Boston > NYC

Now that's a doctorate thesis right there.
 
FYI the arrow should be facing the other way, as in "Boston < NYC"

But besides that minor error, I completely agree!
 
kz1000ps said:
FYI the arrow should be facing the other way, as in "Boston < NYC"

But besides that minor error, I completely agree!
Click to expand...

Sure, they might have taller buildings, electric commuter rail, and a 24-hour subway system. There might be loads more to do in NYC than in Boston, and their parks might even be prettier than ours.

But they also gave birth to the Yankees, and that's a big enough sin to cancel out everything good about NYC.
 
LOL at the idiotic Sox-Yanks rivalry......both sides are equally stupid. There I said it.
 
I don't like NYC or Chicago's urban environment at all. They are fun to visit for a few days, but I could never live there.

Stems back to the whole metropolis vs traditional city debate and my stance is well-known on this board.
 
I could never live in Midtown Manhattan or Dorchester, but I think the North End and brownstone Brooklyn are nice. What do you mean when you talk about "the urban environment" of a whole, diversely proportioned city?
 
The older I get, the more I realize that the vast majority of things are excellent on their own merit and don't need to find their value in comparison to other things. But still, FUCK THE YANKS GO SOX JETER DRINKS WINE COOLAH!!!!!
 
czsz said:
I could never live in Midtown Manhattan or Dorchester, but I think the North End and brownstone Brooklyn are nice.
Click to expand...

I have a soft spot for Tudor City, but that's about as Midtown as I could get. But more to datadyne's point, I love overwhelmingly urban environments, so NYC, Chicago et al. appeal to me quite a bit. The best place I've lived in Boston was by far the most urban.
 
kz1000ps said:
I have a soft spot for Tudor City, but that's about as Midtown as I could get. But more to datadyne's point, I love overwhelmingly urban environments, so NYC, Chicago et al. appeal to me quite a bit. The best place I've lived in Boston was by far the most urban.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood my post. Every city has an "urban environment." There are just different types. Chicago and NYC happen to have the "metropolis" kind. I'm in no way saying I don't like urbanism because I'm all for it, but urban does not necessarily mean a sea of aimlessly tall towers, trashy streets, and impersonal streetscapes.
 
datadyne007 said:
I don't think you understood my post. Every city has an "urban environment." There are just different types. Chicago and NYC happen to have the "metropolis" kind. I'm in no way saying I don't like urbanism because I'm all for it, but urban does not necessarily mean a sea of aimlessly tall towers, trashy streets, and impersonal streetscapes.
Click to expand...

But...again...those landscapes account for maybe .0001% of the total urban area of Chicago and New York...and Boston, for that matter.
 
I'm scratching my head too. Have you been outside of Midtown Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago?
 
Yeah I'm not entirely understanding where city ends and metropolis begins.
 
For me, I think metropolis is when you stare down a canyon of buildings and it's endless. Like if I'm in New York City's midtown and I stand at the crosswalk for... I dunno... 38th and 5th, then look in all four directions, I see endless buildings. There's literally no end in sight. It's a complete metropolis. Switch gears to Boston and say you're looking for an endless canyon effect; the closest I come on an equally long scale is Boylston & Exeter, but even then you can make out an end to Exeter and you can make out the west end of Boylston (speaking exclusively with regards to building density).

While you can get the "canyon" effect seemingly everywhere you go in Manhattan, there are only a select vantage points I can think of in Boston that compare to that density, and even those are generally complemented by generous amounts of green space (comparably speaking). For me, I think that's the difference between metropolis and city. New York has its neighborhoods that do well in the livability regard, but Boston never overwhelms you... Boston's quite livable, breathable, walkable, enjoyable, and thus > than NYC.
 
Thanks, dshoost. That's what I was trying to get at. Eloquently put.
 
It sounds like we can all agree... Philly is at the bottom. ;)

Actually, I've thought about this a little, but does Philly seem like the most irrelevant big city in the country? I know it has all the component parts of a big city- population, buildings, history, sports, education, etc. etc. But it always seems lost in the shuffle with DC, NYC, and Boston on the East Coast. Heck, the weather channel barely shows it on the map. Anyone else notice this or is it just my biased- (it may be that last time I went and stayed with a friend in Camden)
 
Speaking of 38th and 5th, there's a shooting at the ESB today at the 34th and 5th. Not really related but I when I read the article, I thought dshoot coincidentally said the same location.
 
choo said:
Anyone else notice this or is it just my biased- (it may be that last time I went and stayed with a friend in Camden)
Click to expand...

Must have been because you were in Camden because Philly is awesome. If they ever brought back banishment and I got kicked out of Boston, I'd move to Philly in a heart beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top