Talk:BosWash/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about BosWash. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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)

Map, please

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

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)

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)

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)

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljpastor (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Metropolis

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

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)

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)

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)

New pic!!

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

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)

Bullshit

Why isn't Philadelphia added into the bosnywash name? Is Philadelphia not as important as Washington, New York and Boston or just a forgotten city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.81.207 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural, Healthcare, Educational

I think a whole section in the BosWash site needs to be dedicated to the cultural, historical, healthcare and educational issues that make the BosWash region a megalopolis. A section dedicated to historical ties and growth from a colonial outpost into one interconnected megalopolis is justified. Additionally, the BosWash region has enormous cultural draw including tourist sites, art galleries, world-class museums, national monuments, urban parklands (The National Mall, Boston Common, Central Park, etc.), and on and on. The region is also home to a collection of some of the world's greatest healthcare providers and research institutions: Johns Hopkins, St. Luke's and on and on. Medical facilities, educational institutions, and cultural attractions all work together to make the urban region a travel destination for residents within its own borders, which ultimately defines the concept of it being its own megalopolis.

A megalopolis in my opinion is defined by supply and demand. The supply being the economic ability and proximity of residents within the megalopolis to take advantage of transportation inside the closely clustered cities (Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, I-95, commuter rail, intercity bus lines, airline commuter shuttles). The demand being the need to travel within the megalopolis to take advantage of the economic, educational, medical, cultural, social benefits inside the closely clustered cities. The BosWash article should clearly identify the supply/demand relationship that exists which has created this entity: The BosWash Megalopolis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timacaskill (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Well, it looks like I'm not the only one who thinks Richmond/Hampton Roads shouldn't be considered part of the BosWash. None of Virginia should really be included (including NoVa) since VA is a 100% Southern state. It's a good 3 hours or more from DC to Richmond, and even longer to Hampton Roads. None of the distancees between major towns/cities north of the Potomac are that long. I'm going to go ahead and take the step of removing Richmond/Hampton Roads, but leaving the NoVa areas since they are a part of the DC Metro. Frederick, MD (the 2nd largest city in MD) is also definitely a part of the Washington Metro Area so I'm going to add that as well.007bond (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok sorry, but when was the last time you drove from DC to Richmond? It only takes three hours to drive from Virginia Beach to Washington DC. If your going to talk about Virginia being 100% Southren State then you have to include Maryland in that since it to is a Southren state. Now while I can see that Virginia Beach is a bit far from DC it does extend from Richmond which does the same from DC. Virginia Beach is the most populated city in the state of Virginia. Anyways before people start saying i'm just pushing the area because i'm from there i'm not. I'm from NJ and i'm all for having Newark pointed out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.160.161 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

^ Thank you! Virginia Tech was just trying to update Gottman's work. With the new high-speed rail being added between Petersburg and Washington, Richmond is well on its way to being connected to BosWash. Believe or not some Richmonders do commute to DC. Very few, but some do. Besides what does commuting to DC have to do with anything? Do people from Philly and New York commute to DC? From Fredericksburg to Richmond is only about 50 minutes to an hour. That is about the same distance from the northern part of the Baltimore area to the greater Philadelphia area where it becomes semi-rural. Btw Virginia is not 100% southern. That is a dramatic overstatement. Ever heard of Northern Virginia or Hampton Roads? That would definitely subtract from it being 100% southern considering more than half of Virginia's residents live in either Northern Virginia, Richmond, or Hampton Roads. These die-hard southerners need to learn that they are quickly becoming the minority in Virginia. Oh, and bond007, the only way it would take you 3 hours to get to Richmond was if you were either 1) leaving on a Friday, Saturday or any weekday after 3pm during rush hour, 2) you stopped every 20 minutes going down I-95, or 3) You were driving in reverse. (November 2, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.84.47 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's base it on criteria from sources - simply deciding on a list ourselves is WP:OR. --JWB (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the List Manageable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've pared down the list of major cities several times now, and most recently tried to cut it down to truly only the most important and muclear cities -- those cities which are important of their own right, not by virtue of other cities around them. I agree that some of the listed cities are important and house important facilities, but the question is whether they would be and do so if they were not in the immediate vicinity of the major BosWash nuclei. Atlantic City, for instance, is a good distance away from both Philadelphia and New York City, and is famous for gambling, which neither of those cities have. New London, while relatively small, is one of the most important US military ports on the East Coast. Silver Spring, on the other hand, really is a suburb of DC that, while having its own vibrant downtown, is not really distinct from DC geographically and does not offer unique services, functions, or cultural/social opportunities. No? Korossyl (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not get rid of the list completely? It's just a source of argument and is redundant with the Statistics section as well as many other articles on the Northeast and US where cities are listed without us having to make an arbitrary decision about whether they are part of BosWash. Northeastern United States --JWB (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but for example in the case of Silver Spring (and Bethesda and Columbia, MD) I find it hard to ignore a city with a pop. of 76,000 (Columbia has 88,000). Actually, Silver Spring is distinct from DC (especially considering that SS borders non-commercial NE DC). You can literally tell the difference as you walk across the border between the two cities. I think we should include smaller cities like New London, Annapolis, and Manchester based on regional importance and at least 100 miles from one of the "major" anchor cities (B'more, Boston etc.) but include other cities with pops. > 75,000 or so.

