Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
Use your critical reading skills lol, I said that about Chicago and Atlanta, but I said Boston fits the role for its region which was the question. Honest mistake though I'm sure, lol.
Share of population - Boston, the metro area has 4.5 million people which is a large chunk of New England's 14.5, the CSA is even bigger with half of that population in it's area of influence. Economic influence - Boston, it completely dominates New England in comparison to Chicago for the Midwest or Atlanta for the SE. Cultural influence -Three way tie in my opinion. Atlanta is known (at least to me) as the "capital of the South" and it is the capital of the SE at least. It's also the capital of the "New South" and all that represents, economic growth, growth, industry, urbanization and densification and stuff like that.
Chicago has less of a case because the Midwest is so huge but it is known as being like the greatest city of the Midwest, it's definitely the most powerful and the most famous, arguably the most important. Chicago is the face of the Midwest to some people.
Boston is known as the cultural capital of New England, and I won't dispute that, it's been the center of most of the power in the region for like ever. Even so though, I think it's influence and reach over the region is overstated, large as it is. Boston doesn't hold much sway over any large or really populous part of Connecticut which really has it's population split between the influence of Hartford and New York (that doesn't make it less of a New England state) though that's not to say Boston has no cultural influence in CT, there's the split between supporting NY (NY area, duh) and Boston teams (more in the Hartford area) after all. It also doesn't hold much influence over Vermont or honestly even Western MA (which is actually more closely associated with CT in many ways) for that matter. Lastly, Boston's influence isn't as powerful in Northern New Hampshire or in Maine. Political power over the rest of the region - Boston, Atlanta and especially Chicago's regions are way too big for them to beat Boston here, which again holds influence over half it's region's population. Still though, I think people may overestimate Boston's power over New England in this area too. Connecticut definitely doesn't fall under Boston's political influence, Vermont and Maine are also pretty removed, then there's the closer areas, Western MA, RI, and lower NH who are more in Boston's "range". Also, New England has strong local government systems (New England Town) and each state, like even RI and NH obviously have alotta influence on their own within their own states.
Logistical importance to the region - Three way tie. Chicago is the powerhouse of the Midwest and the transportation hub of not just the region but the country. Atlanta and it's airport (busiest in the world?) are indispensable to the Southeast, and Boston with it's huge economic pull in the region and even stuff like it's power in education is also indispensable to New England.
Historical significance - Two way tie between Boston and Chicago. I don't think I even need to argue Boston's historical significance to the whole country, let alone New England. Chicago also has tons of historical significance for the Midwest and the country as the powerhouse of the region and one of the country's for so much of it's history after it quickly established itself.
Atlanta is different because it wasn't always as important as it is now. At first most of it's power came from being a state capital though it did become an important economic center for the region. But it wasn't like the capital of the CSA or anything though it was an important target, Atlanta's importance really took off after the War. It built up as an important center again in the "New South" with Reconstruction and then it really really took off in the last decades of the 20th century. But anyway, the point is its larger power in its region is much more recent, especially compared to Boston and Chicago.
Whatever else you can think of - Sports? Even though Boston doesn't hold much influence over Connecticut otherwise, it definitely does in sports pretty much splitting the state with New York, besides that, Boston's teams are New England's teams.
Midwesterners have much more to pick from when it comes to sports, and I don't know much about Southern sports teams but they have more to pick from then just Atlanta.
Also rank the three cities in terms of their regional positions
1. Boston, New England 7
2. Atlanta, Southeast 2
3. Chicago, Midwest 3
I gave Chicago more points in these criteria but that's only because Atlanta had less historical influence. Either way though, I think the Midwest is too big for just Chicago, Atlanta just has a slightly better claim.
I wonder if Boston loses any influence in New England because parts of the region are so connected to New York City?
Quote:
If we were using the whole Northeast, the answer would still just be an easy one , New York, in my opinion. Anyway, I think you're really underselling New England. It may be a sub-region of the Northeast but it's more than just a "fragment", it's also pretty much the most easily and well defined region in the entire country, and one of the most distinct. And it still has significant power and pull, with 14 and half million people, and a combined GDP higher than Florida's, in other words the 4th largest in the country. Besides that, as a region it pretty much owns the country in education with 4 of the 8 Ivy League Schools, MIT, the Little Three, 4 of the original Seven Sisters, the bulk of institutions identified as the Little Ivies, the Five Colleges consortium in western MA, and so many other schools. New England isn't the dominating region it once was but it's still so much more than just a fragment of the Northeast.
I wonder if Boston loses any influence in New England because parts of the region are so connected to New York City?
Yeah, this poll may have been more interesting if I had used New York for the entire NE rather than just Boston for New England. Oh well.
I wouldn't say so, only really in one major "cultural" area I can think of, sports. Boston doesn't influence any large or populous area of Connecticut to begin with, most people here live in the central and southwestern parts of the state, where they fall into New York's influence (southwest) or central CT's (Hartford to New Haven and around). The northwestern part of CT which you would think could fall under Boston's influence isn't very populated, and the south eastern shore area is kinda on it's own too. But the point is, the only state in New England NYC holds some sway over is CT, and Boston's influence doesn't reach very far into CT and certainly not far enough to bump into NYC's especially because CT has it's own it's influence anyway that Boston doesn't even touch.
