I'll just leave this here. I could go on for pages about this subject, but EdMc's pictures are far more eloquent than I could ever hope to be.
General Boston Discussion
- Thread starter stick n move
- Start date
I'll just leave this here. I could go on for pages about this subject, but EdMc's pictures are far more eloquent than I could ever hope to be.
Java King
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 1,976
I just came back from a week in Brisbane, Australia. It's hard to describe, but Brisbane lacked an architectural cohesion that Boston has. Brisbane had many new buildings under construction, but also many really ugly 60's & 70's architectural duds. I mentioned on another thread that I attended a lecture on the Cross River Rail Project. The presentation had several mentions of Brisbane trying to become a "World Class City" like its siblings of Melbourne and Sydney. (They are hosting the Olympics in 2032) It reminded me of Boston's somewhat inferiority complex about the same topic. Anyway, seeing EdMc's photo thread really elevates the city of Boston over SO MANY cities despite our flaws. 
One could create a similarly flattering photo essay for virtually any city on the planet. About half of these pics are of tourist traps that locals avoid like the plague anyway.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,334
- Reaction score
- 5,972
One could create a flattering photo essay of any city, but that proves nothing. A city is what it is, regardless of photographs. IMO, Boston is a cut above, and I've been to them all except a few in the deep south.
That’s debatable. While Boston is indeed one of the better cities in the US let’s not pretend it’s anything exceptional. You can get everything Boston has to offer in a less expensive city and far more for the same price elsewhere.
Last edited:
#bancars
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 5,531
Yep--don't even have to go that far. Philly is a far better bargain and gets you basically everything Boston does for a much lower cost of living. Granted, there are downsides to Philly--worse crime, worse local governance, but the tradeoff in cost of living is a huge plus.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,901
- Reaction score
- 3,755
There is also a really fascinating cultural aspect attached to some of that history, so yeah, we shouldn't sell that short. But at the same time, the remaining vestiges are pretty reactionary regarding what Boston needs to do to ensure a continued glorious future.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,334
- Reaction score
- 5,972
Philly's an armpit, in my opinion. It's not on the ocean, for one thing.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 8,606
I really don't understand these debates that flare up every X weeks on aB about whether Boston is special. I have been to many cities globally that are hands-down more exceptional than Boston. But is that really the point? Many of these global elite cities have many (many) multiples the population and tax base, some have milennia-longer histories, some are more strategically located, and none of them are a mere 220 miles away from an 11x-their-size global super city next door. So who cares: your 6'1" point guard is not going to win a shot blocking competition against your 7'0" center.
There are three things about Boston actually pertinent to this is-Boston-special? conversation IMO:
1) It punches well above its weight for a 675,000-person U.S. city. You are not going to find the combination of: 2x globally elite universities plus several other global research universities, a globally renowned symphony, ballet, and fine arts museum, plus at least one industry (life sciences) in the global top-5%...at any other city this size in the U.S.
2) it overcame a the rust-belt manufacturing decline (decimation) that many of its northern (former) peer cities succumbed to between U.S. industrialization and 1950s, primarily due to being a multi-institution city (all eggs not in one basket)
3) its very early (and substantial) history in launching this nation
To kmp's point, you could indeed create a photo montage like Ed's of freaking Indianapolis (and I am sad to say that, given I thorough enjoyed Ed's montage and don't like agreeing with kmp). BUT: compare Indianapolis to Boston along those three categories I just listed? Not even in the same universe.
So, yes, Boston has generic-any-U.S.-city elements, but, come on, it is not actually a generic U.S. city.
There are three things about Boston actually pertinent to this is-Boston-special? conversation IMO:
1) It punches well above its weight for a 675,000-person U.S. city. You are not going to find the combination of: 2x globally elite universities plus several other global research universities, a globally renowned symphony, ballet, and fine arts museum, plus at least one industry (life sciences) in the global top-5%...at any other city this size in the U.S.
2) it overcame a the rust-belt manufacturing decline (decimation) that many of its northern (former) peer cities succumbed to between U.S. industrialization and 1950s, primarily due to being a multi-institution city (all eggs not in one basket)
3) its very early (and substantial) history in launching this nation
To kmp's point, you could indeed create a photo montage like Ed's of freaking Indianapolis (and I am sad to say that, given I thorough enjoyed Ed's montage and don't like agreeing with kmp). BUT: compare Indianapolis to Boston along those three categories I just listed? Not even in the same universe.
So, yes, Boston has generic-any-U.S.-city elements, but, come on, it is not actually a generic U.S. city.
Philly has an incredible downtown urban experience, but overall it ain't Boston. From an urban and architecture standpoint though, yeah, it absolutely matches up pound for pound with Boston. Just has a lesser general landscape and crappier neighborhoods outside of downtown.
Using city limits like this always bothers me. Boston may be the 24th largest city by population, but that's only due to its constricted land area and much of its urban population is found within the inner suburbs. Even though it's the 24th largest US city by population, it's around 10/11 for metro, and a substantially larger urban area than the following "bigger" cities: Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, Columbus, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, Oklahoma City, Nashville, and El Paso.
