I don’t know about ppl in the Berkshires but it is or was a thing in the Springfield-Holyoke area to say western Mass is only hampden, Hampshire and Franklin. Makes no sense geographically.

>Central MA is mostly the 'burbs with some walkability -- Waltham, Concord, Arlington, Franklin, Wellesley.

But none of that is central Mass. Central MA has lots of downscale walkability-- Leominster, Fitchburg, Gardner, Main-South in Worcester, Southbridge, Ware, Orange. Upscale walkability not so much, no Northampton or Newburyport equivalents in central Mass. Hudson may be an exception and some parts of Worcester.

I just think when some consumer group evaluates supermarkets the criteria should be broader than just price. If the conversation is just price then the chains can avoid the whole question of where the food comes from, how sustainably produced, basically the whole food production system. The consumer group is colluding with the supermarket chains to limit the conversation to price and “quality,” whatever that is supposed to mean, and keep ppl ignorant of the source issues.

Disappointing that price is the main criterion. Quality too but what's their measure of quality? People who'd rather not buy stuff shipped across the continent but instead get food produced in the northeastern states, or who want food that isn't full of herbicides and pesticides and growth hormones, what is this "consumer nonprofit" doing for them? When we had Bread & Circus in Massachusetts there was some effort sell sustainably produced food from local sources but WF doesn't care about that nor do any other of these commercial chains. It's all about price, convenience, "quality"...

Yes-- but in the South End, considerably earlier than the 1940s. Here's a description from the 1906 publication, the Lodging House Problem in Boston.

"Every effort was made to make the district attractive. The houses were extremely well built for the period and no expense seems to have been spared to make them elegant, and in many instances even luxurious. Provision was made for parks, and some of the prettiest places in Boston to-day are the little parks and "squares" of the South End lodging house district. Especially may be mentioned West Chester Park, Worcester Square, and Union Park. For almost a quarter of a century liveried coachmen and white-capped nursemaids airing their charges were a common sight on Tremont Street and other thoroughfares, while the cross streets were gay with the voices of children. The South End, then, was once a city of private homes; now it is a wilderness of factories, tenements and lodging houses. Fully five sixths of the old residences are now rooming houses."

The writer says that as Back Bay was filled in, South End people began building houses there. Wealthy families trickled out of the South End gradually in the 1870s then got out like rats through the '80s. By 1890 the movement was finished and the South End was predominantly lodging houses.

And Warren Tavern seems more authentically old than the Green Dragon and Bell-in-Hand taverns along Union-Marshall Streets (on the freedom trail) that are very old but haven't been in their current locations all those years so they don't seem all that old on the inside.

Union Oyster bar, Union & Marshall, is really old and has some info about the habits of Senator Daniel Webster of Mass, a patron who had lots to drink there to wash down his oysters. Webster served in the Senate from 1827 to 1850, prior to Charles Sumner of Mass, the fiery abolitionist, famous for being beaten with a cane on the senate floor in 1856 by South Carolina Rep Preston Brooks.

Imagine a rooming house on Marlborough Street. Not unusual in the 1970s when the South End and Charlestown were still full of rooming houses, even some in Back Bay. Are there any rooming houses left anywhere? All these buildings are now private houses again or expensive condos. No wonder people are out in the street; the rooming house at $15 / week for room with hotplate and bathroom down the hall is an extinct species.

Thank you. Zinntennial— I like that.

Crisply understated.

If driving to Boston, ditch the car. Newbury Street, Faneuil Hall & North End, Seaport, Kenmore-Fenway, Central Square Cambridge all good areas to walk, shop, eat.

Mass spends less per capita on state and federal highways than most, def less than Me, NH, Vt and Ct. Mass doesn’t have county roads like some states—NJ and NY for example—so the comparable roads here are either state or local. Mass limits property tax revenue so the towns and cities can’t spend too much on roads or anything else. Other than the Big Dig Mass is pretty stingy with your tax revenue.

If working in Enfield, Conn, you’re right on the Mass line. Springfield, Mass, will give you an urban atmosphere comparable to Hartford and much closer to work. Neither city is the best but both have walkable cores, restaurants, apartments.

Cities have mayors, towns have selectmen.

Hartford might be in better shape today if West Hartford, East Hartford and Manchester were all still part of Hartford.

Newburyport is a scenic historic port city, small and pleasant for walking around. Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is similar and a little bigger, has a good restaurant scene but no rail stop; easier to take the bus from South Station bus terminal in Boston.

Salem has similar attractions to Newburyport and Portsmouth but also the very good Peabody Essex museum, good to have at hand if the weather makes walking around unpleasant.

Concord is small, historic, upscale. People usually drive because the sights are scattered but it's certainly possible to visit on the train from North Station.

Lowell, one of the many early 19th C industrial cities around New England that took off in similar fashion to Manchester, harnessing water power for textile mills, is the only one that's easy to visit. Lowell has a national heritage site that explains the industrial revolution from a social and technological viewpoint. Some nice walks and restaurants in Lowell too.

Portland, Maine is a long train ride from Boston North Station. Good destination for shops, strolling and dining but too far for a day trip.

Worcester is a good sized city at the end of one of the commuter rail lines but not a good candidate for walking around. There's nothing else really worthy of a stop on the way to Worcester either. Providence, in the state of Rhode Island, about the same distance as Worcester but much easier to visit on foot with plenty to do and see and a good dining scene.

None of these trips have scenery along the way to compare with the Hudson Line out of Grand Central, where you travel right along the beautiful Hudson River, but plenty of nice destinations.

>I haven’t quite considered to the right of Worcester as a concept

It's as if the map, especially a paper map unfolded in front of you, with right, left, up and down, had more presence for the OP than the cardinal directions.

In addition to all the other nominees so far—Ipswich, Beverly, Hudson, Maynard and so on, look at Norwood for quaint, walkable. I’d say the towns south, southwest of Boston, also the south shore, would be least like Amherst and Northampton socially/culturally but Norwood and a few others are quaint and walkable.