Is Boston's place in the "big urban" top 5 secured?

bigeman312 said:
When discussing the urbanity of Boston, why is Providence's GDP relevant? I understand it is relevant in discussing Boston's economic influence. But isn't that an entirely different debate?
Click to expand...
GDP is a decent proxy for how "busy"/"great"/"big" the CBD will be in doing a region's transactions. The higher the GDP, the greater the demand from people to bring their "trade" to the center and the greater the need to build denser (taller) so that those transactions can happen near to each other.

Square feet of CBD office space measures a similar thing, but then we'd quibble over CBD boundaries (in Atlanta and Houston) and whether Federal office space counts (in DC)

High GDP, high pay, busy lawyers. Strip away the Roman Revival vs Prairie Style vs Modern debates, and "how valuable is your art?" and a lot of what you're left with of urban greatness is commercial activity.

I excluded Providence by using the more-tightly-drawn GDP, but will concede that a lot of Providence's "Federal-regional" tasks are done in Boston (1st Circuit court of appeals, Federal Reserve, international air freight...). The bigger PVD is, the busier Boston's core gets.

Here's a cool geo-economic-concept, the "Trading Area" originally developed by Rand McNally but adopted by the FCC that answers the question "who you gonna call?" (from your cellphone) which is a great predictor of "which is 'your' big city". It also predicts/reflects other transactions like where the airline hubs are (in the capitals of most MTAs), and which is 'your' NFL franchise (can Boston be great if its team is in Foxboro? Is Philly greater 'cause theres is downtown?)

Unsurprisingly, Boston is the capital of the New England Major Trading Area (which includes PVD). All the "big urban" cities are "capital" of a high-GDP (though not necessarily physically large) Major Trading Area (Denver's and Minneapolis' are huge, Philly's is moderate, and Columbus OH is pinched from all sides.
MTA-Boundaries.png
 
Last edited:
But that doesn't have anything to do with how urban a place is from a perspective of function all it shows like GDP is economic influence which is very important but for some perspective. My mom went to Dallas she is most familiar with older cities i.e. Chicago, Boston, NYC, etc. She sees a busy downtown as a strong indicator of how well a city is doing after visiting Dallas she came back convinced that it was a depressed struggling city because there was no one downtown compared to Boston and there weren't many stores lots of empty retail spaces etc. so even though it is technically a big city and very successful she thought it was struggling economically and couldn't believe how little there was to do downtown on a Saturday. My point here is that while technically Dallas or Houston are both large successful cities they are not successful at creating a good urban experience nothing my mom saw even in some of the more urban suburban areas struck her as a successful urban center. The most urban places were all abandoned looking to her. That is why GDP and the map above don't tell the whole story for who belongs in the big Five Urban Cities.

I think the big five should become big six probably with LA included because it is improving and the walkable areas are starting to be linked together by transit and also because of size. But as far as traditional and very intense urban form I think Boston still is doing very well even compared to other places because its street level and neighborhoods even outside the core are dense and urban. When you really look closely even compared to Philly the core urban walkable area of Boston is about the same size it is slightly smaller but only by a little.The triple decker and two family neighborhoods are equal to Philly's outer row house neighborhoods in density and walkability with only West Roxbury and Hyde park being noticeably less dense. The urban form could be argued to be better in Philly because the buildings are connected but a triple decker neighborhood in Boston still gives a pretty good street wall so I think the difference is negligible and even neighborhoods in Malden for example are often as dense and have a similar walk score to outer Philly neighborhoods so I think that gives a good indication that they are more comparable than might be expected.

Philly's boom is a little bigger than Boston's seems but in actual square footage I think they are similar Boston just has some height limits in the Seaport for example that mean the square footage can't be vertical so it spreads out horizontally. For example the Vertex buildings alone have 1.1 million square feet of space. The CITC by comparison has 1.285 million square feet of office space so Boston is just fitting the same amount of development in a different form because of height restrictions in the Seaport. Another example is 101 and 121 Seaport Blvd. which have a combined 890,000 square feet of space compared to the FMC Towers 861,000 total square feet of which 622,000 square feet is office.
 
