Best Urban Shopping Area

[czsz]

A little bit; Berlin attracted a lot of the we're-militant-artists-let's-occupy-an-old-building-and-not-pay-rent crowd, but it stole these from a lot of German cities equally. I met a girl once on the train from Luebeck to Berlin and she said that the reunification of Berlin had "liberated" German youths from the idea that their country had no metropolis like Paris, London, and New York. "We were all stuck in places with 300,000 people, places like Mannheim," she said. I asked her about Hamburg and she said she never thought it served as a substitute, despite its size. Her reply: "Hamburg has always been dark, boring, and industrial".

That's not entirely true. The Reeperbahn was once a red light district that rivaled Amsterdam and a nightspot that cradled the Beetles. Berlin may have stolen away its top spot on the music scene, but the prostitution and stripteases died on their own. Incidentally, its presence petered out around the same time as Boston's Combat Zone.

Hamburg feels like it started lacking vision well before the Berlin Wall fell - as if it's frozen in time circa 1983. I get this feeling in Boston, too, particularly when taking the T or gazing on the skyline. So much done since then is really background; it lacks the boldness to define the city. Even the Big Dig was a plan conceived in the early 80s.

Oh, and did I mention that Hamburg has a Seaport District? It's called "Hafen City" it's got many of the same problems as Boston's (unimaginative architecture, large footprints). The one saving grace is Hamburg's ICA, a majestic concert hall that's set to grace the roof of an old warehouse.

 

[underground]

You said it, I didn't.

I think you just outed yourself as the trial lawyer who thought up Bill Clinton's "That Depends on the what the Meaning of Is, Is" defense. Yes, saying that Cheers is Boston's biggest draw and saying that Cheers is all Boston has to offer are in fact different sentances. However, are you really going to argue that the point behind them is different?

As to CZ's points, Boston being superficially prosperous and Boston not being a big draw, again, I think the big picture evidence goes against what you may be anecdotaly experiencing. The biggest single counter argument is the fact that, although the entire world is going through an economic down turn second only to the great depression, Boston has not had nearly as big a slump, and in fact will probably come out ahead of many places that had previously led it economically after the markets have straightened themselves out. If Boston was "superficially prosperous," I don't think that would be the case. As to Boston not being a big draw, we've got new life science, high tech, and movie industry jobs poping up all over the state, we've got hotels all over the place charging $300, $500, and $1,000 a night, and we've got fucking duck boats all over our streets. Sound like people are coming here. If there's anything going on, it's that more people want to come to Boston than we currently have space for. I mean, you can't tell me that I'm paying $1,500 a month to live in a closet because no one else would take the space!

As for why you can't compare American and European cities: history, government, tastes, economics, politics, geography, lifestyle... the list of differences go on and on. Looking at a European city and asking, "Why aren't we like that?" has an answer that could fill an encyclopedia.

As for Boston night/street life somehow being inferior because it's hard to find... I don't know what to tell you, dude. I've certainly never felt that way, and I can't seem to find too much sympathy for people making that argument. Looking in the newspaper isn't hard. Looking on the internet isn't hard. If you wandered down the street in Potzdamer Platz you'd have the same problem as if you wandered down the street in Kendall Sq. (although Kendall Sq. has it's awesome movie theatre, the Hungry Mother, Cambridge Brewing Co., etc.). You just can't go everywhere and expect everything. Allston is crawling with nightlife. So is most of Cambridge, parts of Somerville, Northern Brookline, Hyde Sq. and Centre St in JP, Mission Hill, the Fenway (and not just Landsdowne St.), the Back Bay is crammed with stuff all along Boylston (with some real sleeper hits off of the side streets like the Last Drop), Beacon Hill is of course a destination, as is the North End, and, I mean, this list could go on and on. Right now, we've probably got a better local music scene that we did in the 80s and 90s with places like PAs Lounge, the Midway Cafe, Great Scott, the Middle East, TT the Bears, the new House of Blues, Limelight Studio (not just Kareoke anymore), Charlie's is doing live music, O'Brien's Pub... and that's not even getting into any number of illegal venues (not that I know anything about them, ask a punk for directions). I'm gonna stop here because I'm rambling, but there is not a lack of entertainment and culture in Boston.

