Effects of proximity to an A-list Megacity?

B

belmont square

Active Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
365
Reaction score
0
I?ve always thought that Boston?s proximity to New York was a double edged sword. On the one hand, having arguably the world?s greatest city within a four hour drive/train ride, or 45 minute flight, can create feelings of inadequacy among our urban populace (oft exhibited here). And the adjacency means that otherwise loyal New Englanders/Bostonians can more easily decamp in pursuit of greater opportunities in many fields rather than attempt to build up those fields here.

On the other hand, we benefit from this proximity. Having NYC and all of its resources a short $15 bus ride away, is something you don?t have in SF or Chi. The cultural offerings in our New England hinterland are unquestionably enhanced by our sharing those hinterlands with New Yorkers. Say what you will about the Acela and Amtrak, but the service we receive would be much less efficient were we not within striking distance of the Big Apple.

So, I?m curious how people think Boston manages this proximity and benefits/suffers from it compared to other large cities within an easy drive/train ride from the World?s Greatest Cities? I?ve identified several potential peers assuming that London, Paris, and Tokyo are the other enormous cultural/economic capitals of wealthy nations comparable to NYC (perhaps others should be included?)

New York?s sphere of influence: Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC
London?s sphere of influence: Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham
Paris? sphere of influence: Lyon, Lille, Antwerp, Brussels, Amsterdam?
Tokyo?s sphere of influence: Sendai, Nagoya

Other than the American cities, I?ve only been to London and Amsterdam, so I?m interested in any insight the board can supply on the others.
 
Surely Amsterdam and Antwerp are stretching it with regard to Paris? Longer distance, different language, different culture.
 
Antwerp is about as far from Paris as Boston to NYC.

But my question isn't solely about losing creative/entreprenuerial talent to the BIG city (although I'm guessing moving from Belgium or the Netherlands to Paris is not an unheard of thing to do). It's also about how the residents who stay and their local governments see themselves and their city's role in the context of the proximity to NYC, Paris, etc.
 
It's great to maintain perspective by continually realizing that it isn't just Boston and New York. As you mentioned, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC can all also be said to be in NYC's sphere.

Washington and Boston are anchored with their own regional and national significance: Washington with the obvious, and Boston with higher education and life sciences. Both DC and Boston have a greater perceived "liveability" than New York, which, taking comparative cost of living into account, is also a draw for those cities and away from New York.

Baltimore and Philadelphia don't have the same anchors of significance (Baltimore is even doubly-cursed with its proximity to DC), and suffer for it. The perceived attraction of these cities, whether deserved or not, is quite low.

To answer the question about Boston specifically, I'd say that Boston would be a more confidently urban environment if we were more isolated from New York. San Franciso (you can include Oakland and/or San Jose if you want) is in some ways a lone bastion of urbanity in its region - which is why it acts like a bigger city than Boston. I don't know Chicago well enough, but from my few visits I also feel that Chicago has more urban confidence than Boston, for probably the same reason.

One other observation: New York is a city of shopkeepers. It's entrepreneurial, which you can tell by going down any major thoroughfare in any of the outer boroughs. Looking at old pictures, it seems to me that Boston used to be this way. But whether because of "urban renewal" or because of the growth of higher education, healthcare, and technology, it seems like everyone in this city today is a professional. It really cuts down on the vitality and diversity of the urban fabric.
 
You have to remember that Boston and NYC are 4 hours away or less now but this hasn't always been the case. When the cities developed, travel was slower and more expensive, and thus less popular. Today, I don't think there can be made an argument that Boston suffers too much from NYC. There may be more opportunity in NYC, but honestly I think it only attracts a certain type of person, not everyone. There is such a thing as diminishing marginal returns and quality of life trade off. And who says NYC is the best city in the world? By what criteria? I can think of a dozen places I would rather visit or reside than NYC, Boston being one of them.

