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.
When he says big shoulders he's not talking about if it's city limits or if there's adjacent communities. Basically just heavy density that sprawl/spans for miles in every direction that amounts to a larger population period.
yea but that doesn't matter if were constrained to the most urban 50square miles. Everyone is on an equal playing field. That's why I don't get the shoulders comment. Youre saying hes not talking about city limits- but he explicitly mentioned Chelsea not being a a part of Boston..
Whether or not to include Chelsea probably depends a lot on geography and how you define “contiguous”. On one hand, it is right across the harbor from Downtown. On the other, both it and East Boston are far-ish from Downtown if you have to get there by land. Or at least much farther than Camberville by that metric.
Boston is not contiguous with Chelsea (Mystic River) or Cambridge (Charles River). Also, Chelsea is an 9-minute drive from Downtown Boston. Somerville (the ville par of Camberville) is maybe 2 minutes closer.
East Boston is a 6 minute's drive from Downtown Boston and 2 miles away. Its much closer than Somerville lol.
If you didn't include Chelsea what would you be including? Arent we looking for the most urban contiguous 50 sqmi) that is virtually impossible to do in the Boston area without Both Chelsea and East Boston.
1. They’re a 10’s of non-downtown neighborhoods in various major cities that have densities that rival/exceed Chelsea because they like Chelsea are dense residential communities. I gave you an example in Baltimore. I could give you multiple in Philly, LA, Chicago, SF, NYC, DC, etc… Umm yea im aware why are you telling me this??? What are you trying to refute or point out?
2. Philly’s core 50 sq/mi is arguably more urban than Boston equivalent 50 sq/mi area. It physically feels like a bigger city despite being marginally less dense over “x” area. Yep it does feel like a larger city, you're not getting a debate from me here...
3. By population maybe. But sheer built environment no. It’s a primarily triple deckers. Cambridge by itself rivals some major cities downtowns in built environment. Cambridge is also mostly triple deckers, in fact it has way more SFH's with large lots than Chelsea does but it has a big downtownish area too.
5. People are aware of it. Nobody mentioned it because it’s not the most urban area in the immediate Boston area. Cambridge is. No, i really dont think people are aware of it. But also You still would need to include it to find the most urban 50 square miles of Boston. That should go without saying. You'd lop off all of West Roxbury and hyde Park entirely, and probably Roslindale too....- Also Cambridge is not the most urban area in the immediate Boston area, that would be Downtown Boston of course.
6. Boston (proper) has the 3rd highest inflow of outside commuters after NYC & DC to the tune of ~300k. Downtown, CBD, core, whatever you want to call it. Chelsea & Everett are not anchors of their own economy. Im just making you aware, people are not mostly working in Downtown Boston in those places- they just do not. They work locally and other working-class communities north of downtown Bosotn. Not really enough jobs for menial workers in Downtown Boston for them to work. You may also find them working further south in Residential areas of Boston. I can almost guarantee you that most of them do not work in Downtown Boston...
Im just wondering why Chelsea doesnt get mentioned often in general- I really odnt think people are aware of it. But especially when in order to find the most urban 50 sqmi of the Boston area you have to include Chelsea there is literally no avoiding that. It has to be in the mix.
I can see an argument for it being included, but I can also see an argument for it not being included due to not being contiguous for the 50 square mile area with the rest of the core unless you seriously gerrymander it to wind sort of up to the west and north from Boston and then around (in which case you'll have grabbed parts of Somerville and more into this). Chelsea's on the other side of the Mystic River and its crossing to an urban part of the rest of that urban core is the Tobin bridge which is of some length and is solely for vehicular traffic. I think another non-overlapping contiguous 50 square mile that can make top 20 is the contiguous urban parts of basically north of the Mystic River and would include at least Chelsea, Revere, Everett, East Boston, Medford, Winthrop, Melrose, Lynn and some bits more. I think that makes some sense as a split as the Charles River split that Somerville/Cambridge have with Boston is a lot shorter and more "permeable" with many more and shorter crossings while the Mystic River at its eastern bit closest to downtown Boston is quite wide, has limited crossings and is heavily lined with industrial usage that's none too urban. Though like with Brooklyn and Queens, the Mystric River towards the west gets narrower and sort of has a less significant boundary and then no boundary between the prime Boston/Cambridge/Somerville core I'm talking about and this new north of the Mystic second 50 square mile.
This river crossing stuff and how "permeable" it is and how things should count as contiguous for a spread of 50 square miles is also why I'm not so sure about DC. I think it's a stretch to argue the parts of NOVA west of the Potomac are contiguous given the limited and somewhat long crossings often with development further away from the water. Without that, then needing to include a contiguous 50 square miles has you going in a northern arc from the urban core of DC to places that oftentimes aren't that urban and so that much smaller bit of the 50 square miles that is very urban then ends up sort of getting "diluted" from the much larger area that's significantly less urban.
Yea, that one is sort of contentious and I also was somewhat incomplete on my Bergen Neck urban area description which should say the lower, urban part of Bergen County like Edgewater, Cliffside Park, Palisade Park, part of Fort Lee, and part of Ridgefield along with those parts of Hudson County that are urban and with which this is contiguous. That's a pretty impressive stretch, and filling up 50 square miles of contiguous urbanity is actually quite a lot on the scale of these places. I think Philadelphia and Bergen Neck are close and the Boston/Cambridge/Somerville core not far behind.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. You have to include it. If you don't include Chelsea Everett in the most urban 50 square miles what are you including instead??? The most urban part of the Boston MSA are directly north and west of Boston. Chelsea is hella permeable its from its edge to Boston's edge is what a 4 minute drive max? I thought we were talking about 50 square miles, how is 4 minutes a drive too far removed- especially when someone just said it functions as a part of Boston
This - i don't understand this logic. Arent we just looking for the 50 square miles that most urban? That by definition involves gerrymandering. The Bergen Neck isn't a real place or town- that in and of itself is Gerry mandering...no?
