jacob's next door, or why you can't spend your family vacation skiing in the Alps like Emily, etc.

Also depending upon the politics or life status or stinginess of the majority of those well-off people, they might be less likely to vote for school improvements, low income housing, and other things needed by the average person. Even if towns where the majority are well off there will be those who aren't (either naturally or per 40B) whose needs may not be met.

That being said, the benefits of well off towns which you mentioned are pretty hard to turn down, too.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by 495neighbor

I like this advice, good point. This will influence me in search of my next happy place. And Mike, doesn't having a town center, especially with locally owned businesses, contribute to that elusive community spirit many are seeking?

I believe so.

Originally Posted by tribechamy

I'll bite. Besides the obvious higher housing costs, it's partly a golden handcuffs kind of thing, especially if you have kids. Even if you are immune to wanting to keep up with the Joneses, your child is likely to come home asking why your house/car/stuff isn't as nice as Jacob's next door, or why you can't spend your family vacation skiing in the Alps like Emily, etc.

I would love for my child to aspire to afford a comfortable or even luxurious lifestyle. A little drive is not such a bad thing in my opinion. I don't want my child to aspire to live in 40B housing or an old cardboard box. I don't want my child to shoot for the middle. I want him to want to be the best.

Originally Posted by tribechamy

Also depending upon the politics or life status or stinginess of the majority of those well-off people, they might be less likely to vote for school improvements, low income housing, and other things needed by the average person. Even if towns where the majority are well off there will be those who aren't (either naturally or per 40B) whose needs may not be met.

That being said, the benefits of well off towns which you mentioned are pretty hard to turn down, too.

It seems most of the wealthy towns have no problem voting for overrides to fund school improvements. If anything the residents of these towns understand more than others that the quality of the school system is what helps to buoy the value of their homes. Plus, these towns attract a lot of families because of the school systems so of course these people are going to vote to support the schools.

There's really very little a town can do to prevent 40B housing. Hingham recently did it, but they had to buy the property from the developer in order to do it. There's a very controversial 40B project in Needham right now although I wouldn't say it's controversial because it's 40B as previous 40B projects in town have been warmly accepted.

[donewithpretty]

Sharon does have a town center, though. It's not Concord, but there's a public green, sidewalks, a pretty white steepled Unitarian church, post office, library, bank, gym, bistro, pizza place, bagel place, Chinese place, chocolate shop, etc., plus the commuter rail station. I always see people out walking when I'm there, including kids on bikes.