San Francisco drops to 3rd most expensive city for renters

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Boston is very high profile in the Eastern U.S. No doubt somewhat higher profile than Philly, and in the same general tier as DC. It doesn't have quite the global feel of the biggest U.S. metros but it's a heavyweight. Not quite the Bay Area, but not tremendously off either.

There isn't much to Mass outside the Boston CSA, and this small area is mostly college towns and second home areas for wealthy New Yorkers and Bostonians. So, no, not particularly Rust Belt anymore. Maybe Springfield, a bit, but not really. And Upstate NY near Mass isn't really Rust Belt. It's more of the college town/second home/recreational feel. The whole Hudson Valley, and hilly scenery north of NYC, whether in NY, CT or MA, is pretty expensive these days, with bad housing shortages. The real Rust is to the west of the Hudson Valley/Catskills.

Starts around the Utica area though the Capital District had some pretty rusty areas' e.g., Schenectady.

As for Boston, it absolutely does loom large of the northeast and ranks up there with New York and DC for it areas for career opportunities. Perhaps, not if you're shopping around for someone to look at your screenplay...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Listen, I know Boston is beautiful and has an incredible urban fabric.

But when I say sex appeal, I'm not talking the traits urban enthusiasts like ourselves love. I'm talking about the general American populace...most people all over the country don't dream one day of moving to Boston the way they do LA or NYC; nightlife is pretty staid there and socially it's in many ways a pretty stuffy, close-up-early kind of city. It's not one where the likes of Madonna would've shown up off a greyhound with just $5 on her to pursue her big city dreams. No Bravo! reality shows are filmed there, etc. etc. That sort of pull is often what makes the other cities so expensive and desirable.

Well... 1) I'd put Boston in the same bucket as San Francisco on the issue of "sex appeal", and 2) I don't think L.A. was seen as an expensive place until about the last one or two decades, and 3) what does "sex appeal" have to do with cost of living? Chicago is more high profile than almost every city not named New York or Los Angeles, but it's not a very expensive city.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

But when I say sex appeal, I'm not talking the traits urban enthusiasts like ourselves love. I'm talking about the general American populace...most people all over the country don't dream one day of moving to Boston the way they do LA or NYC.

So by your own definition then, there are only two US cities with "sex appeal": NYC & LA.

It seems awfully narrow to me to only allow for two cities in a nation as vast and varied as ours to be rightfully "expensive", but whatever.

I think most of the rest of us see Boston as the sexy urban beast that it is and understand why it's "expensive".

[Segun]

Outside of NYC and LA, South Beach in Miami is the only "sexy" area you could anecdotally say the average person knows about. That doesn't always equate with it being the most expensive. Old money and it's institutions, culture, and academia is just as relevant, or more relevant.

[pip]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Listen, I know Boston is beautiful and has an incredible urban fabric.

But when I say sex appeal, I'm not talking the traits urban enthusiasts like ourselves love. I'm talking about the general American populace...most people all over the country don't dream one day of moving to Boston the way they do LA or NYC; nightlife is pretty staid there and socially it's in many ways a pretty stuffy, close-up-early kind of city. It's not one where the likes of Madonna would've shown up off a greyhound with just $5 on her to pursue her big city dreams. No Bravo! reality shows are filmed there, etc. etc. That sort of pull is often what makes the other cities so expensive and desirable.

I'm in Boston temporarily and I get what you are saying. It's true and certainly nightlife in Boston isn't much. This city is quiet at night. But Boston is safe, walkable, and has tons of high paying jobs from high tech to finance and all live in those cute neighborhoods. I think those three things make Boston what it is in terms of prices.

Boston with it's number of high paying jobs along along with universities that crank out high income earners took over a medium sized city and now you have high prices. And New England is dotted with beautiful smaller cities/town much of which is connected to Boston with it's commuter rail.

[Yuri]

About this discussion of nightlife, to me that's a must for a city. I don't know Boston, but it strikes me as a place with poor nightlife, a non-existent edgy scene, a very conformist atmosphere. It's not for me: as the forumer said, I want to be in the place that Madonna would have headed to. And that's surprising as Boston is a 6 million people metro area.

But I guess, as people said, that's true for most US areas, except maybe for New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco (?).

[pip]

you can think what you want but you are exaggerating and mostly incorrect

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by pip

you can think what you want but you are exaggerating and mostly incorrect

That's nice then. Could you share a bit about Boston alternative scene?

