Most of New England hates Massachusetts and Massachusetts hates New York (Boston: new home, neighborhood)

[ben young]

I hate everyone who doesn't agree with me ….sarcasm

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by MassNative2891

7) Finally for us history buffs, absolutely the fact that NYC is the city that Boston should've been. White flight and Brookline (hate it had to be y'all) stymied the city of Boston's growth back in the day and that I feel will always be a huge part of the reason but yeah Boston is a world class B city and NYC is THE city. Sad (but in a good way).

This isn't even remotely true. NYC is the city on the East Coast and that position is a matter of geography. It's more centrally located (especially once a large part of the East Coast to the north stays British) has a much bigger and more readily accessible port, and sits on a much more useful river. The matter was completely settled once the Erie Canal was finished in 1825. Realistically, Philadelphia was the real rival to NYC. Boston was always going to top out as the largest city in New England.

If you're a history buff, there's an interesting article by the New York Fed about why NYC become the biggest city.

Chicago is the Midwestern city for similar reasons of geography. It's where the Mississippi basin makes its closest approach to the Great Lakes.

[MassNative2891]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

This isn't even remotely true. NYC is the city on the East Coast and that position is a matter of geography. It's more centrally located (especially once a large part of the East Coast to the north stays British) has a much bigger and more readily accessible port, and sits on a much more useful river. The matter was completely settled once the Erie Canal was finished in 1825. Realistically, Philadelphia was the real rival to NYC. Boston was always going to top out as the largest city in New England.

If you're a history buff, there's an interesting article by the New York Fed about why NYC become the biggest city.

Chicago is the Midwestern city for similar reasons of geography. It's where the Mississippi basin makes its closest approach to the Great Lakes.

I'd appreciate some clarity on what isn't "remotely" true. I don't know what context you took my comment in but there is really nothing for you to disprove.

The population of Boston took nose dive in the 1950s (white flight) and the annexation issue of 1873 greatly effected the future of the city and metro from that point on.

The BRA has one of the smallest footprints to work with to expand the height, density and resources of the hub city and by default also the metro. NIMBYism is the root of both issues as well. Yes obviously the Hudson plays a major role in all of this but Boston didn't only lose to NYC in this race; we're behind Philly too in terms of market/media presence. Not to mention all the upstart South and Southwest cities that are now expanding.

Do you think that because Chicago, Philly and DC don't have access to the Hudson that they aren't still competing with NYC? I know the geographic advantages. Doesn't change the fact that Boston experienced SIGNIFICANT setbacks that are unrelated to natural geography in the race for king of the Northeast.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by MassNative2891

I'd appreciate some clarity on what isn't "remotely" true. I don't know what context you took my comment in but there is really nothing for you to disprove.

The population of Boston took nose dive in the 1950s (white flight) and the annexation issue of 1873 greatly effected the future of the city and metro from that point on.

The BRA has one of the smallest footprints to work with to expand the height, density and resources of the hub city and by default also the metro. NIMBYism is the root of both issues as well. Yes obviously the Hudson plays a major role in all of this but Boston didn't only lose to NYC in this race; we're behind Philly too in terms of market/media presence. Not to mention all the upstart South and Southwest cities that are now expanding.

Do you think that because Chicago, Philly and DC don't have access to the Hudson that they aren't still competing with NYC? I know the geographic advantages. Doesn't change the fact that Boston experienced SIGNIFICANT setbacks that are unrelated to natural geography in the race for king of the Northeast.

Are you saying Boston is the only city that had white flight? NYC never did, really??? The annexation (or lack of) and associated NIMBYISM certainly played a role, but so did geography (rocky, swampy...).

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by MassNative2891

7) Finally for us history buffs, absolutely the fact that NYC is the city that Boston should've been. White flight and Brookline (hate it had to be y'all) stymied the city of Boston's growth back in the day and that I feel will always be a huge part of the reason but yeah Boston is a world class B city and NYC is THE city. Sad (but in a good way).

Originally Posted by MassNative2891

I'd appreciate some clarity on what isn't "remotely" true. I don't know what context you took my comment in but there is really nothing for you to disprove.

The population of Boston took nose dive in the 1950s (white flight) and the annexation issue of 1873 greatly effected the future of the city and metro from that point on.

