Hey, there! Log in / Register
World Class City Alert: We're not the only place to fret about our status
By adamg on Tue, 03/20/2012 - 7:21am
The Toronto Star includes the following nugget in a review of a book about London by a Canadian who found himself living there:
For Torontonians, the idea of trying to define what, exactly, gives a world class city its caché and how we can make Toronto one is a sacred pastime, with the city always coming up short.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Fret?
Does anyone in Boston really "fret" over whether or not we're a world-class city? Does anyone even harbor the illusion that we're anywhere close to a world-class city rather than a provincial little town?
wow.
Provincial little town? Maybe in size Boston is no world class city, however by every other measure it most certainly is. You sound like a new yorker.
Are you kidding?
World-class cities have adequate signage, so that tourists can find their way around, even if they don't speak the native language.
World-class cities don't force tourists (or residents) climb over giant snowdrifts in order to cross the street or board a bus (anyone else remember, back in the 80s, when there was talk of a Boston Winter Carnival, a la Montreal? What a joke that would have been.).
For that matter, world-class cities have world-class public transportation systems. Tourists are able to get back to their hotels after a night of drinking. Tourists aren't left standing around in the cold (or the heat) for 20-30 minutes waiting for a bus or a trolley or an Orange Line train because they were stupid enough to want to go somewhere on a weekend.
Etc., etc., etc.
So Evidently...
... the definition of "World Class" is "convenient for tourists." Good to know.
Did you miss the part about "residents"?
World class cities don't make their residents climb over giant snowdrifts to cross the street or board a bus.
World class cities are pedestrian-friendly (to residents as well as tourists) during all four seasons, even when you are not in the tiny city center.
World class cities don't assume that everyone owns a car, and make it easy for its residents to commute to work with world-class transportation systems.
World class cities don't, to the best of my knowledge, generally sell t-shirts that say " SUCKS!!!!" Because they're, you know, classy.
World class cities don't leave giant holes in the middle of their central shopping districts for years on end.
Its Funny
I'm a resident, I don't have a car, and I've never had an issue. Sounds like you're doing it wrong.
Also, did I mention?
World-class cities are generally capable of building massive public works projects without letting them go five times over budget, and without having them fall apart before the project is even complete.
They also
Don't shut down at 11pm every night, save a few pubs.
People have said Boston has a drinking problem, but good luck finding anything open or to do late night in this "world class city". Even late night dinning is almost non-existent.
And anytime someone tired to break the mold, they're shot down for local NIMBYism worried about "noise".
Boston is not a world class city. It's home and it's a lovely place, but it has a long way to go before it can call itself that without being the pun.
A big problem with Boston is it's neighborhood are still very segregated use wise. Downtown is for tourists, FD/DTC shuts down at 4-6pm sharp. Residential areas are only for residential areas except for commercial strips along major roads and are against adding more density.
BH/NE and even EB are good examples of what Boston should be striving for, but with more density and more vertical growth and 24 business hours. But even these historic districts are not keen on making that happen.
Have You Been Downtown Lately?
First , there are actually a few thousand residents living in DTX, and that doesn't even include all the Suffolk/Emerson kids who must add another couple hundred or so. Take a look at the City stats if you don't believe me. Second, Downtown crossing is open WAY past 6 o'clock between all the theaters, bars, night clubs, restaurants, etc. I saw a show at the Opera House 3 weeks ago and had to walk into 6 different places to get a meal before hand. We tried at Barracuda Tavern, the Marliave, Fajita's and Rita's, Max & Dylan's, and Stoddard's. Finally we found the last 2 open seats at Salvatore's.
Seriously, you're just flat out wrong on downtown.
I don't think Scratchie has
I don't think Scratchie has never been to Boston let alone lives in Boston. Friends and I were downtown last Friday night and hit up at least 5 bar/restaurants till nearly 1:15AM. Places were packed. This guy is a hater and a clown.
WTF is BH/NE and EB
To prove I'm not worthy of living in a world class city, I don't know what that crap stands for.
But I tried looking it up.
BH---Bahrain? Bar Harbor?
NE...north end, new england?
EB...East Boston? Eyeball?
BH -- something closer at hand
Beacon Hill, perhaps,
Beacon Hill, the North End
Beacon Hill, the North End and East Boston, respectively. You were 2/3.
phhhbt thanks..
