Boston: America's 2nd Most Exciting City

itchy

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
302
Couldn't find any more suitable thread - mods, feel free to move this to an existing thread if there's one you feel is appropriate.

If you’re feeling curious, take a poll of your friends and ask them what U.S. city is the most exciting. We’re willing to bet that the majority of them will come back to you with the same answer: New York City. The Big Apple. The City That Never Sleeps. There are more than enough reasons to support this notion. New York City is large and crammed with people and things to do. In fact, most of the Movoto bloggers thought that New York City was, if not the most exciting, definitely one of the most exciting places to be in America.

But—and we’re sure you saw this coming—it turned out we were wrong. New York City, while in the top 10 most exciting places to live, is not No. 1. In fact, The Big Apple doesn’t even crack the top five most exciting places to live, according to a survey Movoto recently undertook. That honor goes to another well-known city, one we are more than happy to share with you: Oakland.

How did we decide this? Recently, we got to thinking about cities and what makes them exciting and interesting places to live. We compiled a list of criteria and set out to determine which U.S. cities have the most zest for life (a full explanation of which can be found below). Here’s our list:

1. Oakland, CA: Surprisingly, Oakland ranked as Movoto’s No.1 most exciting city based on 10 pieces of criteria.

2. Boston, MA: Boston placed second on our top 10 list, mostly because of its young population, high number of bars, and number of movie theatres. Is it a coincidence these three things could make for a fun date night?

3. San Francisco, CA: San Fran placed third on our list. The City by the Bay reached its position thanks to its vibrant art and music scene.

4. Seattle, WA: Some might ding Seattle for helping inspire the '50 Shades of Grey' books. We assure you Seattle has inspired many other people.

5. Washington, D.C.: Washington, D.C. isn't just home to our nation's politicos, it's also enthralling to visit the national museums and parks. Still, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention that D.C. ranks high in the number of bars on a square mile basis.

6. New York, NY: The supposed Cultural Capital of the World didn't break into our top five most exciting cities. What held the Big Apple back? Lots of fast food joints.

7. Milwaukee, WI: We would have never guessed that Milwaukee would make our list. It turns out that Brew City is simply solid on all of our criteria.

8. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta made our top 10 list despite having poor scores on its number of fast food restaurants per square mile and park acres per person. It does have strong marks for having a young population, bars, and music.

9. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia made our list because of its high diversity and number of museums per square mile.

10. Portland, OR: Portland has a strong cultural scene with high marks in music venues and movie theaters per square mile.

That’s quite a list. These are all large cities, some of which are already known for their culture. Still, after looking at our top 10 list and scratching our head, we were still surprised that NYC didn’t rank higher.

If you’re interested in learning how we developed our top 10 list, we break down the methodology and reasoning below. Or, if you’re into quick-and-dirty lunchtime reading, jump on over to some of our other top 10 posts such as “Where Fashion Dies: The 10 Worst Dressed Cities” or “The 10 Nerdiest Cities in America.”

See here for description of methodology: http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/10-most-exciting-cities/
 
So... our excitement rating is going to go down once we get a Target in the Fenway despite it not being a bigbox wasteland of a store and being a huge success/boost in business for the area.

It's also strange how we aren't even mentioned in the 20-34 category. 1 in 3 Bostonians are 20-34, the highest in the country among cities that actually matter. http://www.onein3boston.com/
 
I was also confused by the reference to the high number of movie theaters in Boston. Are they looking at the metro area? In the city itself, there are only two first-run movie theaters (Loews Boston Common + Regal Fenway), which is pretty poor for a city of 600,000.
 
I was also confused by the reference to the high number of movie theaters in Boston. Are they looking at the metro area? In the city itself, there are only two first-run movie theaters (Loews Boston Common + Regal Fenway), which is pretty poor for a city of 600,000.

It's by square mile and Boston proper is wicked small compared to other city proper boundaries. I had the same reaction to the movie theater thing. We're hardly bursting with movie theaters. The ratio is just high because the city is so small.
 
Wow I'm not impressed with this bumping NYC because it has a lot of fast food joints sorry but fast food places don't make a place any less fun just because they exist.
 
Yeah, maybe it's just my self-loathing flaring up, but we're not more exciting than New York.

The most interesting thing about this bad, bad list is the very formulaic approach that they took.
 
I'm absolutely shocked that neither Chicago or LA made it on this list. There's a reason why the survey's creator are surprised by some of the cities that did make it on the list: the criteria they used do not correlate very well with "excitement."
 
^^ Vegas also excluded. Love Vegas or hate it, at least from a tourist's perspective (and probably from a local's, too), it is clearly quite a bit more exciting than Boston - or Oakland, or Milwaukee.
 
Milwaukee is a pretty great town, but it isn't even the most exciting city in it's state, let alone seventh most nationwide; that intrastate honor should go to Madison. But really, to overlook places like Vegas or LA which place fun at or near the top of their raisons d'être is pure folly. And come on...no Miami Beach?
 
where's Austin? how about New Orleans?

I just can't respect this list and its methodology, at all.
 
"We made up a bunch of criteria for what makes air, and surprise! air is no longer air!"
 
One of their criteria is "greenspace per resident" in which Boston probably scores highly. I don't think they bothered to differentiate between useful greenspace and dull greenspace.
 
One of their criteria is "greenspace per resident" in which Boston probably scores highly. I don't think they bothered to differentiate between useful greenspace and dull greenspace.

Even without the Greenway, Boston should score extremely high on parks. The Emerald Necklace is world-renowned. Common - Garden - Comm Ave - Fens - Jamaicaway - Arborway/Arboretum.
 
There are, no doubt, some very nice parks. Although some are for "relaxation and contemplation" not recreational "excitement".

But Comm Ave makes a good example: in Back Bay, it's nice. In Brighton, although it is technically "greenspace", it's horrible. Not sure why you included Jamaicaway: that's a highway. I guess you meant the ponds?
 
Not sure why you included Jamaicaway: that's a highway. I guess you meant the ponds?

Fenway, Riverway, Jamaicaway, and Arborway are not just attractive street names--they are the four orignal sections of parkland in Olmstead's Emerald Necklace park plan.

Regarding the excitement criteria, is the South Bay Target all of a sudden not part of Boston? I know many of us on here like to pretend South Bay Center doesn't exist, but clearly it shows a discrepancy in their grading of the cities.
 

Back
Top