All that said, I see your general point. Some of Boston's best and brightest, as well as development opportunities, may be sucked away by NYC. Just as is the case in Portland (from Boston). Maybe it is proof of how well the city does to say that it has still thrived despite its proximity to NYC. I don't think things would be terribly different if NYC wasn't as close because, as I said, the places largely built out before such proximity mattered as much as you might think it does today. Moreover, Boston used to be the country's primary city, so maybe NYC benefited from its proximity to Boston. The same is true for Philly. And to an extent for DC, which is arguably more important than NYC in many ways. Boston also fulfills a niche in education. per capita it can't be beat.

over all, NYC has morphed into just an amazingly huge area, but don't forget its really a string of former cities merged into one. Not all of them are so great, even if populous.

Proximity of a major population center, at the end of the day, I think helps a place more than hinders it, so long as its not right next door (like manchester and boston, fall river and providence, etc.
 
I think this is heavily dependent on the individual city.

I look at a city like Baltimore and feel that it's hurt by its proximity to D.C., Philly, and NYC. Baltimore looks like a coastal version of any rustbelt city. Industry is gone and the city is losing people and businesses. Baltimore would probably be in better shape if it were the same size, yet alone in its region (though you could argue that this hasn't really helped Detroit which is much more isolated than Baltimore). If Baltimore had the population it currently has without D.C., Philly, and NYC so close it would probably be a much more significant city. Simply being the dominant city in a region offers a lot of opportunity.

On the other hand, I see a city like Providence which seems to benefit from being where it is. Providence isn't a big city. However, being along a major transit corridor so close to New York and Boston has really gone a long way into Preventing it from becoming another Hartford or Springfield. Providence has reinvented itself as a successful (with some problem spots) satellite city and it would probably be a lot worse off if weren't as close to and connected to Boston and NYC.

Providence has about 1.6 Million people in the vicinity. That's enough to make it a moderately sized city if it were located further away from other large cities. Still, I think Providence is really helped by being where it is.

A city like Lowell should be all but irrelevant given that the lifeblood and foundation of the city (industry) has all but left entirely. However, it's close enough to Boston to be an urban satellite like Providence which has been a major contributor in Lowell's revitalization. Without Boston so close, I doubt it would happen that way. Manchester could fall into this category, but I see it as being a ways behind Lowell.

Fall River's mention made me laugh. It's a perfect example of not being helped by nearby cities. Fall River is a mere 15 minutes from Providence (to the West) 50-60 minutes from Boston (North) and 10 minutes from New Bedford (East). As a result, Fall River (at about 95,000 people) is almost entirely irrelevant even in its own small region. If it weren't a co-county seat, it would be even less important. Fall River's a poor, urban outpost of the Providence/Boston areas. New Bedford a mere 12 miles East remains relevant as an important port and has the feel of being the hub of the area surrounding it. Fall River doesn't even have that. The nearby cities suck almost all activity away from Fall River.

I think proximity benefits some cities more than others, but there are positives and negatives for each.
 
The effect of NYC seems to be challenge and competition, which plays out mostly in the sports arena. The two cities diverge from here; Boston tries to preserve (into sheer boredom in most instances) while NYC tries to create and outdo it's global competitors.

Boston's biggest problem could be easily solved; a new, younger Mayor and BRA with a competitive spirit and modern vision could bring Boston back from the brink of antiquity. Most everything else seems to be working in Boston's favor (education, life sciences, tourism, healthcare, film industry, etc.). And on that last note, who would have thought 5 years ago that Boston would actually compete with NYC as the Northeast's Hollywood East? It is a testament to the fact that Boston/New England remains a national brand outside of it's mighty neighbor.
 
I'm not sure but I think is better off than Baltimore or Philly, etc thanks to it's sphere of influence in New England.
 
This is an interesting thread and I'd like to participate.