The Mystic River is not even as wide as the Charles river. Speaking as someone raised in Boston i have no idea what non-Bosotnians are talking about- what are the places you would include in the core if not Chelsea and still reach 50 square miles? It feels much closer to downtown Boston than Somerville does..
I did not expect that it was an "argument" for including Chelsea I figured that was an implied given, i was just asking about why its not mentioned. Much more of Somerville and Cambridge contains suburban-type areas than Chelsea.. and Wya more of Boston itself has super suburban areas than Chelsea.
If you're not including Chelsea that is a joke and would make the assessment 100% invalid IMO. You would include Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, and Everett at least in addition to Boston down to about Roslindale.
But I can also see arguments for including Revere Malden and Lynn for sure. But you really cannot include Chelsea and say that youre looking at the 50sqi that ost urban in the Boston area- nah.
But yea same for DC you'd have to include Arlington.. otherwise your not getting the most urban 50 sqmi. Its not complicated. Either way bodies of water are in or out. lets not dothis pick and choose because ittake 40 seconds longer to get across one body at one point than another Thats contrived.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 01-07-2023 at 01:09 PM..
What's so special about Chelsea? It's the third densest city in the Boston metro and 29th densest in the country. I don't understand confusion surrounding its omission.
I do not understand how people don't know about it or why it wasn't mentioned. I didn't know yall were OMITTING it. Thats totally bizzare. Many places are further aware from downtown that are being included and are less dense. Including much of Somerville.
Lived in Boston my whole life- what people are saying here about whether should you include it in the densest 50 square miles of the core really does not compute with anything I know or experienced. I more so thought it went without saying rather than being omitted. Its right there
I want to see a map of what you all would include for most urban areas around Boston if Chelsea could possibly not be included. I am VERY curious about what that looks like.
Shudra, Joakim, OyCrumbler- if you could drop a map of that area you're thinking of that'd be greatly appreciated.
Boston is not contiguous with Chelsea (Mystic River) or Cambridge (Charles River). Also, Chelsea is an 9-minute drive from Downtown Boston. Somerville (the ville par of Camberville) is maybe 2 minutes closer.
East Boston is a 6 minute's drive from Downtown Boston and 2 miles away. Its much closer than Somerville lol.
If you didn't include Chelsea what would you be including? Arent we looking for the most urban contiguous 50 sqmi) that is virtually impossible to do in the Boston area without Both Chelsea and East Boston.
That’s only true if you go over the Tobin or through the underwater tunnels. You can’t walk from Downtown Boston to Chelsea or Eastie in a reasonable amount of time.
Granted, I think I’m on the “ignore water” side of things, I’m just pointing out what [I think] is a pretty reasonable argument in the other direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Shudra, Joakim, OyCrumbler- if you could drop a map of that area you're thinking of that'd be greatly appreciated.
Would like to do something like this, but it’ll be at least a couple days before I’ll have the time!
That’s only true if you go over the Tobin or through the underwater tunnels. You can’t walk from Downtown Boston to Chelsea or Eastie in a reasonable amount of time.
Granted, I think I’m on the “ignore water” side of things, I’m just pointing out what [I think] is a pretty reasonable argument in the other direction.
Would like to do something like this, but it’ll be at least a couple days before I’ll have the time!
But dude it’s 50 square miles….you can’t walk to downtown Boston in a reasonable amount. Of time from MOST of that. Boston is 48 square miles if I want to walk from my dads house (in Boston) to downtown it takes 2 hours and 52 minutes…. but it’s contiguous and a sort of Boston so I guess that not gerrymandering? And how much of like….Denver’s 50square miles is actually walkable?
Again, if you don’t include Chelsea then what in the are you including?. How can you have “the most urban” area in Bostons MSA and not include Chelsea- you can’t.
I don’t see a reasonable argument because in mad of these places you can’t reasonably walk to downtown quickly. And walking isn’t the only form of transit used in a city. It’s just one method. And it’s not the most common method…
are you including Fields Corner? Takes longer to walk to downtown Boston from there, and it’s less urban, but it’s got the subway where Chelsea doesn’t but it much further from downtown, but it’s contiguous in terms of land (whereas Cambridge is not). It’s also faster via commuter rail or bus to get to downtown Boston from Chelsea than most of Roxbury (the geographic center of Boston)… I don’t get it. Seems like you have to include Chelsea. Are you including *all* of Somerville because most of that is further from downtown Boston than Chelsea is…
You can reach TD garden from Encore in Everett faster on foot than you could reach Assembly row from TD Garden… there’s many many examples
I’m blown away to an extent because many of the the areas I see as most urban in Boston MSA (and I think most people in Boston would agree) are apparently not being included here?
I do not understand how people don't know about it or why it wasn't mentioned. I didn't know yall were OMITTING it. Thats totally bizzare. Many places are further aware from downtown that are being included and are less dense. Including much of Somerville.
Lived in Boston my whole life- what people are saying here about whether should you include it in the densest 50 square miles of the core really does not compute with anything I know or experienced. I more so thought it went without saying rather than being omitted. Its right there
Feel free to pick your own 50 square miles and include it. These are just guesstimates for the most part. I haven’t included nor omitted it. I’m not familiar with Boston and I’ve never heard of it.
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.