Sorry i thought the post was using examples of other cities that were 'world class' that we should model ourselves from.
Me smart.
Sorry
should have also put:
-posted from android....
nyet
1. I've climbed over snowdrifts in NY, DC, and Philly.
2. Plenty of pedestrian deaths in NY, DC, and Philly.
3. The T makes it very easy for me to commute to work.
4. LMFAO! Hawkers sell 'Boston Sucks' shirts outside Yankee Stadium.
5. How long was the WTC site left as a big hole? About 10 years.
I beg to differ Scratchie
You're kidding, right?
http://www.universalhub.com/2012/citizen-complaint...
Yes, here is how a world class city handles snow:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/01/new-york-...
Strangely, Boston manages to dig out.
Yes, our public transit system is so inferior to true world class cities like Los Angeles and Chicago (hint, it's significantly better than either by any metric, including overnight service).
By any number of categories, Boston ranks among the top ten globally and top 2 or 3 within the United States. A few examples of how Boston is world class:
Boston is also a tourist magnet for our architecture, our museums, and our history. Seven presidents are either from or spent formative years in Boston. These are not small things. Although Boston proper itself is small, the greater Boston region is one of the five largest urban areas in the country. It is a place of great significance.
But don't ask me, ask a few of the experts. The following academic and business studies have rated Boston among the world cities, which is to say cities that are important on a global scale:
These and other studies are listed in the Wikipedia article on global cities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
Boston is demonstrably a world class city. Sorry if that doesn't dispel your anger at having to take a cab when you've been out late getting drunk.
Good stuff....
Great reply I must say!
Are you joking?
The Franklin Park zoo signs? You're really going to claim that those give us world-class status? Maybe if they were actually maintained, and visible, at every intersection and decision point between the Back Bay and Franklin Park, you might have a point, but given that most of our parkways lack even the most basic signage to accommodate English-speaking residents (e.g. signs that tell you the name of the street, the approximate cardinal direction it's going, *and* its destination, instead of simply saying "Newton ->" or whatever), I'm not sure this is really a "plus" in the "world class" column.
Yes, we all know that New York fucked up once, last winter. That doesn't mean that either Boston or Massachusetts "manages to dig out" by any objective measure. I've driven on Massachusetts highways hours into a snowstorm with nary a plow nor a salt truck in sight. And anybody who's never had to stagger over an unshoveled sidewalk on a city- or state-owned bridge or abutting a piece of city property, please raise your hands. That's what I thought.
I've been to New York many times during the winter (not after that one specific blizzard you cited), and the sidewalks are always shoveled, and the crosswalks are always easily accessible. Same for Cambridge. Boston, er, not so much.
The Franklin Park sign was a joke
One of the signs of being great is an ability to self-deprecate. Boston is perhaps too good at this.
That said, everything else in my post was serious and correct. We can differ if you wish on snow removal, but I've never seen evidence in 25 years that Boston isn't able to get the city moving again quickly in the wake of a major storm.
Since you only responded on snow removal and signage, I'll assume you agree with the rest of what I had to say.
Compare Boston to Toronto or Montreal
Montreal and Toronto have a lot of snow, so the comparison is a little more fare.
Montreal and Toronto have actual budgets for removal of snow from sidewalks all over their cities.
Boston ... ha ...
Montreal and Toronto put priority on getting transit systems and sidewalks dug out before minor side streets.
Boston ... ha ...
NYC and Philly are not the correct controls for snow removal. Montreal and Toronto are.
Or
Chicago / Albany
Boston needs to plow to the curb. They plow anyways, so why not keep the damn street sweeping parking bans during winter and plow to the damn curb?
Residents having to shovel their sidewalks is fine, but the fines need to be adjusted for 2012 dollars. The city needs to fine the hell out of non compilers. AND the city needs to buck up and get public ways shovels in timely manors, as it is required to do. Use the damn fines to pay for the public ways.
How is the MBTA better than CTA?
What metric? Fare price?
Can't be amount of rapid transit lines (8). Or overnight service (Red and Blue). Or bus service. Or usage.
I wouldn't knock LA on this either. They actually have a pretty extensive system (incl. bus), with higher ridership (1.4mil) than ours, and they are building new lines at a rapid pace not seen since our Green Line extension was first proposed.
