Talk:BosWash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rule of 100,000

I think that in order for a city to make the "major city" list, they must have a population of at least 100,000 regardless of their proximity to larger cities. I removed some cities with populations less than 100,00 but others will need to be added, and some more on the list possibly need to be deleted. Also, I think that if any cities under 100,000 are to be included, they should be discussed below.WhiteKongMan 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but there are certainly some exceptions to the rule. A place like Nashua, NH should be on the list, because it has a large high-tech presence and municipal buildings like the FAA Boston Center. 168.122.163.79 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map, please

It would be great to have a map for this entry! --James 19:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming?

Would anyone say it could extend all the way down to Atlanta, via the Research Triangle cities and Charlotte? And my aunt, from Maine, says Portland has practically become a suburb of Boston...

I'd say "no" on the question of the metropolis extending as far as Atlanta; there're a lot of empty regions between DC and there. A nighttime photo of the Eastern Seaboard will probably show that.
But your aunt is right; there are a large number of people that commute from Maine to Boston each day and some of them come from at least as far as Portland; there's scheduled commuter bus service that extends at least that far and, reportedly, even some people commuting on the Amtrak Downeaster. Maine's a bit more sparsely populated than the North Shore of Mass and southwards, but it wouldn't be too much of a definitional stretch to include at least some of it in "BosWash". The one thing you notice about Maine, though, is that the populated area is very thin; get just a very few miles from the shore ("shoah" in Maine-speak) and there isn't anybody there ("they ain't no-one they-uh"). This also isn't true once you hit the Mass state line. (And New Hampshire is a "transitional region" with population characteristics of both states.)
Atlant 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I've driven I95 past Washington DC and Virginia and the Carolinas are very sparsely populated, you can go dozens of miles without a highway exit and the areas around the highway exits are usually populated by a waffle house, a fireworks stand, gas stations, and some farms. There are growing pockets of urbanity in the south, but I think it's definately too few and far between for it to be considered part of the "Megalopolis". Oh, and is anyone else wondering if Albany, among other areas on that list, are outside what is generally considered to be the Megalopolis? I mean, Bangor? Come on... it looks like a bunch of hometown fanboys have been throwing their cities on there even though they are most definately outside of the "Megalopolis".


I think it should extend futher south, atleast down to Virginia.

I just had a question and don't know how to post it: I remember from Junior High, in the early 70's, that it was called "BoWash", not "BosWash". Is my memory incorrect on this, or did the term change in the past 30 years? 155.78.121.3 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That many people???

Does BosWash actually contain "7% of the world population"? I haven't checked the math yet, but that seems improbably large. --Clampton 06:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. If the world pop is approx 6 billion, then 7% of that is 420 million, which is more than the entire US! -- Sholom 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked again and it says .7% (point seven percent). Did it say that before? I may need new glasses. Clampton 12:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond/Hampton Roads

I don't think BosWash includes Richmond and the Hampton Roads. Fredericksburg (the southern end of the Washington metro) to Richmond is a rural area, and parts of the land between Richmond and Hampton Roads are also rural. --Schzmo 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'm not going to change the article because if my experience with Central Jersey is any indication, there will be a flood of insecure Richmond/Virginia Beach residents desperately calling to be included as part of Bos/Wash, even though they are nowhere near Washington D.C. I can't imagine anyone commuting from Richmond to D.C. and Virginia Beach is way further South. Seriously, does Virginia (and Virginia Tech) really think they're going to change anyone's mind about BosWash by saying the entire state is part of the region? These type of nomenclature arguments are petty and sad. Perhaps if more people add to his section, someone will remove Richmond/Virginia Beach. Jps57 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)jps57

[edit] Cambridge

So, Cambridge isn't a major city because it's essentially a suburb of Boston. To be a major city, a city has to be large relative to its surroundings, not just large in an absolute sense. AJD 12:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but if Cambridge is out, then Nashua and Manchester ought to be out as well. In fact, the list may need a careful reading from top to bottom. I'd rather we just leave Cambridge in, given the Universities that it hosts.
Atlant 13:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd leave Nashua and Manchester out just because I think they're too far north to be in the BosWash megalopolis.... But why don't they count as major cities? I mean, aren't they centers of population and business for their regions? I don't know much about NH demographics, so I'll take your word for it if they're not. AJD 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
While they're big for NH (first and second in population, IIRC), they're small in terms of population within the BosWash megalopolis.
  • Manchester: 107,007 (all numbers from 2000 census)
  • Cambridge: 101,355
  • Nashua: 86,605
This is obviously an area where our decision must either be absolute (e.g., "No cities below 100,000" or some such criterion) or subjective. Me, I probably lean towards the subjective, and I'd say the presence of two of the mightiest universities in America ought to make Cambridge eligible if we're still including decidedly third-rate cities like Manchester and Nashua. (And I say this as a citizen of one of those two third-raters. ;-) )
Atlant 16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well technically Cambridge is not a suburb to Boston, and actual has its own. Arlington and Belmont, plus other near towns. It is also the Shier (seat) of Middlesex county. Home to two of the worlds best universities, over 100k resents and one of the most developed cities in the world. Compared to Boston theres also more people per sq mile. Also is is south of Boston's northern tip.

