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.
You're kidding, right? Literally every city has a massive gap between its "best" and "average" neighborhoods.
Do you think Back Bay or Roxbury are remotely similar? The Upper East Side and Queens? Georgetown and Brookland?
There's a massive range everywhere, because America has always been the land of "haves" and "have nots." There's no exception anywhere.
Beacon Hill and Society hill are much more similar to each other than Mattapan and Kensington are
In many ways Central Boston and Center city Philly are very similar. But “bad neighborhoods”/towns in Greater Boston would not be perceived as such in Philly. Like Chelsea would be a pretty average neighborhood in Philly but considered pretty bad in the context of Greater Boston.
Boston doesn’t have an area like Austin or Garfield park where ~0.5-1% of residents get shot every year like Chicago does while Michigan Ave have the bougie feel of Newbury Street
Just to flesh out the Richmond/Syracuse comp, north of the James River, the city of Richmond is 25.9 mi² of land, with a 2021 estimate population of 131,501. 5077 people per square mile...
Compare that to Syracuse which is 25.1 mi², population of 144,451, 5755 ppsm...
I've mentioned this for years on here, that parts of Richmond resemble Upstate NY cities like Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo. The leafy neighborhoods with converted homes into apartments, triple deckers or whatever they are called too. But the schematics/stats of Richmond N of the James fits Syracuse more than anywhere else...
Beacon Hill and Society hill are much more similar to each other than Mattapan and Kensington are
In many ways Central Boston and Center city Philly are very similar. But “bad neighborhoods”/towns in Greater Boston would not be perceived as such in Philly. Like Chelsea would be a pretty average neighborhood in Philly but considered pretty bad in the context of Greater Boston.
Boston doesn’t have an area like Austin or Garfield park where ~0.5-1% of residents get shot every year like Chicago does while Michigan Ave have the bougie feel of Newbury Street
Kensington is peak urban though without a doubt. Wether or not you’d want to explore its urban offerings is a different question. Urbanity =/= Desirability
Beacon Hill and Society hill are much more similar to each other than Mattapan and Kensington are
In many ways Central Boston and Center city Philly are very similar. But “bad neighborhoods”/towns in Greater Boston would not be perceived as such in Philly. Like Chelsea would be a pretty average neighborhood in Philly but considered pretty bad in the context of Greater Boston.
Boston doesn’t have an area like Austin or Garfield park where ~0.5-1% of residents get shot every year like Chicago does while Michigan Ave have the bougie feel of Newbury Street
You're missing a lot of nuance here.
There are many parts of Philly and Chicago that are the same socioeconomically (particularly after adjusting for COL) as "average" Boston neighborhoods but have higher crime rates.
It has to do with "street culture," not inherent neighborhood conditions. Two very different things.
There are many parts of Philly and Chicago that are the same socioeconomically (particularly after adjusting for COL) as "average" Boston neighborhoods but have higher crime rates.
It has to do with "street culture," not inherent neighborhood conditions. Two very different things.
Yes but “street culture” impacts QOL. And how nice a neighborhood is. A neighborhood with poor or working class people isn’t necessarily unpleasant.
People who make less money than me aren’t the issue that makes places unpleasant. Carjackings, murders, muggings, etc are.
Metro Boston, Providence, New York has a lot of poor areas that are relatively pleasant to live in.
I wish I could say Rochester. It has great bones to be a great transit/urban city. The central city is well-constructed for it with first Gen suburban type homes on small lots with regular commercial corridors and corners. “Corner stores” are new to me but common here. There was once even a short-lived subway here. Nobody wants to invest in it.
I think Dallas doesn’t get it’s due with DART, and same with Los Angeles, especially with blue they’re expanding their transit. Los Angeles is actually a lot more sense than people realize, despite their reputation.
You're kidding, right? Literally every city has a massive gap between its "best" and "average" neighborhoods.
Do you think Back Bay or Roxbury are remotely similar? The Upper East Side and Queens? Georgetown and Brookland?
There's a massive range everywhere, because America has always been the land of "haves" and "have nots." There's no exception anywhere.
Thank you, Duderino!
Haves and Have Not neighborhoods are an unfortunate fact of life in large American cities. But to act like this exists only in certain cities -- those this poster doesn't like; i.e. Cleveland (always first on his list), is ridiculous. Clearly, the poster is stretching the truth to support his premise that older legacy cities, like Cleveland, Philly, St. Louis and others, are somehow 'overrated' because folks just overlook all those really 'bad' neighborhoods nearby... For example, stating that Cleveland only has 'a few blocks' of nice areas on its East Side is more than ridiculous and untrue... Waterloo/Collinwood has several nice rehabbed trendy/active blocks, and it's one of the smaller enclaves on the East Side.