[Crawford]

Boston is a large metro with active nightlife, as there are tons of educated and/or moneyed young/single people. No, it isn't NY or Miami, but so what? It's a desirable place for younger folks, and a good place to raise a family. High incomes, high quality of life.

I lived in Boston area for a few years in my 20's, in grad school. Never felt it lacked nightlife or activities for younger folks.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

About this discussion of nightlife, to me that's a must for a city. I don't know Boston, but it strikes me as a place with poor nightlife, a non-existent edgy scene, a very conformist atmosphere. It's not for me: as the forumer said, I want to be in the place that Madonna would have headed to. And that's surprising as Boston is a 6 million people metro area.

But I guess, as people said, that's true for most US areas, except maybe for New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco (?).

Nightlife in Boston is fine, it's just not New York or LA which are massive tourist hubs plus global centers of the entertainment industry which attract the partying types. Who over the age of 30 or so wants to move to an area solely because that's where Madonna would have gone when she was 20?

To me, SF is more like Boston than LA or NY as far as nightlife.

[iheartthed]

A city as big as Boston definitely has night clubs. Look up the story about Aaron Hernandez, who frequented night clubs in Boston. I would be surprised if any U.S. metro of +2 million doesn't have at least several night clubs.

Originally Posted by JManc

To me, SF is more like Boston than LA or NY as far as nightlife.

Absolutely.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Boston is a large metro with active nightlife, as there are tons of educated and/or moneyed young/single people. No, it isn't NY or Miami, but so what? It's a desirable place for younger folks, and a good place to raise a family. High incomes, high quality of life.

I lived in Boston area for a few years in my 20's, in grad school. Never felt it lacked nightlife or activities for younger folks.

I specifically said I value that. I don't care about big suburban houses or raising a family. High income, you can have everywhere. I don't need a place with 1 million high income jobs. Just 1, mine, suffices.

And there is nightlife and nightlife. I'm certainly not into very conventional nightclubs/bars full of straight guys behaving badly. Very fancy and pretentious stuff neither. That's dated and tacky.

So my question is: does Boston have those kind of places you find in London, Berlin, Barcelona or São Paulo? I guessed it doesn't, but you can correct me.

Originally Posted by JManc

Nightlife in Boston is fine, it's just not New York or LA which are massive tourist hubs plus global centers of the entertainment industry which attract the partying types. Who over the age of 30 or so wants to move to an area solely because that's where Madonna would have gone when she was 20?

To me, SF is more like Boston than LA or NY as far as nightlife.

I'm over 30 and I definitely want to live in a big, creative, energetic, non-conformist place, otherwise I'd be bored. Even inside one city you have those differences: I certainly prefer to live Downtown than on the sleepy, very wealthy, Jewish quarter that's just 1km away.

About San Francisco, maybe they get too rich, and as such, conventional. Maybe a 1960's-1980's San Francisco would be more interesting in this regard, I don't know.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A city as big as Boston definitely has night clubs. Look up the story about Aaron Hernandez, who frequented night clubs in Boston. I would be surprised if any U.S. metro of +2 million doesn't have at least several night clubs.

I'm pretty sure they have nightclubs, but what type? The edgy ones I can find in places like São Paulo, Berlin or London or the conventional ones that I find in every single mid-sized city?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

So my question is: does Boston have those kind of places you find in London, Berlin, Barcelona or São Paulo? I guessed it doesn't, but you can correct me.

No. In the U.S., probably only NYC would fit that niche. Not even LA, which is an early-to-bed, fitness/health-obsessed city. Miami maybe for a few weeks in the wintertime.

[JManc]

If you're looking for a dynamic club scene, Boston probably isn't for you. For everyone else, it's a highly desirable city with virtually every amenity available.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I specifically said I value that. I don't care about big suburban houses or raising a family. High income, you can have everywhere. I don't need a place with 1 million high income jobs. Just 1, mine, suffices.

And there is nightlife and nightlife. I'm certainly not into very conventional nightclubs/bars full of straight guys behaving badly. Very fancy and pretentious stuff neither. That's dated and tacky.

So my question is: does Boston have those kind of places you find in London, Berlin, Barcelona or São Paulo? I guessed it doesn't, but you can correct me.

I'm pretty sure Boston has plenty of gay bars and night clubs. Internationally, Boston resembles London to me a lot. The night life obviously won't be to the same scale as London, since that city is much bigger, but I notice elements of London's pub culture in Boston more than any other major U.S. city. Boston is also not Berlin for sure, but neither is London lol. Barcelona night life punches well above its weight due to that city being an international tourist mecca. But Boston and Madrid are probably evenly matched.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No. In the U.S., probably only NYC would fit that niche. Not even LA, which is an early-to-bed city. Miami maybe for a few weeks in the wintertime.

