Welcome to Boston, not perfect but...NOT BAD AT ALL (from the Clarendon Thread)

San Fran is a highly overrated city from everything I've heard from a trusted source. As far as residing there goes.
 
San Francisco looks sweet in Star Trek.

I've always thought Toronto was dated and ugly, and suburban.
 
How is SF highly overrated? I know plenty of people who live there, and they all love the place. wtf?
 
Most diverse? Are you kidding me?
Click to expand...

It's debatable, but Toronto may have eclipsed London and New York for the title:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2151421720071227

It certainly beats LA in that category. Why? Much easier to immigrate to Canada than to the US. Hell, easier even to visit.

Being the largest city in a country does have its merits; it's a beacon for ambitious people across Canada, much like New York is here (but not exactly Boston). In finance, it's third in North America, and the fastest growing:

http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/finance.htm

I'm sure its relative strength in that area can have only increased, given how well Canadian banks have weathered the financial crisis compared to those based anywhere in the US.

I think you have a fairly superficial knowledge of the place. It has a fairly large area of wholly intact urban neighborhoods, and a thriving art scene. Find me a great city in North America that isn't ringed by "typical suburbia" (New York included).
 
"Official figures show New York with the largest nonwhite proportion of the three cities, at about 56 percent last year. Toronto weighed in with 37 percent, and London with 29 percent, according to data from 2001, which was the last time Britain and Canada polled on race."

I think that about explains diversity.

And although Canadian banks have weathered the storm better than US banks based in NY, the size of Canadian banks are still nothing compared to US banks. I'll admit that their relative stature has grown, but I don't see them eclipsing NY anytime soon (financial centers change very, very, slowly).

And this is Toronto's typical "wholly intact urban neighborhood," less than 1 mile from downtown:

a.png


Even Boston beats out Toronto in average level of urbanity, therefore, that's why I rank it higher.
 
The aerial shot really doesn't tell me anything about urbanity, which has more to do with the variety of businesses, walkability, and availability of non-motorized transportation in a neighborood.

From that height it looks quite walkable: small streets, small builldings closely fronting on the streets, well-connected grid-like street pattern, no big parking lots. But I really can't determine any other facts about it, such as whether it contains a used bookstore, or a jazz club, or a bowling alley, or a movie theatre that shows foreign films, or an array of exotic ethnic restaurants.
 
Last edited:
BOSTON is getting better, we'll have new "towers", we'll keep our past, history alive and our future all together.
We were NOT prepared for this financial crisis: we DON'T want it, we DON'T like it BUT we have to deal with it!
The good thing about this city is that we're still building new projects!
And I'm sure we will restart others that's been hit by this "momento"!
What's going on right now it's NOT perfect, BUT it's NOT BAD AT ALL!
My motto!
Call me a dreamer, a jerk or whatever.... but I feel that the Columbus Project will happen.
We like this city, we want it to be somehow new. But at the same time, we do have a past and history simply UNIQUE!
NOBODY ELSE HAS THIS!
We won't look like NYC, but maybe we'll be better!
More room to build, more ideas and maybe more daring that another boxy skyscaper!
What do you think about the East-Midtown-Tower by Trump?
"Full of light on the crown, but NOTHING special from the bottom to the top!"
I guess we can REALLY do better than that!
MY very personal opinion, that's all!
That was my own impression after my last visit to NYC.
Thank you all for this thread!
 
Last edited:
Re: The Clarendon

I have been to a lot of cities in North America, and I wouldn't say that any of them are "better" than Boston. Boston is truly a unique wonderful city that has just about everything to offer. If I had to live in another city, I would only want to live in New York. Ignoring size, Boston and NYC have the most urban qualities to compare, but I prefer Boston overall since it is not over-canyonized.

I have been to San Fransisco twice, and although I enjoyed my visits there was just something about that city that creeps me out. And I think it's truly overrated.

And as it's been stated before, skyscrapers do not make the city. So just because we might bitch and moan about proposed and recently-built architecture, it doesn't change our opinion on the city itself. Frankly, I'll take the Custom House over any cluster of buildings from any other city.
 
I'm sorry, but i just crack up every time i see the title of this thread!
 
Barb, this is interesting. I'd love to know the rating criteria. Based on my wanderings these pairings seem anomolous:

Dublin=Rome=Caracas

Houston=Montreal

Edinburgh=Calgary=Islamabad

Glasgow=Dhaka (has the selection committee been to Dhaka? Dhaka=Indianapolis=Hades.)

I haven't yet been to Seoul or Kuala Lumpur, but I wonder that they are the equal of Madrid or Milan.

And Toronto? Is the frequency of the use of the phrase "Eh?" and per capita consumption of Molsons and Blue among the indices?
 
tobyjug said:
And Toronto? Is the frequency of the use of the phrase "Eh?" and per capita consumption of Molsons and Blue among the indices?
Click to expand...

It is alleged that Peter Ustinov said that Toronto is "New York run by the Swiss."
 
The criteria for these GAWC (Globalization and World Cities) rankings are thick with probably nonsensical jargon about global connectivity and some such. There's little to no weight given to cultural impact, which explains Dallas, et al.
 
Not that I think we came out badly here, but I wonder about a ranking system that puts us below Riyadh and Auckland. Or, for that matter, puts Houston above Cape Town, and Atlanta above Edinburgh.
 
^^You can't deny though that those cities are more important in the world. It's weighted by total global impact, not by arbitrary cultural impact or some other factor that we love. So I actually agree with these rankings more than most.

Riyadh is a huge city and the capital of a vast country, Auckland is a capital, Houston is much bigger and economically important than Cape Town, and Atlanta and Edinburgh aren't even in the same league, imho.
 
The high placement of Warsaw and Budapest is a bit startling to me... would be interesting to see what the measures are.
 
I'm guessing San Fran and Atlanta beat out Boston because we have to compete with the rest of the North East Megalopolis, whereas they don't have much competition in their immediate area.

Personally, I think Berlin gets the shaft. It's the center of one (if not the) most important countries in the EU (seriously, Warsaw and Madrid rank higher?). Maybe it's importance is diluted by the other major German cities?

LA, Washington, and San Fran all being in the same grouping seems odd. Especially since, at least in my opinion, LA would have to be grouped with Chicago and Washington and San Fran clearly wouldn't.
 
If global connectivity is remotely defined in the context of transportation, that explains Atlanta and to a significant degree Dallas as both are major airline hubs.
 
underground said:
I'm guessing San Fran and Atlanta beat out Boston because we have to compete with the rest of the North East Megalopolis, whereas they don't have much competition in their immediate area.

Personally, I think Berlin gets the shaft. It's the center of one (if not the) most important countries in the EU (seriously, Warsaw and Madrid rank higher?). Maybe it's importance is diluted by the other major German cities?

LA, Washington, and San Fran all being in the same grouping seems odd. Especially since, at least in my opinion, LA would have to be grouped with Chicago and Washington and San Fran clearly wouldn't.
Click to expand...

You have to remember, the ranking is not based on the size of the city in population. Let's take a look shall we. San Francisco is the gateway for immigration from the East. Angel Island in SF Bay is like the Ellis Island of NYC. Also, San Fransisco is home to Silicon Valley and the Port of San Francisco, once the largest on the West Coast. In itself, SF is a economic powerhouse. Washington is obviously a no brainer. Being the political powerhouse is enough to thrust it as a Beta city. After all, its influence on the world is global.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top