It's nice to see how cities change within a hundred years due to commerce and culture. Although cities can also change due to negative events such as war, famine, disease, etc. I admit that NYC is the dominant city in the North East region and overtook Philly about 100-150 years ago, but I think this title will pass to D.C. in another 100-150 years due to population growth, TOD, and the expansion of their rapid transit system. Although, this could totally change if our country is at war and both NYC and D.C. are bombed back to the stone-age; then Philly and Boston will compete for this title (does anybody really feel a need to bomb these two cities? I'm talking giant missiles not suicide bombers).
 
^^It also depends on economic reasons. Remember that NYC only exploded due to the completion of the Erie Canal.
 
I'm enjoying the discussion so far, but I'm wondering if anyone can shed some light on the international "peers" I presented in my initial post? Are these places struggling or thriving in the shadow of their larger neighbors? Do people in Lyon complain about the state of their local developments as compared to what's happening in Paris? Are residents of Manchester frustrated by how their mass transit system compares to London? Do they wonder in Nagoya why their streets lack the same crush of pedestrian activity seen in Tokyo?

Or do these places have, in Shepard's term, "more urban confidence" then we seem to have here sometimes?
 
I think pretty much every city in Japan outside of Kansai lives in the shadow of Tokyo. If you go to Japan and never leave Tokyo, you'll wonder what all the fuss is about Japan's hyper-aging population, but as soon as you step outside you're trading blows with vicious obaasans at every turn. Young people from all over the country flock to Tokyo, leaving their elderly parents and grandparents "at home", creating a huge generational imbalance. Of the cities you mentioned, Nagoya definitely manages to hold its own because of the automotive industry.

You might want to include Yokohama - Japan's 2nd largest city - in that initial list, although nowadays people likely pass it off as a Tokyo suburb. It started off as an independent port city, playing a significant role in Japan's budding relations with the West. Obviously proximity to Tokyo accounts for its explosive growth, and for this type of discussion it's worth noting. It seems that now, with Japan's other cities being less competitive vis-a-vis Tokyo, Yokohama has flourished by offering itself as a bedroom community to Tokyo's wealthy.
 
Lrfox said:
I think this is heavily dependent on the individual city.

I look at a city like Baltimore and feel that it's hurt by its proximity to D.C., Philly, and NYC. Baltimore looks like a coastal version of any rustbelt city. Industry is gone and the city is losing people and businesses. Baltimore would probably be in better shape if it were the same size, yet alone in its region (though you could argue that this hasn't really helped Detroit which is much more isolated than Baltimore). If Baltimore had the population it currently has without D.C., Philly, and NYC so close it would probably be a much more significant city. Simply being the dominant city in a region offers a lot of opportunity.

On the other hand, I see a city like Providence which seems to benefit from being where it is. Providence isn't a big city. However, being along a major transit corridor so close to New York and Boston has really gone a long way into Preventing it from becoming another Hartford or Springfield. Providence has reinvented itself as a successful (with some problem spots) satellite city and it would probably be a lot worse off if weren't as close to and connected to Boston and NYC.

Providence has about 1.6 Million people in the vicinity. That's enough to make it a moderately sized city if it were located further away from other large cities. Still, I think Providence is really helped by being where it is.

A city like Lowell should be all but irrelevant given that the lifeblood and foundation of the city (industry) has all but left entirely. However, it's close enough to Boston to be an urban satellite like Providence which has been a major contributor in Lowell's revitalization. Without Boston so close, I doubt it would happen that way. Manchester could fall into this category, but I see it as being a ways behind Lowell.

Fall River's mention made me laugh. It's a perfect example of not being helped by nearby cities. Fall River is a mere 15 minutes from Providence (to the West) 50-60 minutes from Boston (North) and 10 minutes from New Bedford (East). As a result, Fall River (at about 95,000 people) is almost entirely irrelevant even in its own small region. If it weren't a co-county seat, it would be even less important. Fall River's a poor, urban outpost of the Providence/Boston areas. New Bedford a mere 12 miles East remains relevant as an important port and has the feel of being the hub of the area surrounding it. Fall River doesn't even have that. The nearby cities suck almost all activity away from Fall River.

