Is Massachusetts a one-trick pony? (Boston, Worcester: theatre, colleges, tax)

[lair8]

Many states have 2-3+ major metro areas that have equal weight to them. But it seems like most of the activity, life and things to do are in the Boston metro area.


And the rest of it (west, north-central, south-central) are the sticks. Is this true? And if so does this bother you at all, and do you consider this a significant downside of the state?


(Another concern is price. Most of the areas in the Boston metro area are very expensive; many people can't afford to live there. Are there places in Mass that both have things to do and are somewhat affordable?)

[gf2020]

Which states?

Maybe California with Los Angeles and San Francisco or Texas with Dallas and Houston, but otherwise, most states are dominated by one economic and cultural center.

[lair8]

Originally Posted by gf2020

Which states?

I'd say north NJ is a perfect example. Even if none of the towns in NJ are equal in weight to NY, the towns within north NJ pretty even and equal amongst themselves.

Driving through that state, you go from one fairly populated town to another.

In Mass, youre driving route is more like: busy town --> sticks ---> sticks ---> sticks ---> busy town

[WestieWhitie]

MA will be in the world of hurt if politburo goes full mao and causes the unlimited pharma tax dollar cheat code to expire…

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by lair8

Many states have 2-3+ major metro areas that have equal weight to them. But it seems like most of the activity, life and things to do are in the Boston metro area.


And the rest of it (west, north-central, south-central) are the sticks. Is this true? And if so does this bother you at all, and do you consider this a significant downside of the state?


(Another concern is price. Most of the areas in the Boston metro area are very expensive; many people can't afford to live there. Are there places in Mass that both have things to do and are somewhat affordable?)

What people consider "things to do" is subjective. Points west, such as the Worcester area, are more affordable and there are things to do like restaurants, a minor league ball team, theatre, museums, music. Likewise Springfield which is further west and more gritty. There are also plenty of things to do in Northern MA and Southern MA all of which are much less crowded and more laid back and enjoyable than what Boston has become. There are plenty of "sticks" in MA but there are also many urban and suburban areas which are quite vibrant. The outlying areas of Boston have become much more socioeconomically diverse than Boston proper and many have far more interesting businesses/restaurants which, in many cases, are of better quality in my opinion and cheaper.

[mdovell]

Sticks? Hardly. Worcester and Springfield do well. Equal weight to Boston? No but there is nothing wrong with that

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by lair8

Many states have 2-3+ major metro areas that have equal weight to them. But it seems like most of the activity, life and things to do are in the Boston metro area.


And the rest of it (west, north-central, south-central) are the sticks. Is this true? And if so does this bother you at all, and do you consider this a significant downside of the state?

No. No one cares unless they're in the "sticks" as you call it and get upset that the part of the state that only generates 90% of the state's revenue gets a whopping 80% of that revenue spent there.

Originally Posted by lair8

(Another concern is price. Most of the areas in the Boston metro area are very expensive; many people can't afford to live there. Are there places in Mass that both have things to do and are somewhat affordable?)

This is the bigger concern. Everywhere has "things to do", it's just a question of if those are things that you like to do. The problem is that almost all the good jobs are in the Boston metro, so the prices are high. The only "real" city in MA (and really, New England) is Boston, though, so if you want all the "big city" things, this is where you have to come.

So the Pioneer Valley has plenty of colleges and a lower cost of living, but it doesn't have nearly as many (or as high paying) jobs, so people like you will consider it "the sticks". It's not really the sticks. Parts of Maine, maybe, and vast swaths out west. The lowest population density county in Massachusetts that isn't an island is Franklin, with about 100/sq. mi, about the same as California.

Originally Posted by lair8

I'd say north NJ is a perfect example. Even if none of the towns in NJ are equal in weight to NY, the towns within north NJ pretty even and equal amongst themselves.

Driving through that state, you go from one fairly populated town to another.

In Mass, youre driving route is more like: busy town --> sticks ---> sticks ---> sticks ---> busy town

I think you'd call NJ a "no trick" pony.

[BruinsGirl]

Boston is a world class city. There are none like it in Northeast.
Not sure how is it possible to have several bostons in such a small state,

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by lair8

I'd say north NJ is a perfect example. Even if none of the towns in NJ are equal in weight to NY, the towns within north NJ pretty even and equal amongst themselves.

Driving through that state, you go from one fairly populated town to another.

In Mass, youre driving route is more like: busy town --> sticks ---> sticks ---> sticks ---> busy town

Are we talking about metro areas, or towns here??? Isn't all of north NJ basically one single metro?

[msRB311]

I was in Worcester this weekend and you'd think it might be better than it is. Lots of colleges in the area. Just doesn't seem like it will get there anytime soon.