Fashion, Amy declares. And she aims to do something about it.
Like, I can't like understand why it is so, excuse me that should be soooo, important to be a world class city. BTW Boston is to Rome, London and Paris as Bangor, Maine is to Boston. Bangor is nice place...has a big river, historic buildings and cobblestone streets and many ( ok, at least a few) good restaurants... and used to provide alot of the ice that cooled the drinks of Bostonians. Boston is also a nice place to live.
And while Maine is on my mind, I should say that the restaurant capital of New England isn't Boston.. it's Portland Maine.
One could argue that Providence could claim that title too - and gets fashion kudos as well.
But that isn't the real issue - Boston is frankly too small to remain a world class city or aspire to it. Sure, it once was - back when it was a relatively larger city and held a larger percentage of the country's premier universities. Simple fact is that the world got bigger and Boston didn't, and Boston isn't a city of millions like NYC, Rome, etc.
Define "world class city." If its a place where people want to travel to from all over the world, that's Boston. If its a place that is on the "top" in some area (e.g.,bioscience, finance, intellectual thought), that's Boston. If its a place where people want to move from all over, that's Boston. There are probably many other ways of looking at a "world class city" but those are some. If a "world class city" is defined by population, or frankly the number of any one thing (e.g., restaurants, bike lanes, places to buy a composting toilet, or any other pet issue of posters to Univ. Hub) then perhaps Boston doesn't fit the definition because, as was accurately pointed out, Boston just isn't that big so it doesn't have large numbers of things. As for the comment on problems in Boston's City government, if that were to disqualify a city from being "world class" there wouldn't be any world class cities.
a city government stuck in the 1930s.