yes, but if you "don't count" cities below 100,000 you're defeating the entire purpose of the megalopolis, which is to weave the major cities together with the minor ones. Albany, NY for example as NYS's capital conducts a great deal of business with NYC. It has under 90,000 people but has just as many "connections" with NY as Boston or Philly does via private enterprise. Nashua and Boston have a similar relationship, I think. I know people who live in Nashua and commute to software companies and the like outside of Boston. This whole megalopolis concept is stupid in my opinion, though, as anyone could tell you. I-87 & I-90, the lake shore limited, etc. are probably the busiest commerce/travel routes in the country which links Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse, etc. to NYC. Chicago is only half a day from NY by car which really isn't that long if you consider how long it takes to go west. It makes much more sense to think regionally rather than mass urbanization, etc. Most of the population areas shown on the map linking this "super city" together are residential areas and suburbs -- not "cities". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Combined Statistical Areas for example are based on labor markets being connected, based on being close enough to commute to work every day. --JWB 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolis

Metropolis, the fictional city in the DC Comics Universe, is essentially equal to the BosWash corridor by the time of the Legion of Super Heroes in the 30th Century (pre-Crisis). I don't have a ready reference, but I do believe the series Who's Who in the Legion of Super-Heroes has a map that shows it as such


[edit] Metropolis

NICE! 69.141.199.227 08:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)KM

[edit] MSAs not included in the CSA

The Norwich-New London-Westerly (CT-RI) MSA is rougly 250,000 yet not including in the "MSAs not included in the CSA" section. This should absolutely be in there. Perhaps someone can do a quick look through that list and piece it together better.

There have to be others besides the one I just mentioned -- Cape Cod comes to mind as a possible area not included (if you're going to include areas that are under 100k, you will need to include a lot more I'm sure..) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.148.25.149 (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The article neither defines nor links to definitions of the terms "MSA" and "CSA." What do these mean? Korossyl 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List Consensus

There needs to be some sort of system for getting a final, stable, and static list of major cities. Nearly all of the edits to this article are back-and-forths on the list. Maybe some polls in here? Korossyl 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No there doesn't. This is a wiki.

How about just doing away with the list? There are plenty of lists of population statistics elsewhere for well-defined areas. Trying to get a consensus on lists when there is no consensus on definition or boundaries is impossible. --JWB 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maine

Is Maine really part of this? One article is cited, but is that the general consensus? I like the article being referenced, but should Maine automatically be added to the list? -Surfbruddah

The article should first say what Goffman originally said, if available. After that, notable later opinions like the VT study. But there is no official definition. Probably the article should have a disclaimer sentence saying peripheral areas can be included or not depending on opinion or definition. (There's already such a sentence but specifically addressing the southwest side) --JWB 23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pic!!

Any good? Korossyl (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Albany???

for pete's sake... its not even on the map!! we need some strongly defined geographical boundaries here! 168.122.163.79 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this kind of melodramatic?

I have traveled all over this region and describing it as a "megalopolis" or as somehow unusually monolithic seems quite silly to me. Sure, compared to anywhere in Wyoming or Saskatchewan it's urban - but on a global scale the average population density of this area is pretty low, I believe, and even most of the populated regions have fairly spread-out development that was constructed after the advent of the automobile and city planning and zoning and things. The parts of the Southern U.K. I have been to seemed far denser - by U.S. standards the region around London for hundreds of miles is like a continuous town center or thicker. And though I haven't been there I understand that parts of the Far East like Japan are even more densely populated and have been so for centuries - if I recall right, the factoid is that in 1600 Japan by itself had a higher total population than all of Europe at the time?
Not that the concept isn't notable, if the guy wrote a bunch of books the concept definitely ought to be documented on Wikipedia. But it seems like a "Criticisms" section would add some balance and a touch of class to this article - the comparisons of this area to science fiction hive cities sounds sounds really naïve to me. (Not because there's anything wrong with science fiction, I'm a total geek, but because the comparison doesn't jive and fits many other parts of the world far better.)
I mean, there are fairly large tracts of forest throughout this region. I've been camping in parts of Maryland, Southern New Jersey, and Massachusetts, smack in the middle of what's being called the "megalopolis" by this article, and been far enough into the woods that all you hear is crickets. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Much as I love the concept, it is a bit over-the-top at times. Really, it's about how you can go between four of the most powerful and important cities in America (and perhaps in the world) within a matter of hours -- one can easily take a day trip from Washington, DC to New York City, certainly two of the most famous cities of the world.
A criticism section is needed for the article, but the concept -- and indeed name -- of BosWash has barely taken route, and not much criticism has yet been leveled that would be appropriate for citation. If you could, a criticism section would be appreciated, but I wouldn't know how to go about it. Korossyl (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Criticism of the concept would not need to be limited to popular criticism of Gottmann's work, just as the article presents many supporting facts that do not derive from others agreeing with his work. The citeable fact that this so-called "megalopolis" includes large areas of wilderness would be entirely appropriate to include here. Though I understand what you're saying - there must be a better word than "Criticisms" for a section heading because Wikipedia wouldn't want to imply that documenting a glaring diversion from reality is the same thing as documentation of popular criticism.
Also, if this concept is really based upon speed of travel between the cities, it's important to point out that that's not a very distinctive thing either - you can just as easily do day trips between London and Paris and Geneva via TGV or Ottowa, Montreal, and Quebec by car or boat. (Without getting stuck in traffic on the Jersey Turnpike. ;^) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)