Why is Boston not mentioned more when people talk about great cities in the US (Somerville: income, suburban)

[cwaggy]

Boston is the Hub of the Universe. Don't let anyone tell you any different. Sheesh.

[caligirl2345]

Skyline? What Skyline? Boston has some beautiful old brick rowhouses in Back bay and Beacon hill, but the skyscraper architecture is atrocious and nothing compared to Chicago.

Also, by geographic size Boston is very small-- it's about the same size as SF.

Also the public transport exists, but is by no means 'extensive.' Major areas of Somerville are not covered by the T at all. The Green line is a mess, and the city has dragged its heels on performing much needed upgrades on public transport... all which came to a head this past winter when the T basically shut down for three weeks.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by caligirl2345

Skyline? What Skyline? Boston has some beautiful old brick rowhouses in Back bay and Beacon hill, but the skyscraper architecture is atrocious and nothing compared to Chicago.

Of course not! Nobody would expect it to be like Chicago which is in the discussion for best skyline on the planet. Regardless, skylines have very little to do with how great a city is. Atlanta and Houston have buildings as tall or taller than anything in London. Are those cities greater cities than London? How much time do tourists in Paris spend admiring La Defense? Skylines make for nice post cards, but what determines how great a city is happens at the street level. Boston is among the best in the country on that front.

Also, by geographic size Boston is very small-- it's about the same size as SF.

... which is considered a great city. What's your point?

Also the public transport exists, but is by no means 'extensive.' Major areas of Somerville are not covered by the T at all. The Green line is a mess, and the city has dragged its heels on performing much needed upgrades on public transport... all which came to a head this past winter when the T basically shut down for three weeks.

Public transit in the U.S. needs help in general. Boston's is better than every city in the U.S. except NY, DC and Chicago. We need upgrades, but I'd take the Green Line over MUNI Metro (which is essentially the same system as the Green Line, just less efficient) any day. There aren't many other cities in the U.S. I'd prefer to live in without a car (including Chicago).

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by caligirl2345

Skyline? What Skyline? Boston has some beautiful old brick rowhouses in Back bay and Beacon hill, but the skyscraper architecture is atrocious and nothing compared to Chicago.

It's a fraction of the size of Chicago! Jeezes.

Originally Posted by lrfox

Public transit in the U.S. needs help in general. Boston's is better than every city in the U.S. except NY, DC and Chicago. We need upgrades, but I'd take the Green Line over MUNI Metro (which is essentially the same system as the Green Line, just less efficient) any day. There aren't many other cities in the U.S. I'd prefer to live in without a car (including Chicago).

Truth. (Thought I found the buses to be better in SF, but the rail virtually useless).

[Clayton white guy]

Many people in Atlanta (not me I'm a proud Atlanta native ;0) ) have true Boston envy. I tell you that MANY people consider Boston as an "alpha" city, so chin up, others are looking and longing!

[odurandina]

^^ another 700,000 sq ft was approved at this afternoon's monthly BPDA meeting.... Check out the astonishing construction planned in the neighborhoods outside the High Spine, Back Bay, Fenway, etc contained in my monthly Project Summary Sheet....

btw, did you know Boston/Cambridge [residents + college students] Compared to SF/Daly City is about 20,500/sq mi vs 18,400/ sq mi respectively?

Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin

Boston just isn't a top tier/alpha city, and probably never will be. It's fair to say it's a 2nd tier city, with the likes of SF, Philadelphia and Houston.

BPDA Director Brian Golden announced earlier this afternoon, "Boston has the lowest unemployment of any major US City: at 2.5%"

Project Summary Sheet (an impressive quanity of density and investment to say the least)....
Project Summary Sheet (an impressive quanity of density and investment to say the least)....

SkyscraperCity - View Single Post - BOSTON | Projects & Construction

Up to the minute Population density of cities or boroughs with at least 75,000 population (my best estimates reflecting recent transactions)....