If Boston annexed its suburbs to match the square miles of some of these other cities it would be the 5th or 6th largest city in the US. That's its real weight, not just a "700,000 person city."
#bancars
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 5,531
Yeah, muni boundaries are always misleading. Even annexing the inner suburbs--Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, Malden--would get Boston over the 1 million mark and likely in the top 10 largest cities in the US population-wise.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,901
- Reaction score
- 3,755
And it's also somewhat unique to the US, to rank city populations that way. Using strict municipal boundaries, London has fewer than 10,000 people, but not one person will ever argue that it's a city of 10,000. At a minimum, we should be using MSA level data. CSA data puts Boston even higher, at 6 or 7th largest population in the US. Regardless of how we measure, though, it is still significantly smaller than New York, so we can always have that chip on our shoulder.
One could, but not all flattering photo essays convey the same degree of the reality of a place, of what it's like to be there in person. Boston is consistently rated one of the top US cities for walking, but I've never heard anything like that said of Atlanta, so I was surprised when I came across a photo essay of Atlanta street scenes that made the place look every bit as walkable as Boston. But it turned out the photos were taken during the Atlanta Streets Alive festival and don't convey the everyday reality of the place. The majority of EdMc's photos, on the other hand, do convey what everyday Boston is like. The Atlanta photo essay I saw and EdMc's photo essay are equally flattering, but they're not equally real.
I don't know why people say things like that. I'm sure you've been a tourist at some point in your life, and a lot of the places you visited were probably tourist traps the local locals avoided like the plague too. That's just the nature of tourism.
That depends on what you mean by "everything Boston has to offer". There are numerous things Boston offers me that are absolutely free that I couldn't get in other cities, either because they don't have it, or if they do have it it's in a different form that I don't find as appealing as Boston's version.
For example, people constantly put down the Seaport and refuse to go there because it's "only for the rich". I've gone to the Seaport numerous times in the past and thoroughly enjoyed it, and the only money I've ever spent there was to buy my first ever ShakeShack burger (also my last ShakeShack burger. Nastiest burger I've ever eaten). For me going to the Seaport is the equivalent of strolling along the Esplanade, not a shopping and dining expedition, so the "value proposition" of the Seaport is irrelevant.
It's been a few years since I've been there and in pics it's looking better than ever. Hopefully I'll be able to visit when the Summer St. steps, Harbor Way, and Commonwealth Pier are done. I envision strolling along there will be an experience the likes of which few other cities can offer, all at the reasonable price of $0.00. How's that for a value proposition?
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 8,606
Sigh. None of this population counting nit picking changes anything about the point of Boston punching above its weight.
One actual point is that people are using NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc., as benchmarks for exceptional cities.
Another actual point is that ALL U.S. cities have the sort of shitty touristy crap kmp was referring to, so it doesn't make sense to count that against Boston.
And another actual point is that even if Boston's population were much higher, it would still be punching above it's weight. Note that the expression doesn't mean "best" and does not have absolute boundaries. I would say by comparison and for instance, that Houston doesn't punch above its weight. The point is not where to rank Boston, it is to identify whether we should "feel bad about being behind" or not.
Per usual, I regret attempting to cite a statistic.
One actual point is that people are using NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc., as benchmarks for exceptional cities.
Another actual point is that ALL U.S. cities have the sort of shitty touristy crap kmp was referring to, so it doesn't make sense to count that against Boston.
And another actual point is that even if Boston's population were much higher, it would still be punching above it's weight. Note that the expression doesn't mean "best" and does not have absolute boundaries. I would say by comparison and for instance, that Houston doesn't punch above its weight. The point is not where to rank Boston, it is to identify whether we should "feel bad about being behind" or not.
Per usual, I regret attempting to cite a statistic.
Last edited:
Scott
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,028
- Reaction score
- 462
When I talk about giving credit I mean for quantifiable improvements to the city in this generation and the last. For example the MWRA/ Harbor cleanup (an existential threat to all development- we almost ran out of water) and the Big Dig. These things were then paid for by the average person
theSil
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 490
Not to change the subject, but I’m curious if this is on anyone’s radar? John Hawkinson of Cambridge Day tweeted that Cambridge is discussing new rules to limit where future labs can be built. I’m surprised this is the only mention I’ve seen of this anywhere. Anything too restrictive seems shortsighted to me.
Section 63 here seems to contain the meaningful part.
Section 63 here seems to contain the meaningful part.
Last edited:
Philly? No. Uh uh, nope. Not buying that. These are two cities that used to be comparable, but are hurtling in opposite directions - - in Philly's case, towards Baltimore.........
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,334
- Reaction score
- 5,972
Exactly.
Philly, Baltimore, and Detroit are on a far different (downward) trajectory than Boston, and that's the big reason I see Boston as a cut above.
Interesting read, but it's about how Boston is hurtling away from Philly in the life sciences industries, not how Philly is hurtling towards Baltimore. Wrong URL?