What about University Circle? -- a large, historic parklike cultural, residential gem, that has been growing rapidly in terms of its commercial district, and whose positive influence/effect is bleeding into other nearby neighbors like lower Glenville and Fairfax/Cleveland Clinic... This is FACT, not conjecture.
Then, of course, there's Little Italy next door; an area with Brooklyn, NY-like density and foot traffic. Sure, it's small (although it's exactly 1 mile walking from one end to another -- just measured it on Google Street View; proving LI, alone, is more than 'just a few blocks').
Oh yeah, and there's Shaker Square-Larchmere, historic and home to the greatest concentration of multi-unit residential buildings neighborhood-wise outside of downtown. This area, along with the slowly reviving Buckeye area nearby, is more 'a few blocks' but, actually, several square miles... And, oh yeah, we could also throw in other solid-to-growing areas like Kirkland-Goodrich, Asiatown ... and, yes, even Slavic Village -- which although America's ground zero in the 2008 mortgage neighborhood devastation, has been making amazing comeback strides with new townhouses and apartment developments popping up all over along with a strong concerted push to rehab the beautiful old pre-1900 commercial district at E.55th & Broadway.
Yes, all this (and others I didn't mention) on Cleveland's (supposedly horrible) East Side. Funny the poster conveniently overlooked/was silent about Cleveland's thriving West Side, where dense, mixed-use districts are thriving all over and housing rehab and infill are happening all over...
... but, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good (falsefied) story? NOTE: This same poster has used the 'just a few blocks/disjointed neighboods' false premise regarding Cleveland's West Side, as well... Oy!
Haves and Have Not neighborhoods are an unfortunate fact of life in large American cities. But to act like this exists only in certain cities -- those this poster doesn't like; i.e. Cleveland (always first on his list), is ridiculous. Clearly, the poster is stretching the truth to support his premise that older legacy cities, like Cleveland, Philly, St. Louis and others, are somehow 'overrated' because folks just overlook all those really 'bad' neighborhoods nearby... For example, stating that Cleveland only has 'a few blocks' of nice areas on its East Side is more than ridiculous and untrue... Waterloo/Collinwood has several nice rehabbed trendy/active blocks, and it's one of the smaller enclaves on the East Side.
What about University Circle? -- a large, historic parklike cultural, residential gem, that has been growing rapidly in terms of its commercial district, and whose positive influence/effect is bleeding into other nearby neighbors like lower Glenville and Fairfax/Cleveland Clinic... This is FACT, not conjecture.
Then, of course, there's Little Italy next door; an area with Brooklyn, NY-like density and foot traffic. Sure, it's small (although it's exactly 1 mile walking from one end to another -- just measured it on Google Street View; proving LI, alone, is more than 'just a few blocks').
Oh yeah, and there's Shaker Square-Larchmere, historic and home to the greatest concentration of multi-unit residential buildings neighborhood-wise outside of downtown. This area, along with the slowly reviving Buckeye area nearby, is more 'a few blocks' but, actually, several square miles... And, oh yeah, we could also throw in other solid-to-growing areas like Kirkland-Goodrich, Asiatown ... and, yes, even Slavic Village -- which although America's ground zero in the 2008 mortgage neighborhood devastation, has been making amazing comeback strides with new townhouses and apartment developments popping up all over along with a strong concerted push to rehab the beautiful old pre-1900 commercial district at E.55th & Broadway.
Yes, all this (and others I didn't mention) on Cleveland's (supposedly horrible) East Side. Funny the poster conveniently overlooked/was silent about Cleveland's thriving West Side, where dense, mixed-use districts are thriving all over and housing rehab and infill are happening all over...
... but, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good (falsefied) story? NOTE: This same poster has used the 'just a few blocks/disjointed neighboods' false premise regarding Cleveland's West Side, as well... Oy!
Visitors will get a very similar impression of Philly and Boston. Society Hill vs Beacon Hill, UCity bs Kendall Sq, Old City vs the North End, the Chinatowns, South Philly/South Boston, Walnut Street/Newbury Street.
Similarly The Seaport, Canalside and the Flats are vibes wise nearly identical. Allentown, South End, Ohio City basically the same.
People very much get the impression the cities are very similar. But they’re not. Philly is far more dysfunctional. But visitors stay in areas that are curated for their enjoyment. So underrated cities are just cities that have the biggest gap between touristy and non touristy neighborhoods. Boston’s tourist areas are much more representative of the city than Philly’s are.
SF has the opposite issue. A lot of its most dysfunctional areas in right in the core of where visitors go even though the city isn’t that bad at all. It’s just not hidden away.
Metro Boston, Providence, New York has a lot of poor areas that are relatively pleasant to live in.
Eh, this is getting subjective.
I pass no judgement towards people in poverty. Most of them try their very best to get ahead, and to make their communities livable. But crime is absolutely not the only factor that makes poorer neighborhoods often less desirable and less pleasant. There's many factors, from built environment to social outcomes other than crime.
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.
