Boston -- Classic or Dirty Water?

Maybe it was just a reaction to the planning-gone-bad/mall-in-the-bad-sense of Back Bay (and inappropriate attribution back to the real thing in Beacon Hill, which, admittedly, I saw at night and while distracted by a phone). I did kinda like what I saw of the South End, and Trinity and other churches were interesting.

The concert is this one. My wife and I are singing in it.

It was really lovely, but almost fairy-tailish. It's super expensive to live there, I presume?

NO YOU AREN'T.

Ultimately it's cities like Somerville and Cambridge and an area like the South End that give Boston any sort of dynamism (or character). Boston itself? Boston proper?

It's very vanilla.

Although I took a long look at the newer half of the Public Library today and I must say: that's some dope ass exterior design going on right there.

For Boston anyway...

First, Ned, it's spelt Carl Yastrzemski. As great as the Rooster was he is not by any stretch better than Manny, so 70s Boston loses in left field. But: Harvard Square hadn't become utterly uninteresting yet, Aerosmith didn't take showers yet... close call. But I'd still trade it all for Manny.

roxbury dorchester mission hill jamaica plain etc and so on, son.
certainly not on the banks of the fucking charles river during the head of the charles. walk through jamaica plain, brighton, allston, somerville fo yo dynamism next time through

nader OTM boston itself=vanilla

south station= bums, random hookers, construction worker, creepy businesmen

what, the suburbs? pfft

jamaica plain, brighton, allston, somerville : boston :: brooklyn, the bronx, queens : nyc

Just the immediate ones like:
Waltham, Watertown, Somerville, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Winthrop, Lynn, Quincy, Braintree, NEWTON, Milton, Dedham, Needham

etc. etc. etc.

what was this discussion actually about? I didn't really read.

but Boston is certainly classic.

yeah, roxbury and all the other parts of town that border roxbury

that's quite enough grit for me

but the rooster wasn't carl yastrzemski and he didn't play left field. he played shortstop. so i'm a bit confused by this argument.

but in any case, '00s boston beats '70s boston at virtually every position on the baseball field, and not just because of what happened last week, but because they are in fact a better team. though i would kill to have luis tiant on the mound for boston next year.

as for aerosmith, though, anyone who would choose aerosmith now over aerosmith in '75 either needs therapy or plays for the yankees.

The Kendall Hotel is in the MIT area right near the Kendall T stop. Other than that, I know nothing about it.

you're not looking for cheap are you ;)

Harvard Square Hotel sounds ideal, really - perfect location (ok, the immediate site is a little weird) in that it's right by the river/HSq amenities/T, and really inexpensive, considering. And you don't need to stay at the Charles to eat at Rialto. The Inn at Harvard might be a little "nicer" but seems a bit unnecessarily pretentious in style. Kendall Hotel looks very cute, but I see no reason to pay more for it. I guess I just want assurance that HSH isn't a dump.

How far to Inman Square from such places?

Also, what about the Harborside Inn? That seems a good budget-conscious choice if you want to stay close to all the touristy stuff - and this is for tourist purposes - but I think Cambridge would probably be nicer.

Inman Square proper is probably a 20 minute walk from Harvard Square; the 69 bus runs right through it.

I don't know anything about Harborside Inn BUT it's right next to State Street??? AWESOME DUDE.

The bus is from Harvard Square? Is Inman closer to MIT or about the same?