[missionhill]

Jay,
You misunderstood me. I'm saying Boston and Hartford are comparable--small central city relative to the whole metro, lots of independent municipalities, and most of the poor and people of color living in the city. The argument the Louisville guy was making was that the region as a whole is healthier if all these governments consolidate rather than remain independent--what New York City did back in 1898. I'm not sure he's right, but it's an interesting and debatable question (and as someone points out already well debated.) Anyway, Boston does seem more prosperous than Hartford but when you see income levels mapped over the metro area, you realize that most of the territory within Boston is working class in income compared to all those suburbs. A Hartford map would show the same city-to-suburb relationship. The main difference is that intown Boston has high-end residential and commercial areas which Hartford lacks. Would people automatically dismiss the Boston schools as no good if the Boston school district included Brookline, Newton, Wellesley, and so on? I don't think so. Would poor, black children get better educations if the school district averaged out over high income areas and not just workingclass ones? I think they would.

[pmeek2309]

And how many NYC public schools would you send your kids to with the confidence that they're getting an excellent education? My guess would be not many.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by ronson

In my humblest opinion, each NE State and subsequently each region of that State has its own feel.

This is exactly my opinion. There is no one New England - there's CT and the Springfield area, then RI and MA, then northern NE.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by pmeek2309

I must say that it seems as if there are two CTs just from reading your posting boards. The NY side of Conn seems to be anti-Boston and the MA side seems to be anti-New York and both sides seem a little bitter toward the other. I am not sure why. Connecticut is its own state, and a beautiful one. Why feel the need for associations?

Connecticut does have a New England feel of course since it is New England. In Oxford and Monroe where we visited the towns are very New England with the rock walls and church steeples. I did find the accents to be similar to New York rather than Boston but that is to be expected.

Now I have to ask the Hartford area residents, why the obsession with Boston? You are about halfway and the NY suburbs are closer to you than Boston's like Waterbury according to statistical metro and micropolitan areas. Same goes for people in Litchfield or Madison who claim to be part of NY when they are 2 hours away. When I lived in New Jersey I never experienced the animosity between Philadelphia and NY that I notice here on the city data board. Can it be an elitist CT thing? It is not something I have noticed so much on this thread as I have on others. I am just not getting it.

Well I don't think it's being elitist - I think CT has an identity crisis because you have the commuter suburbs of NYC, Hartford smack in between the two, and eastern CT closer to the MA burbs. I think people in Hartford seem to gravitate toward Boston because they are close to the MA line, and just across that line you have people who associate themselves with Boston more than Hartford.

It's not that we here in the tri-state region are anti-Boston, we're just hours away. Honestly I can count on two hands how many times I've been up there. It's a great city but IMO there's nothing in Boston you can't get in NYC, which is less than an hour away.

It's always funny how Greenwich has signs that read "The Gateway to New England" when most residents haven't traveled past New Haven or Hartford - unless they have summer homes in RI or the cape.

[McMolly]

Having grown up in the Northeastern corner (now called the "Quiet Corner") of CT I can only say that for me CT is definitely New England.

Of course when you get within commuting distance of NYC, or in the heart of the cities of Hartford or New Haven, there's going to be a different feel. But once out in the rolling hills of CT, it's New England in all its glory.

Every 4 months I return and savor and relish every moment of driving the roads I grew up on and have really changed little since that time. As someone else said, New England is the white Congregational churches nestled in the hills, the winding roads, the long stone walls lining the pastures and farmland and the endless woods.

I love it and I miss it. There's just no better place on earth ... 'course I'm a little biased. It's still home for me and it's many decades since I could really call it "home".

[Tin Knocker]

CT's as NE as you can get. If you dont notice its because your going thru too fast.

[bluecountry]

Originally Posted by JViello

I would have to disagree somewhat.

While FFC and SW CT does have strong ties to NYC, once you live here and travel between both *most* people see a distinct difference.

CT is New England. Hartford by far is a stereotypical New England city. Not an extention of NY by any means. Hartford is a stand alone city.

As for the Hartfor suburbs being "built up" more...I think you are simply viewing this from a drive by highway perspective and not a more indepth look. That's my take anyway.

When I drive by on I-84 and I-91 in the Hartford region...I see A LOT of developement...chains...homes....whereas on I-90 in MA...after the Weston toll I see trees.

When I drive in FFC, Westchester, and NJ....I see a lot of similar developement.

So my questions are

1) Why does it appear the Hartford suburbs have more development...and it is further out from the city than Boston?

2) Why do the Hartford suburbs look from the highway to have more NY like developement patterns than Boston has?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by bluecountry

When I drive by on I-84 and I-91 in the Hartford region...I see A LOT of developement...chains...homes....whereas on I-90 in MA...after the Weston toll I see trees.

When I drive in FFC, Westchester, and NJ....I see a lot of similar developement.

So my questions are

1) Why does it appear the Hartford suburbs have more development...and it is further out from the city than Boston?

2) Why do the Hartford suburbs look from the highway to have more NY like developement patterns than Boston has?

I just think the Boston area is a bit more quaint than CT as a whole. I do think it has much to do with the NY influence, even in Hartford County.

Of course it's still New England - southern NE is different than central NE which is different than northern NE.

[bluecountry]

Originally Posted by missionhill

Driving to and from Boston on the Mass Turnpike is very misleading: west of the Weston toll the suburban strip development seems to stop, creating the impression that the Boston suburbs are contained within Route 128. If you drive instead on State route 9 (once known as the Worcester Turnpike), you get the full suburban treatment all the way to Westborough. Lesson? The MassPike near Boston was routed through high-income towns (especially Weston) that did not permit any commercial development near the road. MassPike also has very few exits--only 14 I think between the NYS border and Route 128. I-84 east of Hartford and 91 south of Hartford have a lot more development along them because the land was available, there are plenty of exits around which to build, and the towns allowed that kind of development.

This is pretty much where my questions developes from.

I have driven from Boston many times...and I always keep getting confused.
Boston is labeled as this big market...never less than in baseball with their battles to New York.

The first time I ever went to Boston, I was expecting the ride on I-90 to be like the NJTP.
I thought it would start to get built up around Worcester...or near 40 miles from the city.

Instead I was quite shocked to see little developement until you got Natick.
From my view...the Boston region decevied me as it looked nothing like New York in terms of metro size...or even DC.
It looked like a mid size market...not something which could rival New York.

This has always confused me at how a market which is one of the largest in the states could have a metro region which after 12 miles out on the main highway not only lacks congestion but looks like that of mid size metro region.

My question

1) Why is this the case?
-Is Boston really not a top sized market...or is so...than how do you explain how undeveloped it is 12 miles outside the city?
-If it was due to the wealth towns...then I would think they would have been able to stop the road from being constructed if they could be that sucessful at limiting developement near a big market.

2) How about going on I-93 north or south of Boston...or I-95 North or South...is it much more built up for a longer area and does it vary much differently from I-90?

[uconn99]

Easy answer, Boston does NOT rival NYC in size.

Boston is a large city but nowhere near the size of NYC. There are only a few metro area's in the country that can rival it, LA and Chicago really.

Just because you don't see development off the Mass pike doesn't mean Boston isn't large. Have you ventured off the pike at all? Boston is a very large metro area going from North to South. Boston metro is over 5 million people, where as Hartford is 1.3 million!