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 what about the other 1.6 million people and 500 sqaure miles?
And I never said Houston would be less important if it were smaller. Houston is a product of the age it developed, THE CAR. Boston was bascially laid out before 1875, It's the product of the foot first and a horse carriage.
But I don't think it plays hugely on a city's importance. I just found it really odd you separted outer and inner Houston.
By the way, density is a huge deal when talking about any city. City's by definition are a dense place of population. My definiton of density is 20,000 people/mile, your's is 5,000. But I'm not saying < density=imprtance.
Assuming that 1 million people live in the inner loop, there should be less than 1.3 million in the areas outside the outer loop.
So you say that density is 20,000 people/ sq. mile. By that logic Boston is not dense, only a part of it are dense. Oh well, since its your definition, I guess your city isnt dense.
I don't think Houston will reach Bostons density levels, nor catch up to MBTA. But that doesn't mean it will never be an urban city that is walkable.(i doubt all 600 sq. miles will be urban, but the core will).
I agree with you on this one. Boston's established neighborhoods fight change & development like crazy...they claim it's in order to preserve historical neighborhoods, but it's more aimed towards keeping out the riff-raff. Unfortunately, I think a great deal of residents would actually be for a bit of development in appropriate areas. However the only people that have the time to show up at the neighborhood review meetings are old people who have retired and spend their time in their South End townhouses, more than happy with their neighborhood. They don't care about the future of the city, because they've already got theirs.
However, you're incorrect in saying that new housing in the inner-burbs has been zoned out of existence. There are multi-billion dollar developments proposed for both Quincy and Cambridge. Obviously not 100% of those developments are residential, but I do believe they're about 50/50 (I think the Quincy dev is about 50% commercial; Cambridge dev is 50% biotech).
Also, Boston still has the massive Fan Pier development and Seaport Square developments on the South Boston Waterfront in the works. Fan Pier has one building built so far, but both Fan Pier and Seaport Sq have hit a roadblock in the form of the economic crisis.
I wouldn't argue that Boston's inner-suburbs have made new housing "all but impossible", but many of the inner-neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, Back Bay and the South End have. I will agree with you that Boston is farfrom perfect though.
How in the world did this thread devolve into another argument about density & urbanity? I have a feeling some of my fellow Bostonians are the culprits. It's easy to pick on Houston and other Sunbelt cities for this, but in all honesty it does absolutely nothing in terms of lessening their power.
As Oy and others have said earlier, it's pretty clear cut that San Francisco is the #6 city. Maybe we should create a new poll with Boston, Houston, and Philadelphia? With maybe Atlanta and Dallas in for good measure?
Oh God No!! I'd rather concede right now, and I already have. We've had more than enough just with Boston, another thread between ATL, DAL, and HOU would be pure mayhem. Add in Philly, which still think it belongs on the #4 thread would just be too much. I say we close this thread.
Houston's short comings are well known. But, Boston isn't a sustainable model either. Yes, it's cleaned up and yuppie, but MA ranks as one of the top states for neg migration.
In a growing country, Boston's "growth with out growth" model isn't workable. The city is urban/dense because it develeoped before cars. Not because of the enlightend views of the current pop. Smart growth/density is fought tooth and nail.
Bos has seen some infill development, but it's a niche. Most of the MSAs growth has been sprawl. The inner suburbs have largly zoned new housing out of existence. Boston's no growth policies are creating sprawl across the country, as people leave for more affordable areas (i.e. Houston).
Boston is one of my favorite cities, and I prefer it over Houston. But the pedistal (some) Boston posters put their city on can be a bit much. Boston faces its own challanges.
All that being said, I agree with the posters who have said that none of this debate has anything to do with which city is more important. I would go with SF for #5. I would put Bos at 6th. But its hold is gradually waning.
Where are you getting your information? The city has grown by a few dozen thoudand since the last census....they must be living somewhere?
Boston is so well built upon, there isn't any room to build out in the city. There are plans for South Boston, albeit on hold due to a poor economy.
Assuming that 1 million people live in the inner loop, there should be less than 1.3 million in the areas outside the outer loop.
So you say that density is 20,000 people/ sq. mile. By that logic Boston is not dense, only a part of it are dense. Oh well, since its your definition, I guess your city isnt dense.
I don't think Houston will reach Bostons density levels, nor catch up to MBTA. But that doesn't mean it will never be an urban city that is walkable.(i doubt all 600 sq. miles will be urban, but the core will).
I was using what jluke presented about the Inner Loop...I wasn't there when they took the census.
20000 people isn't dense? seriously? really? Boston's average density is 13,000 people/mile. I said only inner Boston as that dense.
Where are you getting your information? The city has grown by a few dozen thoudand since the last census....they must be living somewhere?
Boston is so well built upon, there isn't any room to build out in the city. There are plans for South Boston, albeit on hold due to a poor economy.
Yes, Boston has seen some growth and development. And there are some fairly sizable plans sitting out there. But, relative to the size of the MSA the growth is basically a small nich.
The MSA has been among the slowest growing in the country.
Since we have a growing population that is not sustainable either. The county as a whole could never afford to have as little new developement as the Boston area. As Tmac pointed out in many cases it is probably a vocal minority, but the effect is the same.
IMO, Toronto is much better example of a sustainable city. It has the urban attributes of Boston, but does a much better job of keeping up with a growing human race.
My broader point, is just that people in Bos (and DC, Phi, CHI) who critize sunbelt cities should keep in mind their cities are urban because of the citizens of 60-100 years ago, not the citizens of today. In most cases, the central cities are smaller than 1950 and the bulk of the new MSA growth has occured in outer suburbs just as sprawled as those in Dal, Hou, Atl.