 

[ablarc]

I wouldn't consider anything in the North End "destination shopping" in the way these other areas are.

Charles Street used to be known as a destination for antique shopping, but I'm not sure it still is.

But niche shopping isn't the same as destination shopping, either. If I want to buy Indian groceries, Union Square in Somerville is currently my best bet - but I'd hardly go there for general shopping.

So ... what's the difference?

 

[czsz]

I think it's pretty clear from that sequence that destination shopping districts compel people to come from afar to do more general purchasing than they could achieve in a niche shopping district. If you only go there because of the antique stores, it doesn't count.

Underground - I think you're moving past my points rather than addressing them. You can cite all the visitor numbers and economic statistics you want, but that does not mean people are visiting Boston to soak up something new. A Duck Boat trundling past the city's colonial monuments is not what I would consider a good example of Boston being a vital city pulsating with excitement. Neither is a sterile lab. This is what I meant by Boston being superficially prosperous. The city is wealthy. Tourists come. But that wealth is rarely reinvested into some kind of new cultural capital, and the tourists aren't flocking to see anything that wasn't built over at least a half-century ago.

Similarly, your cataloguing of bars, clubs, and what have you doesn't speak to Boston's nighttime gestalt. Maybe the city's nightlife is just too spread out, maybe it just cloisters indoors, but having been to both Kendall Sq. and Potsdamer Platz, it boggles me how you can compare the vitality of their respective streets - one is a ghost town, even on summer nights, while the other is teeming. Boston should be more than the sum of its parts. Those parts should be contributing to a larger sense of urban vibrancy. At night, in Boston, they don't.

I don't really see why Boston, which compares itself so frequently to cities in Europe, can't be held to their standards of creativity or fun. Does Copenhagen have a more productive design scene because it's several hundred years older? Then why doesn't Hamburg?

Ablarc and others have testified to Boston's ability to compete with such places a mere three decades ago. I have to wonder whether New York's renaissance drained Boston; I have the feeling this city attracted a lot of the productive people who were scared away from Manhattan by "Taxi Driver" levels of crime and deterioration.

 

[underground]

Sorry, I completely don't understand your point about tourism. Are you saying that it's not a sign of a city's vibrancy because people only come to see old things? First of all, I'm sure plenty of people come to Boston and never see an old thing. I know that'd be pretty hard to do, but how many people come into town to see sports and go shopping, or go to a conference and eat in a restraunt? Second, even if all anyone ever did was visit the Paul Revere House, how is that a sign of a lack of vitality?

I also don't get your point about Boston's night time lacking urban vibrancy. It's too spread out? Okay, so I'll try and work geographically naming clusters of night life: Davis Sq., Harvard Sq., Central Sq., Union Sq., North Station, Beacon Hill, the North End, Downtown Crossing (I know this'll be controversial but, The Orpheum, The Opera House, The Last Hurrah, Silvertone, Max and Dylans, Fajitas and 'Ritas, The huge Lowes Movie Theatre, Teatro, Lime Light Studio, the Tam, Intermission Tavern, etc. are all down there), Boylston St (Back Bay), Boylston St (the Fenway), Brookline Ave and Lansdowne St., Mission Hill, Hyde Sq., Centre St. (JP), South Boston, Coolidge Corner, Washington Sq (Brookline), Allston, Brighton Ctr... this list goes on and on and I'm sure others can think of some that I can't think of. All of these areas have clusters of night life, and some of them are pretty big.

As for your point about Boston competing with other cities 30 years ago, first, it wasn't, and second, now it is. Now matter how rosy a picture the old photos posted here paint, the fact of the matter is that people were leaving the city by the thousands because it was a rotting hulk. Today, so many people want to live here that we have the highest housing costs of any place in the US that isn't New York or San Fran.

