Take the Northeastern Corridor's five, stir in one other.... (best, state, better)
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.
The US differs from other major countries throughout history, the majority of which saw their political capital and most important city to be the same place. We have no London-to-Britain, Paris-to-France, Rome-to-Italy or Tokyo-to-Japan in the US
Washington DC is our political capital. New York is pretty much the capital of everything else. The power structure in this nation some 3000 miles across (excluding HI and AK) stretches a mere 200 miles from NY too DC.
So New York and Washington could be looked at as a capital region. And since the region spreads a bit wider than just the two, we can and we do look at the Northeast Corridor as the true central region of the nation. If real estate is about three things: location, location and location, then the five cities that pretty much can be connected by a straight line are blessed. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington couldn't have picked a better locale.
Some 450 miles separate Boston from Washington, and in that short string are four of the most major of US cities (sorry Baltimore).
I'll make this assertion here: Each of the northeast five earn points for being in the Bowash region. Those outside of the region may suffer in varying degrees depending on their locations for not being here.
So....this is what I propose here:
1. Take any city you wish that is not in the Northeast Corridor
2. Take that city and its metro area and drop them into the Northeast Corridor
3. Since New York to Boston is the largest gap on the line of cities, we'll place the new city somewhere between the two. Arbitrarily I'll place it in Connecticut on the far eastern shore of LI Sound.
4. Then find where the city ranks compared to the other (original) Northeast Corridor five.
I'll throw in some parameters: only the city and its metro area can be moved, you can't take the climate with you...in other words, it is to be typical northeast. The idea here is to see how, say, Seattle might fare if removed from the far and more isolated northwest and placed into the NEC. And if, for example, you had considered Philadelphia more important, higher ranked than Seattle, would the moving of Seattle to the northeast give it a higher value than Philly.
A bit convoluted, I admit, but I do believe that there is a bias to the northeast, certainly the media capital of the nation, certainly the region that could be seen as having a beltway around it. So this is merely an exercise to see how other cities stack up just by putting them in the right neighborhood. It really is all about flattening the playing field.
And since I mentioned the playing field...
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 ). So, yes, there is a bias to the northeast on this one....just like (again) in MLB, there is a bias on rivalries towards Yankees-Red Sox and away from Cubs-Cardinals and Giants-Dodgers.
So your list might look like the following....
1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Washington
4. Boston
5. Philadephia
6. Baltimore
-or-
1. New York
2. Washington
3. Atlanta
4. Philadelphia
5. Boston
6. Baltimore (sorry, Baltimore)
and then...give reasons why you chose the way you did
And now.....offically....It's Six & The Cities time.
LA won't work because the weather and scenery is important to the character of LA. St. Louis won't work either because of the whole river city with lite Southern vibes is a key character to STL.
Detroit or Pittsburgh would fit nicely in CT between NY and Boston with Detroit the slight edge in my opinion. The built form, legacy, and character of D Town would work... Detroit, CT even has a good ring to it.
LA won't work because the weather and scenery is important to the character of LA. St. Louis won't work either because of the whole river city with lite Southern vibes is a key character to STL.
Detroit or Pittsburgh would fit nicely in CT between NY and Boston with Detroit the slight edge in my opinion. The built form, legacy, and character of D Town would work... Detroit, CT even has a good ring to it.
1. New York
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Washington
5. Boston
6. Baltimore
Moving Chicago to the Northeast would be a climate upgrade!
There is a frustrating gap between New York and Boston where I think there was a missed opportunity. Plopping Chicago between New Haven and New London would make the Boswash Corridor incredible.
Finest collection of 20th century architecture in the world.
Chicago, SF and Pittsburgh all can make arguments.
1) Pittsburgh being a NE city is the most natural case. It has a lot of elements of a smaller, more blue collar Boston.
2) Chicago is very much a midwestern city, but has the 1880-1920s grand city historic urbanism that you find in NYC and Philly and the pre-war streetcar suburbs that fit with Bos, Philly, NYC inner-ring suburbs.
3) SF is very much a California city culturally, geographically and architecturally. But, it probably comes the closest to having the dense, tightly built organic urbanism you find in Bos, NYC, Philly.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,137 posts, read 7,591,033 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
1. New York
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Washington
5. Boston
6. Baltimore
Moving Chicago to the Northeast would be a climate upgrade!
There is a frustrating gap between New York and Boston where I think there was a missed opportunity. Plopping Chicago between New Haven and New London would make the Boswash Corridor incredible.
Finest collection of 20th century architecture in the world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Without a doubt, STL as it is now would have drawn away from Boston some but would have been a victim of NYC of course.
St. Louis is a frontier city at heart (albeit it did look east for most of it's history and had major early investment from the Mid-Atlantic region), but it has no business on the East Coast. If St. Louis where plopped on the East Coast, I think it would do the best somewhere between Philadelphia and Baltimore on the Susquehanna River.
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.
). So, yes, there is a bias to the northeast on this one....just like (again) in MLB, there is a bias on rivalries towards Yankees-Red Sox and away from Cubs-Cardinals and Giants-Dodgers.
