Why is Boston not mentioned more when people talk about great cities in the US (Winchester: vs, buildings)

[tysmith95]

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.

Boston is smaller population wise because many of it's neighborhoods aren't part of Boston proper. Camridge, Somerville, Brookline, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Watertown, and many more are closer to downtown Boston then many of the southern neighborhoods. If NYC was set up like this then Manhatten, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island would all be different cities.

It is better to look at the metro area population. If you look at the combined statistical area the Boston area would be the 6th largest in the nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...tistical_Areas

Looking at just the city limits is not fair.

And Boston is not shrinking. Lots of construction going on in the urban core, low unemployment and one of the best economies in the country.

[Cliff Clavin]

https://www.atkearney.com/research-s...l-cities-index


Global Elite - Americas


New York #2
LA #6
Chicago #7
Toronto #17
San Francisco #23
Boston #24


I'm sure Philadelphia and Phoenix are ranked well below these fine cities, if at all.

[tysmith95]

Interesting that Boston is number 3 with regards to outlook.

With regards to the index Philadelphia is 47th, Phoenix is 72nd.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

Interesting that Boston is number 3 with regards to outlook.

With regards to the index Philadelphia is 47th, Phoenix is 72nd.

Not surprising. The metro-Boston MSA is right at the top in terms of education level of the population. It's competitive in the 21st century global economy. Of MSA that aren't pure college towns like Ann Arbor or Madison, it's up there with DC, San Jose/Silicon Valley, Raleigh-Durham, and San Francisco.

Metro Philly has a college educated core downtown & around Penn walkable to the office towers and university; and the college educated Mainline suburbs to the west/northwest. The rest is a slum. If you're sitting in Bryn Mawr with a 6 figure median household income, you probably have a pretty good outlook. If you're in Camden, not so much.

I've only been to Phoenix a half dozen times but my impression is that it's a place with endless working class/lower middle class suburban sprawl. That's not the kind of labor force that is globally competitive.

[the topper]

One correction with world elite cities: San Francisco should be replaced with San Jose since it's bigger and more economic important city. Boston shouldn't be but Philly should. Boston has an up and coming downtown, not established downtown like Philly.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by the topper

One correction with world elite cities: San Francisco should be replaced with San Jose since it's bigger and more economic important city. Boston shouldn't be but Philly should. Boston has an up and coming downtown, not established downtown like Philly.

Have you been to San Jose? It's barely a city.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin

https://www.atkearney.com/research-s...l-cities-index


Global Elite - Americas


New York #2
LA #6
Chicago #7
Toronto #17
San Francisco #23
Boston #24


I'm sure Philadelphia and Phoenix are ranked well below these fine cities, if at all.

Yes, Boston is one of AT Kearney's 15 Global Elite Cities. This guy is speaking out of his rectum.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by the topper

One correction with world elite cities: San Francisco should be replaced with San Jose since it's bigger and more economic important city. Boston shouldn't be but Philly should. Boston has an up and coming downtown, not established downtown like Philly.

Even people in San Jose refer to San Francisco as "The City".

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by the topper

One correction with world elite cities: San Francisco should be replaced with San Jose since it's bigger and more economic important city. Boston shouldn't be but Philly should. Boston has an up and coming downtown, not established downtown like Philly.

You cannot be serious. Boston has far more industry and is more economically significant than Philly.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

You cannot be serious. Boston has far more industry and is more economically significant than Philly.

The only entity in Philly's top-20 employers that isn't a university, health care, public sector, a rent-a-cop company, or American Airlines at the airport, all of which you would find in any large city, is Comcast at #17.

What really matters is that metro Boston creates a heck of a lot more intellectual property than Philly. It's still only 10% of what is created in the Bay Area but it's similar to New York as #2 and #2A. Of course, New York owns finance so IPR creation isn't their core thing.