It is a balance between "big" (GDP) and "urban" (for which I'd suggest Walk Score" (which was what your mother was experiencing, along with a "nobody lives in the center" problem))

According to WalkScore:
2015 City & Neighborhood Ranking
#1. New York. Walk Score: 87.6. ...
#2. San Francisco. Walk Score: 83.9. ...
#3. Boston. Walk Score: 79.5. ...
#4. Philadelphia. Walk Score: 76.5. ...
#5. Miami. Walk Score: 75.6. ...
#6. Chicago. Walk Score: 74.8. ...
#7. Washington D.C. Walk Score: 74.1. ...
#8. Seattle. Walk Score: 70.8.

Miami? Golly.
 
Arlington, you are missing the point. GDP does not equal urbanity. Read citylover's post above carefully, and reconsider your metric for urban.
 
bigeman312 said:
Arlington, you are missing the point. GDP does not equal urbanity. Read citylover's post above carefully, and reconsider your metric for urban.
Click to expand...
Thread title is "big urban" not just "urban" and also requires that the city be an "American" (USA) expression of "big urban". Cars are going to sneak into any city that isn't NYC, and you need a clear understanding of what "big" (or "big enough") and to which concentric ring it applies (CBD, Municipal, Urban, Core GDP, CSA, MSA, or MTA), and now, whether it applies on weekends (probably), hours of transit ops (better), or 24/7 (hmm).
 
Last edited:
Big in this case is a modifier to the word urban it is not being used independently as a concept of something being large. It is saying big area that is urban and functions as a walkable city. Other wise it would be written big, urban or big and urban as it is written big and urban are directly connected as one concept. At least that is my interpretation of the title based on how grammar works in this case big is modifying urban to mean a large area that is urban or functions as an urban walkable place. Not as a list of separate concepts this is supported by "big urban" being placed in quotes. But this is a ridiculous off topic discussion at this point.

I just wanted to make the point that GDP tells nothing about how big a city feels or how well it functions as an urban area and I thought the case of my mom being convinced that the Dallas economy is severely depressed because downtown and town center areas were so empty was an interesting and good piece of anecdotal evidence for GDP being a poor indicator for this discussion assuming the title is interpreted the way I did above.
 
citylover94 said:
.. modifying urban to mean a large area that is urban or functions as an urban walkable place. Not as a list of separate concepts this is supported by "big urban" being placed in quotes. But this is a ridiculous off topic discussion at this point..
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the nature of threads like this is that people tend to reverse-engineer falsely-universal criteria to validate their own, personal, "top 5"(which they arrived at by personal or maternal impressions). Universal assertions (like the top 5) need either the force of law or statistics.

It works (and fails) just like the Olympics thread, which turned on the question of whether Boston was "world class" now (Yes/No) or whether hosting the Olympics would tip the balance (Yes/No).

That had 4 quadrants just like Big (Yes/No) and Urban (Yes/No). If the task isn't utterly futile, statistics are going to play some legitimate role and ideally you chose the stats first and the results follow.

Here's a menu.

Definitions of Big
1) GDP (in concentric circles BEA, MSA, Major Trading Area)
2) Population (in concentric circles CBD, Municipal, Core, CSA, MSA, MTA)
3) Value of real estate (also concentric rings)

Definition of Urban
1) built square feet / square mile (which concentric ring?)
2) daytime population / square mile (which concentric ring?)
3) residential population / square mile (which concentric ring?)
4) Walk Score
5) Having urban checklists (a "Chinatown" was one of the original tests). Others include courts, banks, art museum, science museum, major league venues, ethnic enclaves, theaters,

Both Big and Urban:
A) Transit use / extent
B) Retail space and rents

It's going to boil down to "I like mine"
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify,by "big urban" I basically am asking about the most urban cities in the country. Although LA is huge and far denser than a sunbelt town like Dallas or Atlanta, I just don't consider to it to be "traditionally urban" in the way NYC, SF, Bos, etc are.

