I mean, that's basically what this new law is: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

The question is whether the penalties on the towns who don't comply actually get enforced.

The state literally passed legislation to force communities with or near MBTA access (including CR) to loosen their zoning laws: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

I really don't think it's accurate to present it as if the state government is preventing other municipalities from developing, generally zoning laws are local so its the municipalities themselves who are preventing the development. The state government is far from perfect, but on this issue they are pushing municipalities to loosen their zoning restrictions, not the other way around.

The D branch is easily the best of the Green Line branches though as it is a dedicated track and doesn't have to stop at traffic lights or due to traffic. It is also the easiest branch to access Longwood from, it's only a 20-25 minute ride on the D branch from Newton Centre to the Longwood stop.

I agree commuting around the Boston area is generally not the best, but that particular commute is honestly quite easy. But I can see what you mean that if they can afford Newton Centre why not just go to Brookline anyways and be even closer. It depends what OP wants though, Newton is a little more suburban than Brookline is overall, though how dense each is really depends on where you are in each town.

I think your recommendation of the old port towns is spot on for someone coming from the mountain west. I love hiking in northern New England myself, and it is beautiful in its own way. But coming from Idaho OP will have had access to some of the most incredible mountain ranges in the world.

The old, historic port towns will be a completely new experience for them. The western part of the US simply does not have much in the way of truly historic, walkable settlements like that. Plus the ocean will be a totally new experience for someone from Nevada and Idaho.

They are coming from Idaho, they should be able to handle our winters. Boise actually gets less sun in the winter than Boston does, for instance 105 hours of sunlight in Boise in December versus 142 hours in Boston (it actually gets a smaller percent of its possible sunlight in the winter than Boston, only around 30-40% sunlight in winter in Boise versus 50-60% in Boston). That said, Boise is sunnier in the summer than Boston, and also much hotter and dryer in the summer.

Average winter temperatures are almost the same between Boise and here, it's a difference of only a couple degrees.

I’m very surprised to hear people don’t know what it is, my grandma used to grow rhubarb in her garden only a little north of Boston, so it’s definitely a thing here. Rhubarb pie is also definitely a thing here.

But agreed with others that it’s a seasonal thing here so might be harder to find in the winter.

Honestly, the predicted weather doesn’t look particularly wintry over that time period, more like 40s and 50s. There will be rain some days though, so just consider that if you’re planning on walking around a lot (which is the best way to see Boston). Nothing really closes down in the winter here other than some outdoor events and outdoor dining at restaurants. It will just be chillier than if you come at another time of year, but you could have 40s and 50s here in April, so for January that really isn’t bad.

If you’re referring to the snowstorm that already happened, it was just rain here so there’s no snow on the ground. I see more rain in the forecast and if the predicted temperatures stay that high it won’t be snow, but it’s always possible things could change.

They will run trains and shuttle buses as they did in 1994. I feel like people are ignoring the fact they already hosted the World Cup in Foxborough and did stuff like that to handle the crowds last time.

This is also hardly a specific issue to Boston. Pretty much all of the US venues for 2026 are outside of the city with poor or no public transit options to access them.

Arlington, TX also holds the dubious distinction of being the largest city in the US without any public transit system I believe. Not even a bus system.

Nah, I expect most games to sell out. The US has a huge population and even though soccer isn’t the most popular sport here over 25 million people in the US watched the 2022 World Cup final. Qatar’s entire population is only 2.8 million people, which was part of the issue, there simply weren’t that many local fans attending. The US will provide more local fans simply by virtue of having 100+ times the population.

Add in the fact that travel from Latin America will be much easier and Latin American fans travel in huge numbers, and the fact European fans won’t be as bothered by the location in terms of controversy, and I suspect attendances will be high.

I feel like /r/boston is specifically bad for this, people always act like anything wrong with Boston is only a problem in Boston. There are some problems that are more Boston specific, but certainly not this one or many others that come up on here. But you're right that complaining about stuff without really thinking about it is a reddit thing in general.

Yeah, while I hate Gillette’s location myself, not sure why this sub is acting like all the tourists are going to stay in Foxborough. The vast majority of tourists will stay in Boston and will take the commuter rail and/or shuttle buses they will set up out to the games.