I agree with you on this one. Boston's established neighborhoods fight change & development like crazy...they claim it's in order to preserve historical neighborhoods, but it's more aimed towards keeping out the riff-raff. Unfortunately, I think a great deal of residents would actually be for a bit of development in appropriate areas. However the only people that have the time to show up at the neighborhood review meetings are old people who have retired and spend their time in their South End townhouses, more than happy with their neighborhood. They don't care about the future of the city, because they've already got theirs.
However, you're incorrect in saying that new housing in the inner-burbs has been zoned out of existence. There are multi-billion dollar developments proposed for both Quincy and Cambridge. Obviously not 100% of those developments are residential, but I do believe they're about 50/50 (I think the Quincy dev is about 50% commercial; Cambridge dev is 50% biotech).
Also, Boston still has the massive Fan Pier development and Seaport Square developments on the South Boston Waterfront in the works. Fan Pier has one building built so far, but both Fan Pier and Seaport Sq have hit a roadblock in the form of the economic crisis.
I wouldn't argue that Boston's inner-suburbs have made new housing "all but impossible", but many of the inner-neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, Back Bay and the South End have. I will agree with you that Boston is farfrom perfect though.
How in the world did this thread devolve into another argument about density & urbanity? I have a feeling some of my fellow Bostonians are the culprits. It's easy to pick on Houston and other Sunbelt cities for this, but in all honesty it does absolutely nothing in terms of lessening their power.
As Oy and others have said earlier, it's pretty clear cut that San Francisco is the #6 city. Maybe we should create a new poll with Boston, Houston, and Philadelphia? With maybe Atlanta and Dallas in for good measure?
What?!? Absolutely not. SF is battling for #3 to #5 with DC and Chicago. The only way you can cut SF down to #6 is if you do not see the Bay Area as one entity. Which makes no sense if truly understand the city and dynamic of the area.
Oh God No!! I'd rather concede right now, and I already have. We've had more than enough just with Boston, another thread between ATL, DAL, and HOU would be pure mayhem. Add in Philly, which still think it belongs on the #4 thread would just be too much. I say we close this thread.
Totally agree. This thread is already insane enough as it is. Throw those cities into the fray and it would be pure, utter chaos. And going in circles and going nowhere fast. They'll be arguing about which city has better pavement on their highways.
Yes, Boston has seen some growth and development. And there are some fairly sizable plans sitting out there. But, relative to the size of the MSA the growth is basically a small nich.
The MSA has been among the slowest growing in the country.
Since we have a growing population that is not sustainable either. The county as a whole could never afford to have as little new developement as the Boston area. As Tmac pointed out in many cases it is probably a vocal minority, but the effect is the same.
IMO, Toronto is much better example of a sustainable city. It has the urban attributes of Boston, but does a much better job of keeping up with a growing human race.
My broader point, is just that people in Bos (and DC, Phi, CHI) who critize sunbelt cities should keep in mind their cities are urban because of the citizens of 60-100 years ago, not the citizens of today. In most cases, the central cities are smaller than 1950 and the bulk of the new MSA growth has occured in outer suburbs just as sprawled as those in Dal, Hou, Atl.
I agree totally, it's very disheartening. Bostonians claim to be an enlightened group of people, and God Bless, they try. But some neighborhoods will never change due to the establishment.
Toronto is an amazing city, I believe because enlightenment becomes action. In order for people to change a city they need to understand how a city works, and no two cities are the same.
Now with that being said, I know Massachusetts (b/c the Boston MSA is most of the state) has implemented some new regulations, and many commuter towns in Eastern Mass have begun looking at Transit Oriented design, which is done in some part on the west coast. Many cities and towns on the Commuter Rail lines have developed master plans that really involved TOD. Unfortunately these came at a bad time, only within the past few years compounded by a bad economy.
I went to school in the area and studied architecture and urban planning. Many of my professors are apart of these new growth strategies. One of them had bascially taken the lead in TOD. Metro Boston I know sees itself as an immensly important financial and research center (which we've seen demonstrated in this thread, lol), but knows it's place in the world/nation decreases a little everyday. Before 1985, Boston was the center of research and high tech industries, then Silicon Valley came to be. The state is highly aware of this transience. But also knows it is becoming harder and harder to compete with Texas and Florida or Washington state.
One way for Boston to maintain it's place is really to reassert its dominance over Southern New England, which is why I believe, Boston's CSA is more indicative of its true metro. All of these major cities are only 30-40 mins away (that's half the distance between SF and SJ).
It plans to reassert it's self basically through smart design and transportation, to pull on the huge amount of "human captal" that exists here, some 12 million very well educated, productive people. There are huge plans to build new rail lines, and thanks to the Stimulus, will happen starting next year. Boston is already a huge city in its own right, but when cities like Worcester, Manchester, Providence, Springfield (& Hartford), Portland, all which have large, well established economies in their own right. Wor, Spr, and Hart are all in the top 25 for high tech centers, if that's any indication.
If southern New England were counted as a single state, it's economy is that of Florida or Illinois, 4th or 5th in the nation, that's pure power, and if Boston were the center of that, formally rather than insinuated as it is today...?
I'm not saying for Boston's metro to expand to cover all of southern New England, but, the region sees it's importance tied to the neighboring cities. All of these cities have competed with each other in the past, the future says differently.
Some urbanists would say the city is dead, that regionalism becomes the new city. That would be a great topic to discuss in a separate thread.
Last edited by lmkcin; 03-17-2010 at 12:08 PM..
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.