Yes, as a city LA is clearly far above Boston or Philly when it comes to size, amenities, GDP,cultural influence. But, it just operates functionally different. Try living in LA without a car. Despite having respectable density stats is just doesn't have a well defined core. DTLA is rising, but it has nowhere near to amenities, office space, or general vibrancy of central Boston or SF.

So if you buy my assumption that LA is out, then what do you have left:
1) NYC
...massive drop...

2) Chi- America's other huge skyscraper city.
...drop....

3-5) Philly/SF/Bos- these all seem pretty close. Dense cities with vibrant downtowns. Urban big cities, that aren't as big as NYC or Chi. In some respects they are more urban than Chicago when it comes to cohesive urbanism. Philly is the biggest, SF has the most vibrant core. Boston is a little behind, but still basically in league.
...slight drop....

6) DC- in many ways, DC is basically in league with Bos/SF/Philly. It is very walkable, good transit, generally urban environment. I might penalize it a bit in that it is a little less densely built and has a very sterile downtown. No North End or Tenderloin style tight density, not as much big city streetlife, etc. Just dosen't feel as urban as the others.

....drop...

7) probably Seattle- a good growing downtown and Cap Hill is cool. But not really an urban city just yet.
8) Baltimore- great urban bones, but lots of disinvestment and an underwhelming downtown.

After that it becomes pretty subjective. Miami is sort of like LA, dense and has some walk able areas, but not really a traditional urban zone. Pittsburgh, Cinncy, STL have some good bones, but lack scale. Some other cities are doing some great smart growth stuff: Portland, SD, Denver, Minneapolis, etc. But, again not really "urban cities."

So basically, my question is: Is Boston hanging in there will SF and Philly or is it falling into a more nebulous area with DC. Urban, but not really "big city"?

Living in DC, the perception here is that DC doesn't really feel like a big city. It is generally assumed that Philly and SF are clearly more urban "big city" than DC. When it comes to Boston, it isn't as clear cut. Ten years, ago is seemed the consensus in DC was that Boston wasn't super big, but it was far safer/cleaner/nicer, had far more character and was more urban than DC. As DC has improved dramatically, it seems Boston is increasingly being regarded as "charming, but kind of small."

Basically, I love Boston. It is a great city, maybe it doesn't matter if people regard SF and Philly as bigger cities. But, I can't help but wonder if some of the fustration about heights (by me and others) is driven by this sense that Boston is falling a little behind SF or Philly when it comes to "big city urbanism" and the energy and excitement that entails.
 
For those of you who feel that Boston is falling behind in it's urban standing, it's economic power, etc. here's a few fairly recent lists of powerhouse cities of the world.....not just the US. Boston ranks right up there. Philly is nowhere to be found. I get that Philly is an urban center but that's about where the comparison ends, just saying. You cannot compare the economic vitality of Boston to Philly or just about any other American city except for NYC, Chi, SF, LA.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/03...orlds-most-economically-powerful-city/386315/

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...CI-2015-Report-Unveils-Worlds-Powerful-Cities

https://www.atkearney.com/research-studies/global-cities-index/2015
 
bigeman312 said:
When discussing the urbanity of Boston, why is Providence's GDP relevant? I understand it is relevant in discussing Boston's economic influence. But isn't that an entirely different debate?
Click to expand...

It's not, really. My fault. The SSP tiers are more of a Most Important City order. "The Big Seven" is always used there and I reflexively introduced that to this thread.

I agree that in terms of footprint and pure breadth, Philly is a good bit larger than Boston. The brick row house is standard vernacular for substantially more area than Boston's brick core. Parts of Center City have a Manhattan-esque canyon mix of tall old and new.
 
Philadelphia seems substantially less urban than its population would suggest likely due to its continued poverty. Median family income there is 34k$ vs 53k$ in Boston (not counting Cambridge etc). This difference is even starker given that Boston has a much higher fraction of students (income 0) than any other American city.