Also weird how some are acting like this is unique to Boston when almost every US venue for 2026 is located outside the city in a suburban area. It’s a US issue generally, not a Boston specific one.

They definitely need to build a stadium for the Revs closer into the city, they only need a 20k-25k seat stadium and that could certainly be done much closer to the city.

That said, that would change nothing for the World Cup, the minimum venue size for the World Cup is generally around 40,000.

You act like this is not typical for US stadiums. Sadly it is very normal for US stadiums to not be actually located in the city itself.

AT&T stadium outside of Dallas, which is also hosting, literally does not have any public transit connection to the city. At least they can run the commuter rail to Gillette for the World Cup, and they will also have shuttle buses like they did in 1994. Most tourists will stay in Boston and just go out to the games using the train or buses.

These sort of issues will reflect generally poorly on the state of US public transit in 2026, but acting like it will specifically single out Boston as a “bad city” or whatever is ridiculous. The majority of the US venues are not in urban areas, they are in suburbs outside the stadium. Levi’s stadium is even further from San Francisco than Gillette is from Boston in terms of mileage and is in a different metro area than San Francisco. MetLife is in suburban New Jersey, not NYC.

My mistake, thanks. Either way, it doesn’t sound like OP’s suggestion that property tax rates are going to increase is accurate given the limitations in place.

With property values being one of the things increasing in Massachusetts I’m not sure that property tax rates will necessarily increase much. Towns can take in more money with the same rates as values increase. You tend to see increasing property tax rates in places where the housing market has crashed and values have dropped. For instance, upstate NY has had big problems with this historically, though I don’t know if COVID changed that.

They certainly do, but I will note that both these income figures are pre-tax. So the taxes to pay for those things would come out of the income as well.

I certainly agree that paying higher taxes for public healthcare and university education is a good and cheaper trade-off than the US approach though.

Exactly. MA certainly has pockets of extreme wealth and education. But the median in MA is also higher than median elsewhere in the US, it's not just those pockets dragging everything else up.

It always surprises me how "meh" salaries are in the UK. It's a great place to live in many ways, but I suspect the reason it doesn't do that well on HDI is because median incomes there aren't actually that high.

For reference, UK median household income is ~$47,000 annually as compared to ~$71,000 annually in the US.

Well, and it's part of Norway, so I'm not sure why people are singling it out as if it is its own country.

Eh, not really though. MA has the highest rate of college-educated adults in the US in general at 46%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_educational_attainment

That isn't just due to Boston and Cambridge, the state overall has a high level of educational attainment compared to most places in the world. And things like high incomes and longevity (the other things measured by HDI) tend to be positively correlated with educational attainment.

Obviously there is variation between places in MA, but that is true everywhere.

A desert? I agree that snow totals have gone done over the years, but they’ve largely just been replaced with winter rain and sleet, there’s still plenty of winter precipitation. For instance, it rained most of the day just this Wednesday. Droughts around here seem to happen in the summer (and they are far from every year).

I guess I misread it, or maybe I was just looking at shotgun season for deer.

Either way, that's my point. No idea why they are acting like it's only two weeks, hunting impacts people doing outdoor activities for a significant portion of the year.

No, they are being very misleading in their argument. They are probably just talking about deer season, which is only a couple weeks.

But there are many other seasons for different animals. When you add them all up there are months that are impacted by hunting, not just the two weeks for deer. Most of fall and winter have some sort of hunting season open.

I'm neutral on hunting as an activity, I don't care if people hunt. But it's disingenuous to act like hunting is the same as other outdoor activities like hiking or mountain biking in terms of the potential danger it can pose to other people. Obviously most hunters are very responsible, but there is always the potential for something to go wrong when a weapon is involved that can kill at range and the hobby occurs in the woods where it can be hard to tell what you are seeing due to trees and undergrowth.

A hobby like that is going to get regulated more strictly than hobbies that do not involve weapons that can kill people and animals at range, even if by accident. And it seems fair to give people one day per weekend to be able to walk in the woods without worrying about those accidents occurring. But I get you disagree and that's fine.