1. Manhattan, NY; 72,826/sq mile
2. Brooklyn, NY; 37,137
3. The Bronx, NY; 34,321
4. Queens, NY; 21,460
5. Somerville, MA; 18,868 (3,500 residents coming to Assembly Row)
6. San Francisco, CA; 18,451
7. Patterson, NJ; 17,346
8. Cambridge, MA; 17,130 (109,694 + 450 grad student residents)
Cambridge, MA + coll students; 26,648/sq mile (110,144 residents + 60,000 students)
9. Jersey City, NJ; 16,737
10. Boston, MA; **14,000
11. Daly City (San Mateo), CA; 13,843
12. Hawthorne (Los Angeles), CA; 13,800
13. South Gate (Los Angeles), CA; 13,090
14. Santa Ana, (Orange County), CA; 12,451
15. Miami; 12,360
16. Inglewood, (Los Angeles), CA 12,323
17. El Monte (Los Angeles), CA 12,139
18. Chicago; 11,868
19. Philadelphia 11,635
20. Newark, NJ; 11,496
21. Washington DC; 11,158/sq mi

*New York City total pop density; 28,052/sq mi
**Boston reached 677,880 people in the latter part of 2016 or will do so in early 2017.

Major US cities w/ >500,000 pop...

1. New York, NY; 28,052
2. San Francisco, CA; 18,451
3. Boston, MA; 14,000
4. Miami; 12,360
5. Chicago; 11,868
6. Philadelphia, PA; 11,635
7. Washington, DC; 11,158/sq mi

Combined Major US cities w/ New York + Boston/Cambridge/Somerville + SF/Daly City disambigugation >500,000 pop...

1. New York, NY; 28,052
2. San Francisco, CA; 17,803
3. Boston, MA; 14,706 [pop 866,925 (677,880 + Cambridge/Somerville 189,045)
4. Miami; 12,360
5. Chicago; 11,868
6. Philadelphia, PA; 11,635
7. Washington, DC; 11,158


Boston Skyline 2021~22 (arrow Harbor Garage Tower site)....

[blktoptrvl]

Sorry, you are being generous when you call Boston a "second tiered" city, If you want to look at NY, Chicago, and LA and first tier, and Philadelphia, Phoenix, and a bunch of others as second tier, then Boston at a little more than a third the size of Philadelphia has to be (at best) 4th tier. Boston just barely cracks the top 25 in population size.

As far as area goes, Boston is tiny and not very likely to grow any more. It doesn't make the top 100, by a long way.

Historical significance is where Boston shines. Then it is in the top three IMO in significance. Philadelphia, Boston, New York.

All together, I would only rank Boston as top significance in New England, Third Tier in the North East, but an also ran countrywide (4th-6th tier) and shrinking.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

Sorry, you are being generous when you call Boston a "second tiered" city, If you want to look at NY, Chicago, and LA and first tier, and Philadelphia, Phoenix, and a bunch of others as second tier, then Boston at a little more than a third the size of Philadelphia has to be (at best) 4th tier. Boston just barely cracks the top 25 in population size.

As far as area goes, Boston is tiny and not very likely to grow any more. It doesn't make the top 100, by a long way.

Historical significance is where Boston shines. Then it is in the top three IMO in significance. Philadelphia, Boston, New York.

All together, I would only rank Boston as top significance in New England, Third Tier in the North East, but an also ran countrywide (4th-6th tier) and shrinking.

Ouch

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

Sorry, you are being generous when you call Boston a "second tiered" city, If you want to look at NY, Chicago, and LA and first tier, and Philadelphia, Phoenix, and a bunch of others as second tier, then Boston at a little more than a third the size of Philadelphia has to be (at best) 4th tier. Boston just barely cracks the top 25 in population size.

As far as area goes, Boston is tiny and not very likely to grow any more. It doesn't make the top 100, by a long way.

Historical significance is where Boston shines. Then it is in the top three IMO in significance. Philadelphia, Boston, New York.

All together, I would only rank Boston as top significance in New England, Third Tier in the North East, but an also ran countrywide (4th-6th tier) and shrinking.

LOL, have you visited Philly or Phoenix? Esp the latter is a craphole. This is a post by someone that looks at just population, and nothing else. Population means little. San Francisco isn't a big city, but it clearly a top city in the U.S. Not debatable.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by timberline742

LOL, have you visited Philly or Phoenix? Esp the latter is a craphole. This is a post by someone that looks at just population, and nothing else. Population means little. San Francisco isn't a big city, but it clearly a top city in the U.S. Not debatable.

I lived in Philadelphia and Boston but have not visited Phoenix. I'll let my comment stand as is.