I think proximity benefits some cities more than others, but there are positives and negatives for each.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
I totally disagree with this comment and think Manchester is leaps and bounds ahead of Lowell. So does everyone I speak with. However, I have noticed on this site that many people on here think Lowell is a tremendous city. I haven't a clue why. But other peoples' opinions are not for me to judge. I can only say that, personally, I think Manchester has accomplished a lot more and is overall a much more enjoyable place to visit.
 
Patrick said:
I totally disagree with this comment and think Manchester is leaps and bounds ahead of Lowell. So does everyone I speak with. However, I have noticed on this site that many people on here think Lowell is a tremendous city. I haven't a clue why. But other peoples' opinions are not for me to judge. I can only say that, personally, I think Manchester has accomplished a lot more and is overall a much more enjoyable place to visit.
Click to expand...

I think my comment may have been misinterpreted. In that statement, I was referring essentially to the city's connection to Boston. Bus routes and rail routes connect Lowell to Boston (a much better connection than Manchester has) and contribute to the city's revitalization. Without the proximity and connections to Boston, I see Lowell having a much harder time revitalizing itself and becoming relevant again. Manchester benefits from being close to Boston, but Manchester also has more merit as a regional center than Lowell. My point was that I think Lowell is ahead of Manchester as far as a satellite city goes (mainly due to connectivity to Boston).... not that Lowell was "way better than Manchester." In fact, Manchester seems to have proven that it's a more significant city than Lowell in the present. It's just that Lowell's proximity to Boston is more important to Lowell than Manchester's proximity to Boston... without Boston, Lowell would by far worse off. I don't know if you could say the same about Manchester. That was the point I was trying to get across.

That said, from an urban standpoint, I do enjoy Lowell more.

For me, it's simply about the central urban core. Yes, Manchester has two high-rise buildings but to me (personally), those don't mean anything. Lowell's downtown area has a much more urban feel to me than Manchester's. I think the canals and the layout of the city provides more aesthetic than Manchester's "Main St." layout. I'd be surprised if more people enjoyed a walk around central Manchester than they do Lowell. Lowell just has a MUCH more compact urban core.

I don't know who has said Lowell is, "tremendous." I certainly wouldn't say that. However, from an urban standpoint, Lowell's got more character (again, my opinion) than Manchester. My experience has been the opposite of Patrick's... people in MA are spoiled by Boston and tend to write off any other urban area in the state (including Lowell). I think the city has made impressive improvement and I enjoy being there. It still has a ways to go, but I think it has better bones than Manchester.

Manchester is NOT a bad city (I do like it). But I think Lowell has a little more character downtown than Manch. It's a personal preference, that's all.
 
Last edited:
Lrfox said:
I think my comment may have been misinterpreted. In that statement, I was referring essentially to the city's connection to Boston. Bus routes and rail routes connect Lowell to Boston (a much better connection than Manchester has) and contribute to the city's revitalization. Without the proximity and connections to Boston, I see Lowell having a much harder time revitalizing itself and becoming relevant again. Manchester benefits from being close to Boston, but Manchester also has more merit as a regional center than Lowell. My point was that I think Lowell is ahead of Manchester as far as a satellite city goes (mainly due to connectivity to Boston).... not that Lowell was "way better than Manchester." In fact, Manchester seems to have proven that it's a more significant city than Lowell in the present. It's just that Lowell's proximity to Boston is more important to Lowell than Manchester's proximity to Boston... without Boston, Lowell would by far worse off. I don't know if you could say the same about Manchester. That was the point I was trying to get across.

That said, from an urban standpoint, I do enjoy Lowell more.

For me, it's simply about the central urban core. Yes, Manchester has two high-rise buildings but to me (personally), those don't mean anything. Lowell's downtown area has a much more urban feel to me than Manchester's. I think the canals and the layout of the city provides more aesthetic than Manchester's "Main St." layout. I'd be surprised if more people enjoyed a walk around central Manchester than they do Lowell. Lowell just has a MUCH more compact urban core.