CTA, LAMTA, and MBTA
Regarding CTA:
It is erroneous to use the number of rapid transit lines to determine effectiveness. CTA covers a larger area, it can only do so with more lines. But what's going on with those lines? A proper measurement would be passenger utilization per mile. The MBTA's rapid transit lines carry 7,417 people per mile, CTA carries 4,687. Note, this doesn't even include the Green Line, which carries even more passengers per mile. This is a meaningful measure, number of lines is not. Another useful measurement is percentage of commuters using transit. In Chicago that is 26.5%. In Boston, it is 32.82%.
Regarding LA:
I couldn't agree more. Los Angeles has one of the best bus systems in the country, and the quick rail construction program (30/10) is going to provide a very respectable system by the end of the decade. It still will not be as extensive or serving as large a percentage of the population as does the MBTA. It will be very good, but still not enough to be world class. Right now, Los Angeles is at 11.16% for commuting by transit. It has a long way to go to be in the same class as Boston or Chicago.
Riders/mile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...
Different numbers, same story. It is definitely a fine achievement that we get so much use out of our relatively small system.
I think it's a little perverse, though, using a metric such as riders/mile, which penalizes system expansion. Sort that list by riders/mile and you'll notice that after NYC, the list puts agencies with only 2, 3, or 4 lines higher than Chicago and DC. BART's low placement is easy to explain: it's more of a commuter system and it has ridiculously long extensions.
Also, I think it's unfair to rate systems by rapid transit only, and probably explains some of the oddness of the above list. I would suggest taking a look at buses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...
This list makes a lot more sense. Chicago is experiencing a Loop revival but even so, it's the crosstown buses that carry most of the load. Even if you add the Green Line to our buses, it doesn't come close to CTA buses.
I did provide two different objective measurements
But yes, there are others, and there are mitigating circumstances. But by any reasonable set of measures, Boston looks pretty good. Not New York good, and certainly not remotely Paris good, but good just the same.
Side note on Paris: it is probably an example of too much rapid transit, but the Metro is still very fun to use.
Good god I'm sick of this talking point
THE NIGHT OWL FAILED. NO ONE TOOK IT. Why should carting around drunk tourists and college students be the MBTA's responsibility? The ONLY reason there should be night service at all is for people who have to work at night and don't have cars. I could care less about spoiled college brats and idiot tourists.
I don't disagree with the
I don't disagree with the overall sentiment, but while the entire 2001-2005 night-owl bus ridership for all routes combined was low, the ridership on the outbound Green Line B and Red Line Cambridge night-owl buses at 2:00 and 2:30 was high.
brats and idiots
"Spoiled college brats" and "idiot tourists" contribute about $5 and $8 billion dollars, respectively, to Boston's economy. That roughly $13 billion total is more than a third of the local economy. Maybe we should care more about them.
There's already demand
for night businesses and blowback from NIMBYs. Add public transportation and reduce the city council and licensing boards stronghold on night operations and you'll see demand skyrocket for both open businesses and public transportation.
That's a lot of real dollars and economic output coming to the city that sleeps. Rising tides after all.
Boston just needs to get over getting it's panties in a bunch every time some asshole condo owner complains he can't sleep in the summer with his windows open due to noise. Boston needs to tell the douches to buy a fan.
And it's comments like this
"THE NIGHT OWL FAILED. NO ONE TOOK IT. Why should carting around drunk tourists and college students be the MBTA's responsibility? The ONLY reason there should be night service at all is for people who have to work at night and don't have cars. I could care less about spoiled college brats and idiot tourists."
And it's comments like this that prove we are in fact a 'town' and not a world class city.
I don't see whats wrong with being a suburb of NYC... (but let's face reality, we are!)
Boston is a world-class
Boston is a world-class provincial little town.
No. No one who actually lives
No. No one who actually lives here frets about it, considers it or gives a rat's ass about it. If I wanted to live in a 'world class city,' whatever that is, I wouldn't live here.
True, real people don't fret about our world-classness
But politicians are forever using it as the local rhetorical equivalent of "If we can put a man on the moon ..."
Boston "world class city".
Provincial?
Tell me, how is Boston NOT a world class city? You do sound like a new torker who lives here just to take advantage of all that Boston has to offer, just to turn around and bash it to your skankee fan "friends". We Bostonians know what we have, we just don't need to shove it down peoples throat like other cities do *ahem* new york...Wake up and have jog around the Charles kiid to cool down that ego ya got...
