Well, if Fall River and other towns like it are emptying out during the days for Boston and Prov, just imagine how much busier those two cities would be if all of the people who actually work and recreate there actually lived there (i.e., if Fall River and similarly situated cities on Boston/Prov periphery were to be picked up and moved to the city proper). There would be more country, less sprawl, and a lot more urbanism in the core. As it stands, it seems like Fall River (using this as my example for the sake of continuity in the discussion) lacks an urban presence of note, and Boston and Providence, although they aren't in the same situation, could only benefit from more people. This highlights the problem of sprawl, which in a loose sense, Fall River is. I read a while back there was a MAPC idea to funnel new growth to the old established mill and industrial towns that circle Boston, and revitalize them. I think this would be great, but I'm not sure its possible. It seems as though Boston is a black hole that is sucking up the core of the region, from R.I. to Maine, and I think new growth should be concentrated there. Of course, I can see success either way, regardless of which approach is taken, but it just seems like the older industrial cities are no longer cities and are now more bedrooms for boston. If they can't be central cities, they shouldn't be bedrooms, because that does nothing for them and nothing for the larger cities nearby.
Burlington, VT, by the way, is exactly the same as you have described Portland. Tiny but busting at the seams because there is nowhere else to go. The college has a HUGE effect, too, of course, but I think its more than that. really, there is NOWHERE else to go in northern VT.
I agree with much of that. Many who live in Fall River commute to Boston or Providence for work. Still, Many more are urban poor who can't afford Providence or Boston. I don't know how much Boston and PVD would appreciate those people being shipped up to Boston.
As awful and radical as it may sound, I'd love to see Fall River get a bit of the Detroit treatment. There are so many abandoned and foreclosed homes in the city that it couldn't hurt to move many of the people in outer urban neighborhoods toward the city center and level some of the older built environment in favor of farmland and even letting some of it be overtaken by the existing Freetown-Fall River State Forest which already covers a large chunk of town. There really is no urban presence in Fall River at all. The city is a mess of abandoned factories, foreclosed three deckers urban renewal scars and spaghetti highways with one beautiful historic neighborhood thrown in (the Highlands). If you took this approach you'd likely get some people moving out of the city to Providence or Boston and others staying in Fall River, but in different areas.
The other real beneficiary of that approach would be New Bedford. The cities are often talked about in the same breath as they are so close (10 mi apart), but they are VERY different and are on separate paths right now (New Bedford is rapidly improving and Fall River is declining further). New Bedford DOES have an urban presence with a big, beautiful downtown, active (and growing) seaport traffic, beaches, harbor, etc. Reducing Fall River's size would essentially set New Bedford's position as a regional center for the South Coast in stone (it's already the center in most people's eyes, but that would cement it). It would allow more attention to be given to growing New Bedford as THE city in that region as opposed to ONE of the cities in the region. Fall River would stand a better chance by reducing the amount of infrastructure and condensing the population and New Bedford could grow more efficiently without its ugly conjoined twin (even though NB was really around long before Fall River). Obviously, this will never happen, but it would be good for fall River (and the region). Too much of the city is waste land.
You're right about industrial cities in the metro and sprawl. I find it really interesting to see what happens to these once independent cities as they become more secondary cities in the metro area. Lowell and Haverhill have responded relatively well in recent years while Lawrence and Brockton have really done poorly (still declining). Fall River is more aligned with Providence and New Bedford is really sort of on the periphery of both metros, not really aligning with either yet... soon enough though. I like satellite cities, but Boston has too many for them all to be viable. Taunton is the next one to watch, IMHO. With coming commuter rail and a nice, historic New England Green, I think it has potential to be VERY attractive for Boston area residents and the nice urban core can make it a great urban suburb.
I don't know if it's an either/or scenario. I would guess that both moving people out of some of the crappier industrial cities (Fall River, Brockton, Lawrence, etc) into the larger cities AND encouraging growth in ones that show promise (Taunton, Lowell, Haverhill, etc) can really go a long way for all three environments in the Boston/Providence metros (urban, rural, and suburban).
For the record, I always consider Burlington a sort of mini-Portland on a lake. Maybe a little more collegiate, but there are a lot of similarities. Not too many small cities in the Northeast have the level of independence from larger cities that those two have. Bangor may be another, but it's not comparable to Burlington or Portland.