I don't know who has said Lowell is, "tremendous." I certainly wouldn't say that. However, from an urban standpoint, Lowell's got more character (again, my opinion) than Manchester. My experience has been the opposite of Patrick's... people in MA are spoiled by Boston and tend to write off any other urban area in the state (including Lowell). I think the city has made impressive improvement and I enjoy being there. It still has a ways to go, but I think it has better bones than Manchester.

Manchester is NOT a bad city (I do like it). But I think Lowell has a little more character downtown than Manch. It's a personal preference, that's all.
Click to expand...

I can see your points, and I will agree with you. I haven't walked around downtown Lowell so I can't comment on that part though. One of these days I'll take a trip down there and see whats up. Most people only see Elm street which is our "Main St" and don't venture off on to the other streets to look at the old mill housing and mill buildings or the old palace theater on Hanover street or the City library on Pine St. which has a beautiful urban park in front of it so they don't see the rest of the urban core. But anyway back to the point. The transportation to Boston from Lowell and vise versa is like you said a ways ahead of Manch. They have been saying for the longest that they were going to extend the T up to Manch. They really need to get this thing moving.


Oh and btw we have 3 highrises. 5 if you count 555 Canal St. and the Citizens Bank tower. ;)
 
Last edited:
blade_bltz said:
You might want to include Yokohama - Japan's 2nd largest city - in that initial list, although nowadays people likely pass it off as a Tokyo suburb.
Click to expand...

Having never been to Japan, I wasn't sure whether or not Yokohama should be included. From aerial photos it did appear that the urban fabric of Tokyo bleeds into Yokohama, so I assumed that it functions as one megacity.
 
Having lived in Osaka for two years, I can tell you that most Japanese consider Yokohama to be a part of Tokyo. Most people consider Osaka to be Japan's second major city and it's got way more going on than Yokohama. Kyoto is really close to Osaka, it's about a 40 minute ride on a JR train, and is a really good place to go to if you're interested in history and public gardens, but it doesn't have as great of a night scene as Osaka. I also found it funny that Osaka residents had an inferiority complex whenever we talked about Tokyo. I like comparing Tokyo to NYC and Osaka to Chicago since populations are similar, but Osaka's public transit system blows Chicago out of the water since it is just as extensive as Tokyo's and NYC's. Just imagine what Chicago could be if it had a rapid transit system similar to Osaka, Tokyo, or NYC.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
This is an interesting thread and I'd like to participate.

It's nice to see how cities change within a hundred years due to commerce and culture. Although cities can also change due to negative events such as war, famine, disease, etc. I admit that NYC is the dominant city in the North East region and overtook Philly about 100-150 years ago, but I think this title will pass to D.C. in another 100-150 years due to population growth, TOD, and the expansion of their rapid transit system. Although, this could totally change if our country is at war and both NYC and D.C. are bombed back to the stone-age; then Philly and Boston will compete for this title (does anybody really feel a need to bomb these two cities? I'm talking giant missiles not suicide bombers).
Click to expand...

I'm interested into why you say DC will surpass NYC. IMO I think NYC stays on top. I love DC, but don't know a whole lot about it's entire metro region, though I have been to Silver Springs. I'm aware of some subway line extension for the Metro. But does the metro region have very ambitious TODs and other big developments going on (or atleast planned for)? B/c for it to become East Coast's captial it would have to do some major developments and general urban expansion.
 
GW2500 said:
I'm interested into why you say DC will surpass NYC. IMO I think NYC stays on top. I love DC, but don't know a whole lot about it's entire metro region, though I have been to Silver Springs. I'm aware of some subway line extension for the Metro. But does the metro region have very ambitious TODs and other big developments going on (or atleast planned for)? B/c for it to become East Coast's captial it would have to do some major developments and general urban expansion.
Click to expand...

Don't take him seriously, he has a hard on of hate for NYC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top