 

[czsz]

Maybe prosperity of the kind you're describing is part of the problem. Bostonians like Ben Thompson had to be creative 30 years ago to lure people to the city. Today, there's much more complacency. Maybe part of the problem is also that Boston drew (and draws) too many consumers of creative goods than their producers.

I know this'll be controversial but, The Orpheum, The Opera House, The Last Hurrah, Silvertone, Max and Dylans, Fajitas and 'Ritas, The huge Lowes Movie Theatre, Teatro, Lime Light Studio, the Tam, Intermission Tavern, etc. are all down there

More cataloguing. My question is: why does DTC still feel so dead at night, walking around, despite all these places? Odd, isn't it?

I'll stop whining about nightlife if you refrain from the opposite extreme. Mission Hill and Hyde Square as hotspots? Really?

And let's not forget to mention Boston's absurd closing times and the utter impossibility of finding any bar without a TV tuned to NESN. And the cancellation of the Night Bus thing. Jesus, such little changes could make this city so much better.

 

[underground]

More cataloguing. My question is: why does DTC still feel so dead at night, walking around, despite all these places? Odd, isn't it?

I'll stop whining about nightlife if you refrain from the opposite extreme. Mission Hill and Hyde Square as hotspots? Really?

And let's not forget to mention Boston's absurd closing times and the utter impossibility of finding any bar without a TV tuned to NESN. And the cancellation of the Night Bus thing. Jesus, such little changes could make this city so much better.

Personally, I don't think DTX is dead at night at all, and I think if people actually spent some time there instead of repeating the conventional wisdom and what they read in the Globe, then they'd realize it. Also, Mission Hill and Hyde Square are night spots. Even without the Milky Way (a victim of the areas popularity, as well as it's own), Hyde Sq. still has a lot of stuff. Downtown, it ain't, but for a small periferal neighborhood it's great (Brendham Behan is a personal favorite of mine and always has good DJ nights). As for finding a bar without NESN, first, I'm not sure why bars showing NESN is a bad thing, second, if you can't find a bar without NESN you're not looking hard enough, and three, if you were in New York it would just be replaced by YES because, guess what, bars in every city in the US show sports on TV. Loss of the Night Owl is a legitimate gripe. Early closing times are weird, but I've heard this complaint for so long that it's getting tired. Try going out earlier.

 

[czsz]

I'm not sure why bars showing NESN is a bad thing

It's not. It's bad when there's no variety because every bar has a giant TV with sports on it. I don't mind that most bars show The Game, but if Boston is such a cosmopolitan city, why can't at least one or two not? Believe me, I've looked. The Game shows up in the most illogical places - even bars striving for sophistication here can never resist. That doesn't happen in New York. I'm hardly the only one to comment on this.

Try going out earlier.

Sidewalks rolling up early is practically the definition of provincialism.

 

[underground]

If you need help finding a variety of bars, I'd suggest Yelp.com.

Also, I think we could all stand to think twice when we use the phrase provincial to describe Boston. I know it's popular and part of the current conventional wisdom, but it's not a reflection of reality (and I'm not even sure how sidewalks rolling up early is anything nearing the definition of provincialism). It's time to leave the 70s and join the rest of us in the future. I mean, just think about the rediculousness of calling a majority minority city provincial! Is Sam Yoon provincial? Is Felix Arroyo provincial? Is Union Sq. provincial? Is East Boston provincial? Are all the university and college students provincial? Are the people who move to Boston to work in our hospitals provincial?

Update: I Googled "No TV," Bar, and Boston and found out that City Bar has no TVs in it's lounge. Estimated time spent figuring this amazing fact out: 5 seconds.

 

[BostonObserver]

Why do so many conversations about Boston end with 'Boston sucks because I can't get a drink at 4 am'. czsz you really come across as hating Boston, are you incarcerated because I can't figure you why you don't move. And don't say I just want Boston to be better because you really do seem angry.

