Really? Boston Ranks Among Least Dog-Friendly Cities
Is Boston really one of the worst cities in the country for dogs? Men's Health Magazine seems to think so.
Men's Health ranked 100 cities in the United States based on how dog-friendly they are. Perhaps it's not a surprise that Portland, Ore., topped the list. Portland always seems to do well on quality-of-life lists, even those about dogs.
What is a surprise, at least to me, is that Boston ranked low on the list. Really low. It's ranked 89th and received a grade of D-. I mean, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas both got an A- and ranked 9th and 10th, respectively. Is Boston really that much more unfriendly to dogs than those fine cities? Considering how many dogs are around the Boston area, and considering the presence of local groups like SomDog, that ranking seems a bit harsh. But is it?
How friendly is Boston toward dogs? Have you been to Portland (or Seattle, or Colorado Springs, Colo., or Wilmington, Del., which are other cities that top the list)? What's dog culture like in those places? Are you glad Boston ranks low on the list? Is it possible Boston is as standoffish to dogs as it is, so we're told, to people? Let us know in the comments section below.
Roy Felder
11:55 am on Monday, August 27, 2012
Dog-friendly includes dog-ownership-friendly. Las Vegas and Pittsburgh have homeownership rates of 60-70%; Boston hovers around 35%. With a high rental population and high rental property demand to go with it, pet-friendly living comes at a greater premium relative to other towns.
ThePhDScientist
5:53 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Totally unfriendly if a major factor is finding housing that allows dogs. It is exceedingly challenging to find apartments that allow dogs in Boston (especially dogs greater than 20-30 lbs). You can tell how competitive the rental market is in Boston when Craigslist's ads with peoples crap littered all over the apartment pass as suitable marketing material to entice future tenants!!?!!