The BRA has one of the smallest footprints to work with to expand the height, density and resources of the hub city and by default also the metro. NIMBYism is the root of both issues as well. Yes obviously the Hudson plays a major role in all of this but Boston didn't only lose to NYC in this race; we're behind Philly too in terms of market/media presence. Not to mention all the upstart South and Southwest cities that are now expanding.

Do you think that because Chicago, Philly and DC don't have access to the Hudson that they aren't still competing with NYC? I know the geographic advantages. Doesn't change the fact that Boston experienced SIGNIFICANT setbacks that are unrelated to natural geography in the race for king of the Northeast.

I was disagreeing with the idea NYC is what Boston could have been. It is not. There can be only one biggest city on the East Coast and that city was going to be NYC.

The race for king of the Northeast was decided in the first half of the 19th century. Any and all missteps after that are irrelevant. White flight in the 1950s and the Brookline annexation issues of the 1870s may have had an impact, but it would not have remotely made a difference in Boston being the perpetual smaller brother to NYC. Just look at the population splits:

Year | Boston | NYC
-----------------------
1790 | 18k | 33k
1820 | 43k | 123k
1850 | 136k | 516k
1880 | 362k |1206k

[MassNative2891]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I was disagreeing with the idea NYC is what Boston could have been. It is not. There can be only one biggest city on the East Coast and that city was going to be NYC.

The race for king of the Northeast was decided in the first half of the 19th century. Any and all missteps after that are irrelevant. White flight in the 1950s and the Brookline annexation issues of the 1870s may have had an impact, but it would not have remotely made a difference in Boston being the perpetual smaller brother to NYC. Just look at the population splits:

Year | Boston | NYC
-----------------------
1790 | 18k | 33k
1820 | 43k | 123k
1850 | 136k | 516k
1880 | 362k |1206k

Thank you for that and I agree actually.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by MassNative2891

I'm always astonished that people don't know this but a number of older folks in Boston and the South Shore (can only speak to my experience) have a special thing for Big Blue. Broadcast used to show the Giants all the time and my older teachers during childhood were definitely Giants fans.

The Giants had good teams in the late 1950s and early 1960s so New England had lots of Giants households. The AFL was an inferior league until maybe 1969. The Patriots were awful until 1975. They then became “enigmatic” until Bob Kraft bought the team. The Giants are still almost always the FOX Sunday game in New England.

Before the Sox became competitive in 1967, there were a lot of Yankees fans. All those years of Ted Williams and nobody else decent in the lineup. The early Yaz years were the same way. From 1959 to 1966, the Red Sox only drew 1 million once. Fenway was empty most games.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by MassNative2891

I'm always astonished that people don't know this but a number of older folks in Boston and the South Shore (can only speak to my experience) have a special thing for Big Blue. Broadcast used to show the Giants all the time and my older teachers during childhood were definitely Giants fans.

Yep, I thought everybody knew that.

[MassNative2891]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Are you saying Boston is the only city that had white flight? NYC never did, really??? The annexation (or lack of) and associated NIMBYISM certainly played a role, but so did geography (rocky, swampy...).

??? When did I say that? Although Boston white flight was much more impactful than NYC, Philly.

White folks didn't completely abandon Queens, Bronx, Upper Manhattan, Brooklyn the way that people did to Dorchester west of Dot ave, Mattapan, Roxbury, parts of JP, South End.

White folks didn't completely abandon NYPS the way that it happened in Boston (albeit NYC schools have a huge segregation issue because of the fact that bussing didn't happen).

I mean there is a reason that Boston is known for it's segregation that's different from other big East Coast cities like Philly and NYC. Cambridge, former West End and Somerville might be the exceptions prior to the mass gentrification of the Boston Metro. Boston is much more like Milwaukee and Chicago in those terms and that is not a good thing at all.

Thankfully neighborhood diversity is a thing around here nowadays in those aforementioned neighborhoods and other places but Boston certainly differentiated itself from the other big East Coast cities during white flight.

[MassNative2891]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Yep, I thought everybody knew that.

I know you knew it lol I remember a thread from years ago where you brought it up. But yeah in day to day life it seems like most folks are genuinely lost on that one.