 

[kennedy]

Cz has always seemed very pessimistic to me, but that doesn't mean he hates Boston or something. He just doesn't use euphemisms when describing how he thinks Boston sucks. He actually contributes a good share of the good ideas the come up on this forum. My guess he's as frustrated as everyone else here. Or I'm totally wrong and he loves the Yankees, the Giants, and that goofy-ass red chowder stuff.

And yeah, Boston does suck because I probably won't be able to get a drink at 4am (in a few years when I'm 21, of course.)

 

[czsz]

BostonObserver, I think you answered your own question. If I hated Boston so much, why wouldn't I move? Why would I bother visiting this forum, filled with a bunch of Boston enthusiasts? Of course I'm trying to use criticism to improve this place. I do, however, get frustrated when the locals don't even want to acknowledge certain problems.

It's interesting to see these patterns repeat themselves on other discussion fora. Look how these Philadelphians put down superior Boston in order to feel better about themselves: http://www.city-data.com/forum/philadelphia/306301-philadelphia-vicinity-boring-second-rate.html

At the same time, I think there's a mentality defined by uninformed but prevalent criticisms like these: http://curbed.com/archives/2005/10/28/curbed_readers_write_fuck_boston_edition.php ; http://gawker.com/284166/does-boston-actually-suck-more-than-dc . I don't see why Boston should not work hard to dispel them - and, clearly, defensiveness is not going to work as much as improving the first impressions of outsiders.

 

[ablarc]

Early in this thread, garbibre said everything worth saying:

All still have grocery stores?

... Many ... could be malls in the 'burbs for all I care.

What about the other, sometimes smaller, less touristy neighborhood commercial zones, some of which have been invoked by others here--Chinatown, Fields Corner, Mattapan Square, Roslindale Square, Central in JP? Cleveland Circle? Many of these are far more worthy and interesting than the Copley Place Mall.

Hanover Street would be on my list, too, because it was for the neighborhood, then developed into a tourist destination--not engineered as a tourist destination like Quincy Market or Copley (or the Pru?).

Newbury has changed from when I was kid, too. It was a mix of 'high(er)' end shopping and 'funky' for locals--often small, locally-owned establishments--as opposed to now, where it seems like a shopping magnet for tourists with money who can go to too many of these establishments in any city, anywhere in the world. Yawn.

Charles Street almost fits my criteria (still?) and could be a worthy choice.

It's probably all too different now; I haven't lived there since the 80s. Coolidge, Harvard Street, and I know Harvard Square have been infiltrated by more (too many?) chains.

However, understand that I don't disparage the chains, until they become a majority of businesses in a neighborhood.

Anything that seems catered to attracting tourists is suspect. Even 1976 to the present Quincy Market, which would be suspect, lost whatever made it unique within its first five years of re-invention. (Now, old Quincy Market--that was GRIT! However, I am not going to get into that side discussion again here.)

The Pru, Copley, and even Downtown Crossing are all destination 'malls' and, seemingly, not intended for residents. That's why Downtown Crossing has become a failure. Office workers treat it like the mall, which is fine for the daytime. However, they ignore it at night, along with the locals AND the tourists. (Plus, all the stupid gits quoted in the article recently posted about re-opening its traffic should give you a prime indication why it's a failure.)...

I've had this argument here before. Shopping/retail is to serve the locals. If commercial businesses, of all types, become of interest to those outside the neighborhood, that's great, but shouldn't be its prime goal.

As ckb said elsewhere, "Is there a hardware store?"

 

[cden4]

I'm curious as to why Newbury St is winning this poll. I walked down it the other day and there were maybe 2 stores out of the whole stretch that interested me in any way. On the other hand, I find myself shopping in Downtown Crossing on a regular basis. I have no need for overpriced upscale crap. I want reasonably priced clothing, books, etc. I find myself in Macy's, TJMaxx, DSW, and Borders more often than pretty much any other store. In terms of a vibrant street, Newbury St wins out because of the sheer number of pedestrians and sidewalk cafes. I could do without the people showing off their decked-out cars and people double parking, causing much gridlock and honking.

 

[ablarc]

^ I think you answered your own question in your second-to-last sentence.