Philadelphia is full of vacant lots, areas you'd never walk into, and underdeveloped land that belie its large population. Similarly, many fewer companies / sources of wealth generation.
 
San Francisco is a step above Boston. It is the financial capital of the West Coast, and 2 million more people live in it's metro area than in Bostons. It also is the densest small(big) city in the country. Even less land area than Boston. Aka "you can walk".
 
citylover94 said:
When you really look closely even compared to Philly the core urban walkable area of Boston is about the same size it is slightly smaller but only by a little.The triple decker and two family neighborhoods are equal to Philly's outer row house neighborhoods in density and walkability with only West Roxbury and Hyde park being noticeably less dense. The urban form could be argued to be better in Philly because the buildings are connected but a triple decker neighborhood in Boston still gives a pretty good street wall so I think the difference is negligible and even neighborhoods in Malden for example are often as dense and have a similar walk score to outer Philly neighborhoods so I think that gives a good indication that they are more comparable than might be expected.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that most of Boston's rowhouses are in the 4-6 story range, while most of Philly's are only 2-4, even the ones right by Center City. This is a pretty stark difference at street level. Basically, even if Philly has a bit more rowhouses than Boston, it's a "different class" of rowhouse. (essentially somewhere between Boston's rowhouses and Boston's triple deckers)
 
Good point I always forget that until someone mentions it or I see pictures because I tend to think of rowhouses as usually being 4-6 stories. I wonder if that makes a difference in the number of apartment and condo conversions in Boston vs Philly or if there isn't a clear difference.
 
Cortes said:
San Francisco is a step above Boston. It is the financial capital of the West Coast, and 2 million more people live in it's metro area than in Bostons. It also is the densest small(big) city in the country. Even less land area than Boston. Aka "you can walk".
Click to expand...

CSAs are about the same for Boston and SF but SF is growing faster. Boston MSA is bigger than SF/Oakland. Both MSAs are not easily compared with low density, large area metros like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta which are bigger due to definition of MSA. Urban area also makes large, low density areas have larger populations than more nodal metros like Boston and SF.

SF city density is high but city boundaries include the highest density areas while Boston city boundaries do not (Cambridge, Sommerville...).

SF does have an out sized economy (bigger than Chicago) due to big tech companies.

Boston does not have a major hub airport (recent help from foreign carries) but Boston metro missed out on a lot of economic growth without a big new airport (probably should have been built in the 70's where Gillette stadium is now).

Philly was bigger than Boston but fell very far in the 20th century and has a long way to go to recapture its former first class stature.

After reading these arguments and many more for a long time I agree with arlington..." It's going to boil down to "I like mine" ". All are great cities. For me Bostons biggest weakness is provincialism, which is slowly waning, and all that goes with it. On the other hand, its high level of safety really sets it apart from most big cities.
 
I continue to think that Boston is a step behind San Fran, but definitely ahead of places like Philly, Dallas, Houston, and perhaps even Chicago. As far a being a 'capital' for anything globally, Boston is the biotech capital of the world, as well as it's education capital, as well as being in the top 5 for mutual funds. It ranks high in the grand scope of things.
 
I think it would depend on perspective. Chicago is clearly much bigger and can feel bigger but downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods in Boston are much more compact and congested feeling in many ways because of the size of the streets and how chaotic they are.

Also the original statement was,
perhaps even Chicago.
Click to expand...
which is a very different statement than what you made it appear was said Fattony.
 
bigeman312 said:
I'll play devil's advocate. I believe Philly deserves to be here at least as much as Boston.

Philly's urban core is just as "urban" as Boston's, and at least as larg. That is true regardless of whether you are considering only the very urban (Mass Ave and in versus South Street to 676) or moderately urban (Roxbury to East Boston versus Walnut Hill to Fishtown) or kind of urban (Mattapan to Cambridge versus Manayunk to South Philadelphia)
Click to expand...

Philly urban core is surrounded by some of the saddest, most impoverished neighborhoods I have seen in the US. It doesn't compare based on that- our ghettos aren't even close to being as decrepit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top