That said, don't overestimate NY's influence on CT, like people do for Boston and all of New England. The NY influence is strongest at the panhandle obviously, but it doesn't dominate the culture very far beyond there like people seem to think. Like the NY area may reach up to New Haven by some definitions, but I'd hardly call that surrounding area or county "NY culture". NY and Boston do cut CT pretty much in two when it comes to sports though which is why I think people think either city has much more influence deep into CT than they actually do. You'll get Sox and Yankees fans going into Hartford from both sides and they're all over both sides too (there's no real dividing line despite what people say because there's always a decent amount of fans on either side) but CT doesn't have it's own teams so you know, that's what you get.
If Boston loses any influence to another area in New England it'd be to the smaller central CT influence. One good way to map that out is by accent, people assume everyone in New England uses the Boston accident but it's only prevalent in Eastern MA, Rhode Island, and up towards NH and Maine where much less people live anyway. The more "neutral" sounding Western New England accent that's common in central CT is also predominant in Western MA and Vermont. There's alotta ways to look at it, but to make it short, Boston generally rules Eastern New England, Eastern MA, RI, southern NH, and northern NH and ME to a lesser extent. Western New England with CT, VT, and Western MA are comparatively much more removed from Boston culturally and otherwise and more similar to each other.
And make another thread and use NY and maybe throw some other regions in too lol, no big deal, it'd be alot harder to argue for NYC ruling the whole NE even with all it's power.
To me the answer's Boston when it comes to regional domination. I really wanted to comment on what the Southeast was because it kills me when people think "Southeast" is another way of saying "the South" and they about 12-16 states in the Southeast. That's just like me saying that the Northeast includes the Midwest. It's all relative to me. Take the entire South and split it up: West, Central, and East. Now to get to the point, the Southeast should be be VA, NC, SC, GA, and FLA. I think ATL has a presence all of these states. Southeastern Cities: Hampton Roads (also M-A to me), Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Outer Banks Asheville, Greenville, Myrtle Beach, Charleston, Savannah, ATL, J'Ville, Tampa, Orlando, South FLA. I'm not saying that ATL runs all of these because DC has VA and some of NC, ATL shares SC with Charlotte and even attracts NC people, etc. The whole "Capital of the South" thing is just ATL pride because we have our hands in other sub-regions of the South. TN people (South-Central) have 3 decent cities and they like ATL a little bit more than Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville (not talking out of the *$$, people up there have actually told me that ATL's better than their cities and they like the Bravos).
Atlanta. The competition in the SE is really small (Charlotte, Savannah, Raleigh, Birmingham, etc).
Boston should not even be in there. It is not in the same category as Atlanta or Chicago as it is dwarfed by NY, DC, and Philly.
Chicago has competition from Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinatti, Milwaukee, Minn/St Paul.
If those compete with Chicago. Than Atlanta certainly has competition with Charlotte, the Triangle, the Tennessee cities, and the Alabama cities. Meanwhile, Boston is easily the dominant city in New England.
If we were using the whole Northeast, the answer would still just be an easy one , New York, in my opinion. Anyway, I think you're really underselling New England. It may be a sub-region of the Northeast but it's more than just a "fragment", it's also pretty much the most easily and well defined region in the entire country, and one of the most distinct. And it still has significant power and pull, with 14 and half million people, and a combined GDP higher than Florida's, in other words the 4th largest in the country. Besides that, as a region it pretty much owns the country in education with 4 of the 8 Ivy League Schools, MIT, the Little Three, 4 of the original Seven Sisters, the bulk of institutions identified as the Little Ivies, the Five Colleges consortium in western MA, and so many other schools. New England isn't the dominating region it once was but it's still so much more than just a fragment of the Northeast.
lol, I am not diminishing its significance, just its size in relation to Boston.
To me it was like carving out a little portion of the area around ATlanta and then comparing it to the Chicago in the mid west and asking who commands more influence in their area. Or on the flip side, carving out the area around chicago and comparing it to Altanta in the south east and asking who commands more of their area.
I just think that it was not a fair fight. Even thought New England is well defined, it is basically Boston and a few other people.
If those compete with Chicago. Than Atlanta certainly has competition with Charlotte, the Triangle, the Tennessee cities, and the Alabama cities. Meanwhile, Boston is easily the dominant city in New England.
They do. But when the thread originally came out I was under the impression that it was mid west, NE, SE. ( not New England)
anyway, yeah ATL does have competition from those, but not any strong competition.
Boston should be included in the 'Northeast' and not the cultural region of 'New England.' In the scope of the Northeast clearly New York dominates, with Washington DC, a historically Southern city being 2nd.
Chicago clearly is the most important city in the Midwest, being 2nd in GMP in the US, and the largest transit center in the US. With the decline of Detroit and other Midwestern cities Chicago has only grown in regional importance.
Atlanta is a dominant transportation center, but it faces a lot of competition on multiple levels with Miami, Washington D.C., Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas, and Houston.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