To JWB: Unlike the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and other regions the Northeast Corridor/BosWash is anchored by cities instead of states, so I think a list is definitely needed. Obviously Boston, Providence, NYC, Newark, Philly, Balt., Wilmington, and DC should be included, but there are a number of other economic hubs (particularly in NJ and MD) that are probably worth mentioning.007bond (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean we should ignore these cities, but that they are rather part of larger metropolitan areas. I drive down Georgia Ave. from Silver Spring into the District almost every day, and to draw a border between them seems almost arbitrary. Newark also is a major city by any definition, except that it functions just as an extension of NYC -- even Newark airport is generally considered just another New York-area airport.

I see your point about setting standards for the list (100 miles, 75k pop. or more), but we've tried that before on the list and it just falls apart. Why not 70,000? or 80,000? or 50 or 150 miles? There's no recognized standard for "major cities," and it's pretty much fruitless to try to establish one on this page. I think I agree that the list should be dropped.

I also agree that since BosWash is defined by cities, a list is still necessary -- that's what the intro paragraph is for. But I think that should be pared down, too. How about DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Hartford/New Haven, and Boston? I think that pretty much sums up the region. No? Korossyl (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember, we are supposed to stick to reporting on notable sources, not deciding for ourselves. If Goffman or one of the other writers on the subject proposed a definition, we should report it. If there is relevant data like Census Bureau CSAs and MSAs, we can report it. --JWB (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I guess we can take down the list, but I think the opening paragraph should remain minus Portland and Camden. I undeerstand that we shouldn't set standards but the "rule of 100,00" seems to work well there. Oh yeah, and the difference I was mentioning between Silver Spring and NE DC are all the condo highrises, the NOAA and Discovery Communications buildings on GA Ave which distinguish Silver Spring.007bond (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even looking at the first paragraph - now I see the article has no less than 3 separate lists of cities or urban areas that have all expanded to include even small ones! This is even more ridiculous.

The whole idea of "megalopolis" is that the arbitrary formal city names and boundaries don't matter; the whole functions as a single system. --JWB (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Untitled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Amer 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, ="background:transparent; opacity:0.75;filter:alpha(opacity=75);zoom:1;">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)

For one thing, every city has parks and undeveloped parcels within its urban area, so the spaces you describe can be thought of as larger parks and larger undeveloped tracts within a larger city. More significantly, though, it is not necessary to conceive of regions as discreetly bounded objects with finite edges. Rather, different places can be more or less involved with the region, with different clumps of the region held together by thin threads, which may or may not even have any physical representation on the ground (for instance: trade, commuting, cultural influence), so that the region as a whole is more like a lace doily laid across the landscape. And that landscape can retain its unique traits and even simultaneously participate in other regions which might overlap the same area here and there, such as a hypothetical region: "forests of the northeast". See the book, "Rethinking the Region" by John Allen, Doreen Massey, & Allan Cochrane, Routledge, 1998. EmergentProperty (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

City parks don't usually encompass a larger area than the occupied portions of the city.

Where in the world does the developed portion of the landscape not resemble "a lace doily laid across the landscape" and have the characteristics you describe above, EmergentProperty? (Okay, I can think of one kind of place - small island nations in the Caribbean and Pacific because there aren't any roads. But everywhere else that's on a continent looks like this.) I think that this whole thing is mostly a matter of the egos of obtuse city-dwellers in these regions who don't travel much - trying to come up with ways they're exceptional, so they like the idea of saying they're "citizens of The Megalopolis."

The extensions people keep making to the area of "BosWash" just keep reducing its population density, which was probably pretty low to begin with anyways. If we worked out the numbers at this point I wonder how many places in the American Midwest or Northern Canada we could find with equivalent density to this supposed super-city. (And I wonder how few places we could find with such a low density in the entirety of Japan, for example.)

The U.S. has lots of really awesome cities, many of which are spoken of in this article. But if size is what really matters we ought to give this up - West Africa and East Asia are the lands of the megalopolis, not the U.S., and we are not going to be catching up to them any time this century. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First anniversary

On the first anniversary of the original posting of this section, I would like to provide a comment about this article and its disposition within Wikipedia.

