It's impractical to make 'another Beacon Hill' because Boston only has three hills. The other two are occupied by the North End and the Financial District. This problem predates the automobile and parking, e.g. the Back Bay 'is no Beacon Hill' but was developed in the 19th century as the Shawmut Peninsula was expanded by dredging.

In some ways an 'efficient market' model is helpful. The 'best' places for new neighborhoods are likely to be developed first simply because that's where the benefits of investment are most likely to be realized. Beacon Hill is Beacon Hill because there already was a North End. And the North End is not only a much better neighborhood its magic is even less reproducible than Beacon Hill's.

Following the 'efficient market' model further, there's no abundance of undeveloped natural harbors offering the geographic and historic advantages of Boston. There's no Beacon Hill (let alone North End) in Miami, but you can get a version of the Back Bay. San Francisco has several 'Beacon Hills' and 'Back Bays' but still no North End...Spanish practice was optimized for efficiency. It used the grid.