And you sound like a Bostonian
Who's never traveled to real world-class cities like London, Paris, Berlin, etc.
I have to agree with this.
Look, I love Boston. I have lived here for more than 15 years and consider it home. However, I harbor no illusions that it is world class. A few friends and I recently had this discussion, and when asked to name 10 of the world's great cities, I think if you are honest you will be hard pressed to put Boston on that list. If you have traveled to some of the world's great cities (London, Tokyo, Paris, yes New York) than you know what that term implies.
I'm not surprised though. People in Boston are often delusional about their city. A short anecdotal example: When the Zakim bridge was first opened, I was driving and listening to the radio where they were talking about the bridge. Someone called up and said "this bridge [the Zakim] is on par with the Golden Gate." I almost drove my car off the road. The caller (I hope) had obviously never seen the Golden Gate bridge in person, because if he had he would not make such a ridiculous statement.
Ignorance is bliss....
Wow....you sound like you really know me! How do you know I've never traveled to "world class" cities?....LoL...you just proved your ignorance by assuming I'm not a jetsetter, I'm from Boston remember? Do us all a favor and move to one of those other "world class" cities since Boston is no to your liking...Losahh!
Did somebody say "provincial"?
One of the things that might make us world-class...
is that we can spell "cachet". One of the things that keeps us below that level is the number of childish, booster-ish bumpkins we have like OLiZzLe69, whose judgment appears to be based on how we stack up against Worcester. Grow up and get out more, son.
HaHa!...
Another troll who would love to know more about me. Just email me "son", I'll be more than glad to school you on my escapades around the globe. Now go back to spell-checking other blogs shunn...
Nobody cares
...about you or your alleged globetrotting. Your posts tell anyone all they need to know about your worldliness.
Why U Mad Tho??...
=^D
Nobody's mad
We're just pointing out that you're obviously a rube.
Anyone been to Austin?
Lots of talk up of that nice Texas city, but when I was there last year I wasn't impressed.
It felt like UMass placed on the edge of Worcester, and if it's [Austin] urban sprawl wasn't so damn large I'd say downtown / metro Worcester was probably larger.
Not bad... but not what I envisioned from the talk.
I've heard people even mutter they were world class.
SXSW is a world-class event
The Boston Symphony Orchestra is (at least from time to time) a world class orchestra. The Museum of Fine Arts may or may not be a world class museum.
But Austin and Boston are both very fine _provincial_ cities.
Honestly?
I'm not sure why you are so defensive here. I am quite sure I do not know you, or where your travels have taken you. All I said was that folks who have traveled to world class cities know what the term implies. We obviously disagree about where Boston fits on that list. I think I started my post with saying that I love Boston, so I am not sure why you think it is no (sic) to my liking.
Consider this...
Before we go ahead and continue to bash, consider this:
History, Natural Beauty, Man-made beauty, Restaurants, Museums, Higher-Learning Institutions, Culture, Sports Culture, etc. How could Boston not be considered a world class city? Are going to complain about the weather? Ha! Like we say here, if you don't like the weather wait 15 minutes...
...Consider this too...
I didn't even begin to mention all the "world-class" companies that call and that are going to call Boston home...
Perspective
Boston has a lot of great things going for it, but I'm not sure if you add it all up it's anywhere close to the great cities of the world, in my opinion.
Can you give us a clue where you are coming from?
How about you list your top 10 world-class cities and give us a few reasons why?
Welp...
The internet is full opinions friend, even if I took the time out of my day to really write a full review of all the cities I have had the pleasure of living in, am I just BSing? In turn I ask you, what "world-class" cities have you lived in? Would you consider somewhere like Denver a "world-class" city? Or how about Columbus? What about Buenos Aires? Caracas? Bordeux? Bologna?
delusion
I'm prefectly content with Boston's status in the world and I'm happy to live here. I'm, also, not deluded enough to think it's the pinnacle or relatively close to it.
Natural Beauty?
Never been to a similar sized west coast city either, I take it.
Sorry, but Boston is no Vancouver or Seattle or Portland.
What about San(d) Diego
The Boston of the west.
Honestly, I was blown away by it. It was just as clean as Montreal. And very few dunkins coffee cups every 10 feet lining the gutters and places with overgrowth.
