Waltham is actually part of the urban core (Boston, Cambridge: transplants, house)

[panchilly]

People in Massachusetts have a distorted sense of city vs. suburb because Boston, unlike many other cities in the US, did not annex its neighbors to the same extent historically. As a consequence Boston is a very very very small city, at only 45 square miles land area. The downtown Boston central business district is a microscopic fraction of this size and is vastly smaller than CBDs in other major cities.

The reality is, city lines are arbitrary and the urban area stretches well beyond the Boston city limits. There is more to this area than Boston.

Waltham is actually part of the urban core. Waltham, for example, has a higher population density than San Diego.

Some developers are actually predicting that Waltham could be the next big growth market.
https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/n...in-sight-93315

[chicagoliz]

Yes, I've long noticed this. A town 10 miles from the Boston line is not the same as a town that is 10 miles from, say, the Chicago city line. You could live on the border of Chicago and still have an hour commute downtown.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Transplants say this as if it’s mere coincidence Boston didn’t annex. This is the 56,749th time we’ve herd this flimsy argument. You have to accept Boston is very different politically culturally historically economically and socially from other towns that have their own long histories, values demography, laws, govt forms, etc etc. hate why Boston and New England cities are not like “other” (sunbelt) cities. It’s not arbitrary at all. The borders and boundaries make perfect sense as they are-that’s why it is the way it is.

It’s insulting trying to diminish the uniquess and history of Waltham by calling it Boston. And visa Versa. Comparing Waltham to San Diego just cause is disingenuous and most people here would consider most of San Diego to be a city at all.


Also why are you singling out Waltham, you live there?

[panchilly]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Transplants say this as if it’s mere coincidence Boston didn’t annex. This is the 56,749th time we’ve herd this flimsy argument. You have to accept Boston is very different politically culturally historically economically and socially from other towns that have their own long histories, values demography, laws, govt forms, etc etc. hate why Boston and New England cities are not like “other” (sunbelt) cities. It’s not arbitrary at all. The borders and boundaries make perfect sense as they are-that’s why it is the way it is.

It’s insulting trying to diminish the uniquess and history of Waltham by calling it Boston. And visa Versa. Comparing Waltham to San Diego just cause is disingenuous and most people here would consider most of San Diego to be a city at all.


Also why are you singling out Waltham, you live there?

I’m not a transplant. I was born in mass.

[Space_League]

agreed. see my map of boston below




now this map is a bit flawed for two reasons. (1) i have omitted south shore towns that should be included weymouth, randolph, braintree, norwood, and canton (2) some of the towns have not stepped up to their role as a part of the urban core and therefore don't feel as integrated into the city as they should.

Waltham is not one of those towns. It has done a fair job of stepping up although neighboring watertown is considerably more urban as a whole

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by Space_League

now this map is a bit flawed

Huge understatement.

[SalamanderSmile]

Waltham has been the new “thing” at least since we moved there in 2002, so probably earlier. It became a “thing” when Cambridge popped in the 90s. If they could improve their schools they would actually be the new “thing.” The infrastructure and amenities are already there, as is the location.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by panchilly

People in Massachusetts have a distorted sense of city vs. suburb because Boston, unlike many other cities in the US, did not annex its neighbors to the same extent historically. As a consequence Boston is a very very very small city, at only 45 square miles land area. The downtown Boston central business district is a microscopic fraction of this size and is vastly smaller than CBDs in other major cities.

Boston has about the same land area as San Francisco which is not thought of as being a "very very very small city."

I think the CBD is at least as big as most CBDs in other major cities. About the same as in Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta, Washington DC.

Originally Posted by panchilly

The reality is, city lines are arbitrary and the urban area stretches well beyond the Boston city limits. There is more to this area than Boston.

Completely true. Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, Malden, etc. exhibit the same urban patterns as the communities south of the Charles that were absorbed into Boston except for the lack of parks. Where Boston engaged Olmsted to lay out a series of public parks in the newly annexed districts; the smaller cities didn't do anything like that until the state stepped in to do metropolitan reservations but you can't walk to those from your house in Somerville the way you can walk to Franklin Park or the Arboretum from many Boston neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by panchilly

Waltham is actually part of the urban core. Waltham, for example, has a higher population density than San Diego.

Some developers are actually predicting that Waltham could be the next big growth market.
https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/n...in-sight-93315

If you see Boston as another LA then maybe Waltham could be something like Westwood is to Downtown LA BUT I don't think many people see things that way. I'd rather say Waltham is what it is, one of a number of smaller cities that industrialized in the 19th century as satellites of Boston. Then Waltham got a big dose of mid-twentieth century commercial development with Route 128 running through its outlying territory.

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

You have to accept Boston is very different politically culturally historically economically and socially from other towns that have their own long histories, values demography, laws, govt forms, etc etc. hate why Boston and New England cities are not like “other” (sunbelt) cities. It’s not arbitrary at all. The borders and boundaries make perfect sense as they are-that’s why it is the way it is.

Interesting point and this is one of the reasons why the annexation movement petered out after Brookline declined Boston's overtures three times (although Hyde Park later joined Boston.) I do, however, think of the core of the Boston metro as including Boston proper, the Seaport and Roxbury plus Brookline, Allston and Cambridge.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by missionhill

I do, however, think of the core of the Boston metro as including Boston proper, the Seaport and Roxbury plus Brookline, Allston and Cambridge.

The Seaport, Roxbury, and Allston are Boston proper.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by redplum33

The Seaport, Roxbury, and Allston are Boston proper.

Redplum, by Boston proper I mean the original Boston, i.e. the core city, as opposed to the territory Boston added through annexation. I know that a city proper usually means within city limits but in Boston it's long been used the way I continue to use it. Boston proper is everything between the harbor and Mass Avenue. Maybe we throw in Charlesgate or Kenmore Sq but that's about it. Everything else is Roxbury or South Boston or...