@pip got angry with me, but I guessed right then.

And I'm not a poser: I really grew to like those places for the past 4-5 years. You always see something different, something new and you take a break from the weekdays monotony. And because of that, I pretty much dropped any plans to move from São Paulo eventually: the good outweighs the bad.

About Los Angeles, maybe I got influenced by some edgy videoclips or movies. I thought they had a very big alternative, non-conformist scene. Miami is a bit dangerous: too many wealthy, fascist, middle-aged Brazilians around.

Originally Posted by JManc

If you're looking for a dynamic club scene, Boston probably isn't for you. For everyone else, it's a highly desirable city with virtually every amenity available.

Yeah, one of the wealthiest metro areas in the world. No doubt on that.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm pretty sure Boston has plenty of gay bars and night clubs. Internationally, Boston resembles London to me a lot. The night life obviously won't be to the same scale as London, since that city is much bigger, but I notice elements of London's pub culture in Boston more than any other major U.S. city. Boston is also not Berlin for sure, but neither is London lol. Barcelona night life punches well above its weight due to that city being an international tourist mecca. But Boston and Madrid are probably evenly matched.

Typically, there's like 20 gay nightclubs I consider to attend in a given weekend (and many more that's not my thing). However, they vary greatly: different public and vibe. It's not because it's gay they will necessarily be cool or interesting.

What helps London is their size: they are a bit conventional, São Paulo certainly has way more options, but London can always count with ther several edgy neighbourhoods around. Berlin is simply too good. I'd move there anyday.

[Crawford]

I'm too old/boring for nightclubs, but I suspect even Berlin, London, NYC and the like are a bit tamer than 30 years ago.

The young people in my workplace aren't spending nights clubbing and doing drugs like we were. We would go out all night, and then go straight to work, just showering in the office. I remember doing presentations and feeling like hell. We would sneak naps in the office gym. I don't think the health-conscious 20-somethings in my workplace are doing this. They don't even eat meat.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

. Not even LA, which is an early-to-bed, fitness/health-obsessed city.

LA is way more diverse than that.

Plenty of all-night/24-hour restaurants, and then some clubs have after-hours.

Chinese and Thai people also like to eat out/hang out late at night, so you have plenty of Chinese restaurants open until or past midnight, and Thai Town has plenty of restaurants that are open either 'til 3am or even 24 hours. And then there are the 24-hour Mexican restaurants. It's nice being able to get mango sticky rice or birria after clubbing.

[JManc]

New York without a doubt was much more wild in the late 80's/ early 90's than it is now. The club/ rave scene was insane. Ditto for London. No coincidence that these cities are well known for electronic/ house music.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm too old/boring for nightclubs, but I suspect even Berlin, London, NYC and the like are a bit tamer than 30 years ago.

The young people in my workplace aren't spending nights clubbing and doing drugs like we were. We would go out all night, and then go straight to work, just showering in the office. I remember doing presentations and feeling like hell. We would sneak naps in the office gym. I don't think the health-conscious 20-somethings in my workplace are doing this. They don't even eat meat.

Before starting to resume my nightlife, I was out of the nightclubs for 3-4 years. It's a bit weird to come back, you feel inadequate at first ("too old/boring"). But that's only in your head. No one pays attention. You meet new interesting people, make new friends, with all kinds of backgrounds. You feel alive.

I don't do drugs either and I leave nightclubs early (hardly ever after 3:00, I'm a bit old too). But in any case, drugs are not "required" in those edgy nightclubs either. That's a common misconception.There are so many options in this niche too.

And of course, it's not only about the nightclubs and parties: bars and even restaurants take full advantage of a more nightlife-friendly, edgy atmosphere.

Originally Posted by JManc

New York without a doubt was much more wild in the late 80's/ early 90's than it is now. The club/ rave scene was insane. Ditto for London. No coincidence that these cities are well known for electronic/ house music.

I guess they got too expensive. São Paulo is definitely way less conventional now: people take risks, different clothing, hair style, attitudes, and of course, the nightlife. Rio de Janeiro, on the other hand, went the opposite direction, becoming way more conventional and dull. They have an alternative scene, but it's minuscule compared to São Paulo. People look the same, dress the same.