If only there was more fretting and less resting on laurels
I think the striking part of the quote was: "...and how we can make Toronto one..." That's the part that we often miss around here. Paradoxically, improvement and innovation is what we're famous for, but its something that we don't typically apply to our public amenities and infrastructure (there are a couple of exceptions).
I think that one of the eariler commenters made the most important point - I can't define "world class city", but I know one when I see one, and I know that all of them have first class intra and inter urban public transporation systems. Strangely, while it is unquestionably a "world class city" New York probably has the worst performing transportation system, particularly when you put it up against the others (e.g., Paris & London). I think our burg would be better classified as one of America's best cities.
All of that said, I love our little outpost on the North Atlantic, and I don't think that I could or would want to live anywhere else - at least not anywhere else in the U.S. - but we can and should make many improvements, and we should start with public transportation.
Well said!
I fear that the chest thumping "world class" label is the same as the blind patriotism as of late. It's a rube.
It sounds as if this is as good as it gets and we should be grateful and shut up and deal with what we got. We just are. And we don't need to do better.
When the reality is cities that stagnate and are unable to meet the challenges of an always changing economy and changes in populations preferences are cities that die.
Detroit was the gem of the midwest 60 years ago. NYC was a slum.
Boston needs to keep that in mind, and we need to strive for something better. Even if things are great right now.
One huge worry for me is educated flight. The only people buying in Boston are the already wealthy and retiring baby boomers. Educated college professionals are leaving Boston and MA in droves for other cities because of the high cost of living. So, what happens when the boomer dies and the rich tire of the city living?
The problem would be as bad if rentals were cheap, but renting in Boston is a fool game when a mortgage can be had with much more of a burden.
There's something wrong when Boston rents are comparable to NYC rents, yet wages are typically less than you'd see in NYC.
Minor correction
New York 60 years ago was not a slum. It was a big city with slums (for that matter, still is), but it was never the sort of Snake Plisskenesque place popular culture might have you believe, not even in its nadir, which was actually roughly 1976-77, when we had a president busy telling the city to drop dead, people dying in rioting during blackouts and Times Square was, well, OK, Times Square was as bad as they said. Also, 60 years ago, it was still possible for a middle-income family to live in Manhattan.
give me a break
So a 'World Class City' is all about tourists, tourists, tourists...make sure the tourists are sufficiently sucked up to, are inconvenienced, etc? To hell with the local population, the tourist always come first. And the college students [in Boston,Cambridge, etc.] Why do I always get the feeling the people who complain the loudest about Boston didn't come from here, didn't grow up here, and probably themselves come from nowhere special, usually a suburban town? In my experience the people who complain the loudest about the MBTA come from a place that has no subway and limited public transit. Are there issues in this city? Of course, all places have their problems and issues. Is Boston hideously bad? No, of course not, not even close. Is it on the same level as, say New York City [specifically Manhattan], London, Paris? No, these places are in a class by themselves. In the case of London and Paris, they're the capital cities and most important city in their respective nations, and the British and French governments made a concerted effort long ago to make sure they were 'World Class' in part to make up for the lost of their world influence and empires. London and Paris helps keep them relevant and on the map. And BTW: both cities are expensive [London VERY expensive] and very socio-economically stratified. The average French person or average British/English person doesn't live in London or Paris and couldn't afford to. Likewise New York City is very expensive and most people couldn't afford to live there. It also has severe socio-economic stratification. Even Boston has a serious issue with being too expensive and more like a boutique city for yuppies, tourists, retired executives, and ubiquitous college students living off their mom and dads [and the governments] dime.
As for the MBTA: The Paris Metro doesn't operate 24 hrs a day, it usually shuts down at around 1AM [I lived in Paris]. Likewise, the London Tube doesn't operate 24 hrs a day, and actually shuts down earlier than the Paris Metro. And on weekends it starts service pretty late in the morning. NYC is one of the rare western cities that I'm aware of that operate 24hrs a day, and even then the service is bad late at night/early mornings and weekends.
Welcome to Boston
Now eff you, go to hell or go away. We don't want you here.
Yes, ANOM, that is such a great recipe for economic development. Run everybody off - then wonder why there is nobody left in this rest home of a state to pay taxes.
