Manchester does have a larger population in its city proper. However, as you quite rightly indicated, Portland is smaller in land size. But, even adjusting to incorporate, say, South Portland (which would give Portland about the same land area as Manchester), Portland still has fewer people. Manchester is, overall, a larger city. Not surprising given its location closer to the Bos-Wash megalopolis (arguably, it is the northern tip of that stretch), and given the fact that it is still in many respects a ?working-class? city. Portland has a downtown that is largely working class, but as a whole it is quite middle class, and even suburban (especially after one gets into the ?new? areas of town that were developed after the streetcar, like North Deering). Even parts of the peninsula are gentrifying, with housed which at one time houses several families now occupied by a few couples, perhaps a landlord and a college kid, empty nesters, or worse (for population density?s sake), bed and breakfasts. In this respect, Manchester is superior to Portland. It is still a ?working city? in the sense that people depend on it for their livelihood. In Portland, we have business, but people could just as easily work elsewhere, like the mall. And they do. And housing follows. Portland had a peak decennial census population of nearly 80,000. That figure was from a period many residents feel nostalgic about. The streets weren?t as pretty, the tourists hadn?t come, but the community was thriving. Manchester appears to be in a similar state, or perhaps emerging from it.
In my earlier post, I forgot to mention Saint Anselm?s college in Manchester, which I sometimes forget is in the City. It is so rural (good for the college, bad for the city in terms of integration). USM in Portland, on the other hand, is urban (not necessarily the good type of urban, but urban nonetheless). It has gotten much more urban recently, in that the warehouses along Bedford Street were replaced with a new parking garage (which blocked a great view of the downtown spine when coming into town), the new Abromson Center, and the New Muskie School and Osher Map Library addition. And, there is a CPCOG sustainability grant that should, I believe, be put toward a study of how to make Forest Ave. more pedestrian friendly (more of a "complete street" to use planning jargon). Should that happen, the USM campus in Portland will be greatly urban. I've always wondered why it wasn't put downtown to begin with. Too close to the city to be truly rural, yet too far away to be truly urban. Yet it is closer to the city than to the country, so it might as well get on board as an urban institution.
You are also right about metro areas, and how they are shaped differently. Portland has the largest metro north of Boston, but that?s because Manchester?s excludes nearby Nashua. And, in fact, most stats I see place Manchester in the Boston CMSA. I think ultimately comparing Portland and Manchester may be like comparing apples to oranges. It is tempting, given that they are the only two real cities of note in their shared geographic area, but there are too many differences. Most people in both cities agree that they want a better city. They have different histories, though, and so take different approaches. Portland had an arena far before Manchester, and it was larger than anything in Manchester until a few years ago. Manchester has been able to pull off what Portland has not, however, because Portland is in an identity crisis. City officials and leaders, in my opinion, are wondering if we are a tourist destination or a commercial center. And they don?t know how to balance the two interests if the answer turns out to be: both. Also, people in Portland are gradually becoming less ?native? and more ?from away? (as we say). This is good in that it brings a cosmopolitan sense of amenities from other, larger cities. But it can be bad in that many of the same people want to freeze Portland where it is. Manchester also has many people ?from away,? but they aren?t from that far away, and their reasons for being in that city differ from the reasons outsiders come to Portland. In Manchester, Boston people come to do business. When they try, their ideas are more likely, it would seem, to be accepted. In maine, Bostonians come to relax. On the rarer occasion when they come to do business, they are viewed through a suspicious lens/ There is, in fact, an entire article on this subject written by a gentleman whose name eludes me at the moment (a columnist for the working waterfront), and it suggests this attitude has something to do with our history as more or less a colonial subject of Massachusetts. Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that, when Boston investment firms try to do business in Portland, they are viewed skeptically. Their projects are too big, too tall, too whatever. Manchester probably doesn?t react the same way because, well, it practically is Boston itself. This is just a theory as to why that city might be able to tap into its location in more of a strategic way than Portland. Its an uphill battle in Portland.
As to the convention center business. I don?t think either city will see a new convention center. In fact, I don?t think many cities will, other than the global cities. The fact is that most business is conducted online now, and the need to meet in person is diminishing with every new smart phone that is developed. Of course, I could be wrong. But that?s my hunch. Actually, I heard it elsewhere, but agree with it.
As for the airport. Portland?s is a regional airport, whereas Manchester?s is a supra-regional. Portland?s serves Maine, whereas Manchester?s serves NH, ME and MA. It was designed that way by agreement with regional airports in RI and Logan, to allow expanded capacity of Boston-centric traffic without cramming it into the max-capacity Logan. Again, this is what I have heard, and I am no expert, but I tend to agree with it because it sounds logical. Feel free to correct me, anyone, if I have misstated the facts. Again, apples to oranges (though a fun comparison, for sure).
As for the colleges. I agree about USM giving Portland a youthful appearance. However, from personal experience I get this in Manchester, too. SNHU is nearby (or in the city), and a lot of Portland youth go there as an alternative to USM. That?s neither here nor there, just an anecdotal observation. I think Portland?s urban design facilitates more of a critical mass of gathered youth in the Old Port, whereas Manchester?s linear layout makes it hard to observe what might be a similar number of youth (plus the draw to Boston must be, I imagine, much greater in Manchester).
I agree about the homeless wandering the street. Not only is this bad for business, it is a public health issue. The homeless need to be sheltered and steered away from tourist locations.
Yeah, and about the hometown loyalty, you know as well as anyone else I am probably already guilty of favoring Portland for that reason, but take that as a given and adjust my thoughts accordingly. I still think Portland comes out on top, but in no way does that make Manchester insignificant. Just like Boston is better than Portland, but Portland is no worse off because of it. The only difference is that as between Portland and Manchester, the decision is obviously much closer than as between a place like Portland and Boston.
And for the record, I don?t think Stamford has any business on this list (I.e., I totally agree with you). Stamford is NYC perhaps more than any other city in New England. The other CT cities are pretty close, too.