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.
A sixth city (really fifth--DC is not an organically established/evolved city like the other four) in this corridor would've/should've been another river city a la Philadelphia in the proximity of Hartford or Middletown, CT.
I thought that too. Boston would take drastic hit (no, I'm not saying that due to the ATL/Bos pis$-match thread). If Chicago was plopped down in CT, it would be maybe one hundred years before Boston slides into the roll that Providence is in right now and this New England Chicago becomes what Boston is today (maybe more).
Now for some trash talk: The Celtics, Patriots, and Bruins would all move to this (new England) Chicago within a hundred years and the Red Sox Franchise would move and absorb the White Sox Franchise. Boston would become a New England Raleigh-Durham.
No love for Detroit here?
We already have Baltimore. One crime ridden, corrupt, dystopian city is enough. Thanks.
Does that east coast, NEC bias exist? I'd say so. I'm a Chicagoan and the battle between the two great old ballparks, Wrigley and Fenway, will usually give Fenway a slight nod.....even though Wrigley is better (why? because I say so )..
I'd argue old Comiskey was better (and older than both Wrigley and Fenway) but that's another story....
Kansas City or Milwaukee might be neat additions to Connecticut - small enough that they wouldn’t overwhelmingly dwarf southern New England’s other cities, but large enough to have the kind of big presence between Boston and New York that Hartford currently sort of lacks.
We already have Baltimore. One crime ridden, corrupt, dystopian city is enough. Thanks.
Okay, I see. I was trying to think of something that would blend with the rest of the surroundings of Bridgeport, Stamford, Bethel, Hartford. How about Cleveland, OH or Charlotte for a general modern style.
Edit: Iamthevvalrus, Milwaukee would fit perfectly in that area.
I vote for Seattle, instead of Chicago. Chicago's population is too massive to go in that location you mentioned and fit well. Seattle's about 3-4 million would fit perfectly and continue to push the liberal agenda politically in the NEC.
Now if we were taking a city out of the equation like say Philadelphia for example, then I would say go ahead and drop Chicago right there, and the East Coast wouldn't miss a beat.
Replacing Philadelphia with Chicago wouldn't really change the NE Corridor.... Chicago is great, but I don't consider it leaps and bounds ahead of Philadelphia. It would also be in New Yorks shadow.
The current setup of the NE corridor is pretty amazing (minus Baltimore), which is still falling on hard times, but dding Chicago to the bunch would certainly be an unbeatable group of cities.
And I agree with others in that Pittsburgh would be the best choice, and it would probably be double its current size if it were along the NE corridor OR if it were 200 miles further East.
Taking a city like Chicago, Seattle, or Denver away from their current locations would transform the area they left behind. A large reason they're as successful as they are is the lack of competition in their current locations. They're the kings of their regions and would likely prefer to remain.
This leaves me with suggesting Pittsburgh. It's a great city that seems to belong in the NE but is just too far away. It's really kind of remote but isn't necessarily dominating the region. It would benefit by being in the Bos-Wash corridor but wouldn't drastically alter Western PA.
1. NYC
2. Washington D.C.
3. Boston
4. Philadelphia
5. Pittsburgh
6. Baltimore
(very little separates 2-4 and could be rearranged)
I also like the suggestion of Cleveland for the same reasons. Which ever city left would pick up the slack of the other.
Edited: I just saw several suggestions for Milwuakee. No thanks! As much as I love the NE and would be perfectly happy to live in one of the cities currently there, I don't like the idea of Milwaukee being located anywhere but on Lake Michigan. We're already Chicago's little brother (quite happily) but would become the red-headed step child of NE. I'll stay right here, thank you very much.
Taking a city like Chicago, Seattle, or Denver away from their current locations would transform the area they left behind. A large reason they're as successful as they are is the lack of competition in their current locations. They're the kings of their regions and would likely prefer to remain.
This leaves me with suggesting Pittsburgh. It's a great city that seems to belong in the NE but is just too far away. It's really kind of remote but isn't necessarily dominating the region. It would benefit by being in the Bos-Wash corridor but wouldn't drastically alter Western PA.
1. NYC
2. Washington D.C.
3. Boston
4. Philadelphia
5. Pittsburgh
6. Baltimore
(very little separates 2-4 and could be rearranged)
I also like the suggestion of Cleveland for the same reasons. Which ever city left would pick up the slack of the other.
Edited: I just saw several suggestions for Milwuakee. No thanks! As much as I love the NE and would be perfectly happy to live in one of the cities currently there, I don't like the idea of Milwaukee being located anywhere but on Lake Michigan. We're already Chicago's little brother (quite happily) but would become the red-headed step child of NE. I'll stay right here, thank you very much.
Agreed, and a lot of these suggestion like Atlanta and Seattle make zero sense in that they are very different than NE cities, they have no direct connections to the NE, and they are the dominant cities in their states/ regions.
Pittsburgh developed around the same time culturally, historically and economically as the big NE corridor cities and while it is the dominant city in Western PA, it would drastically change PA if it were located elsewhere vs removing Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, etc. would have unknown effects on those respective states.
Aside from this thread, I do wish Pittsburgh was closer to Philadelphia, its such a great / under appreciated city that is rather isolated. If it were where Lancaster is, then the Philadelphia/ Pittsburgh area would be massive.
I think there are a couple key things that have to be in place for a city to fit, most notably a big population in a small geographic area and also mass transit.
At a city level alone, you can make the case for a lot of places. ... Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle and a couple more.
But if we are talking about entire metro, you gotta cross some off because geographically they are so big (in square mileage) where they wouldn't physically fit. ... Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and St. Louis for sure are gone.
Then when you add in mass transit, that whittles away Cincinnati and Detroit.
That leaves Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo (coincidence the three closest metros to the new location??).
From there, I would probably knock Pittsburgh out, even though the housing stock most resembles the NE, only because Pittsburgh is a river town and gets its character due to its location in the Appalachians hills.
Both Buffalo and Cleveland are solid choices but since we are talking about moving it to Connecticut, think that's where Cleveland wins as the area was founded by Connecticut natives and the area was once the Connecticut Western Reserve and to this day, from Public Square in DT Cleveland to all the smaller towns settled between the late 1700s to early 1800s, the strong New England influence is unmistakable.
Plus, the distinctive Cleveland doubles (up and down wood frame multi unit homes, with corner and mid block brick apartments in so many neighborhoods) would contrast well with the current NE housing stock.
Nice analysis of Cleveland. On the East Side, and the eastern suburbs into neighboring counties (ie Hudson in Summit Co.) there's definitely a lingering Connecticut/N.E. atmosphere lingering in the city which makes it, a bit, out of touch with its Midwestern location... although, the West Side of Cleveland seems more similar to other Midwestern Cities.
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.
)..