BTW: People FROM true 'World
BTW: People FROM true 'World Class' cities have at least one thing in common, in my experience: They don't give a F about what outsiders think about them and their town. This is certainly true in New York, Paris and London. In this instance, Boston is also a 'World Class' city.
Town?
Maybe because they don't think of their city as a town? They know the difference?
The Number One Thing...
that Boston is clearly world class in is the number of people who can overlook our world class businesses, education, higher learning, high tech, history, architecture, etc and say that the city isn't world class. We're number one! We're number one!
2nd Tier World Class?
I think we can all agree that cities such as New York, London, Tokyo are world class and that Boston doesn't compare on many levels to them. But, Boston is an international tourist destination, a global leader in education, healthcare, biotech, high-tech, and so, in a sense are "world class". But, maybe 2nd-tier world class?
Sounds good to me. A World
Sounds good to me. A World Class city would not have allowed the Old Corner Bookstore to turn into a burrito joint, but even a World Class city needs burrito joints.
This is exactly it
World Class means it is relevant on the world stage. It doesn't mean it is equal to all other World Class cities. Many of the world city studies break in to tiers. The most famous one, which I cited earlier is the GaWC brackets cities into alpha, beta, and gamma categories, and further brackets those with "+", " ", and "-".
A sampling from the list:
Alpha ++
London
New York
Alpha +
Chicago
Hong Kong
Alpha
Brussels
Los Angeles
Alpha -
Zurich
Boston
Etc.
Alpha cities (all categories) in the United States: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington DC, Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Miami, Philadelphia
I think all should be thought of as world class, but some are clearly more so than others.
Boston IS world-class!
But there is no way in hell we can compare it to say NYC, Tokyo, London, or Paris. Those city propers have a much larger population than we do and are more known throughout the world. One metric I use for judging a city by its world-class-ness is by global recognition. For instance, if I mention "Tokyo" to you, you wouldn't need to ask me if it was in Japan. Boston, on the other hand, is a little different.
Full disclosure: I was born and raised in Southeastern MA, went to Boston for college, and still live in and love this city even a year after my graduation. I have traveled extensively to world-class cities in Europe, so I think I know a little bit of the criteria for world-class. And we have it. When it comes to health care and higher education, we are one of the global leaders.
A study released by the Global Cities Index ranks us as an Alpa- Global City. We are under such cities as London, Paris, and yes, New York. And I think that makes a lot of sense.
I am personally happy with our ranking and don't think we need to play the "who's got the bigger penis" game here. Yes, we need to make improvements in public transit/general infrastructure/24-hour businesses. And we will get there. Wait a few years when the South Boston waterfront is fully developed. Or when the Christian Science Plaza gets its new high-rises. Or when Copley Square finally finishes its development. We're gonna be badass.
I often refer to Boston as a large town (affectionately) and I think that shouldn't take away from its status as a global city. I love Boston and look forward to calling it my home for years to come and I want to grow with this city. It has so much going for it, and I just can't wait to see what's next.
Agreed...
I agree, but of course there's always gotta be a negative nancy, and be careful they might say you really never been outside of this city and completely discredit your claims of global experience.
The problem with "World Class"
Its value isn't based on how people in this country perceive a city, but how people around the world perceive it.
We can go on this little board all we like and talk down New York, but when you go to Europe, Northern Africa or even portions of the Middle East, America IS New York. That's just the god's honest truth.
Go to Beijing or Guangzhou and it's much the same, though they're more willing to admit that the U.S. not only has a West Coast, but that San Francisco and Seattle are pretty great as well.
I think it's much better to be comfortable where you live than to tear other places down. I love being here and loved seeing that one of the Gaugin paintings that was missing from the Orangerie when I was in Paris was at the MFA. I love the symphony, I love the parks and rivers and I love the mix that the schools and businesses bring here.
Not going to lie, though: I love that it's four hours away from NYC and that I can go see the tree at Rock Center when this town does next to nothing for the holidays or can go to shows down there when bands pass us up or see Alan Rickman on Broadway in a show that will never come here. I also love that I can cover the same ground in a cab there for $10 that I would cover here for $30.
I willingly admit that New York is a better city. That said, I prefer Boston. That should be good enough.
Boston does top some lists
How can we forget Boston's world infamous unattraction:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/200...
Mr. Menino
Tear down this wall!
(or at least plant some grass!)
Grass?
What's wrong with Boston Common?
World class Architecture