Regarding frequency of use of the term:

I live within the area described, in Quincy, Massachusetts. I have lived in areas loosely associated with the area, i.e. Northeastern Virginia and Eastern Massachusetts, for my entire adult life. The criteria I am using is that I have lived in the media markets of the area, able to receive over-the-air TV and radio broadcasts originating in Washington or Boston, for over 35 years. Understanding the following statement is entirely original research and point-of-view commentary, "No one I have spoken with or corresponded with in the past three decades who lives within Gottmann's corridor has ever used the term Boswash to describe the condition, position, location or situation of the area of the United States that this article purports to describe." Ever. In fact, the only truly non-trivial mention of this term that can be remembered is this article.

I edited the article in March 2008 without citation describing my experience, shown in this diff. That edit was eventually removed, and I attempted to contact language experts and cite Google search counts in an effort to reinsert it, but nothing reliably sourced could be found. You will simply have to trust me that it is the case. Performing a search for "Boswash" and comparing hit counts with a search for "Northeastern U.S." or "Northeast Corridor" produce 40-to-1 and 10-to-1 results in favor of the latter, and those generous numbers are probably due to many mirrors and copies of this article.

Regarding extent of the area:

The lead section of the article states: "the area stretching from Lewiston, Maine to Fredericksburg, Virginia is essentially a contiguously inhabited corridor". That is outright false. The only area within the region that may fit into that description would be the metro New York area within 20 miles of Interstate 95 between Woodbridge, New Jersey and New Rochelle, New York. As stated above, and clearly in evidence by the satellite light dispersion photography, there are several areas, especially northeastern Maryland, central New Jersey, northeastern Connecticut and the state of Maine, which are very much not within that description.

Conclusion and opinion:

What you have here is an article that is primarily like my statements here: original research and point-of-view commentary. It has become a convenient place for editors with questionable encyclopedic motives to tack on the names of cities and regions that are undoubtedly a point of pride to themselves but factually not in any way part of any theoretical or perceived "megalopolis". I think that to have this article meet the standards of the encyclopedia, it should be a short, reliably referenced treatment of the phrase used by Gottmann, and possibly contain mention of the Virginia Tech follow up study, but not remain in its present state. The "sea of blue" list of cities in the opening sentence is entirely original research and subjective and as a construct of the English language, hopelessly long and awkward. I do not intend to defend my position, nor do I intend to edit the article. I am merely stating what I know to be true in an effort to improve the article. Sswonk (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To address just a few points here...

The term "BosWash" is indeed infrequently used; contrary to (popular?) belief, Gottmann did not coin it. It is, however, used: this book. for one. I believe (unverifiably) that Amtrak was at one point also considering an ad campaign using the term. While I also have not personally heard the term used by any person in person, that's neither verifiable nor indicative that it is not, in fact, used. "Northeast U.S." is not synonymous with BosWash, but simply a part of the country that BosWash happens to be located in and dominate. "Northeast corridor," as it is usually used, is a region co-terminal with BosWash, but again, only describes the region. "BosWash" indicates not only the cities and infrastructure of the Northeast Corridor, but the specially integrated, polynuclear urban zone of which they are component parts. An article on the Northeast Corridor would discuss everything in that region; an article on BosWash would discuss how that region functions as an integrated whole, relative to the external world.

And indeed, a case can be made that it is an integrated whole. The draft of the Regional Plan Association's 1968 Second Regional Plan shows "commutershed" areas by county -- whether a sizable portion of a county's residents commute to a city outside the county. DC's commutershed overlaps with Philadelphia, which overlaps with NYC. There's a small break between NYC and Boston, but that is filled up completely with smaller cities in Massachusettes and Connecticut, which are themselves are the third and fourth most populated states in the country. In fact, of the top ten most densely populated states, only two are outside BosWash, and none of BosWash is outside the top ten.

I wrote a thesis paper on the subject earlier this year; if you'd be interested, it's online. It also includes the commutershed map, and addresses the large sections of green in BosWash (50% is forested!) and how it can still be considered a "continuously inhabited stretch." I'd be curious what a critic of the concept would say. Korossyl (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've only gotten to skim through it so far but it looks like it'll be a good read. I couldn't see any of the maps, though; any chance you could make it a PDF?

One thing I did take notice of was the figure you've got for the population density - 931 people per m² (maybe that's from this article even, I didn't check.) I compared this with the List of countries and dependencies by population density and it confirms what I was saying up above last year - Japan has an only slightly lower density for the entire country and South Korea and Taiwan greatly exceed the 931 figure with their national population densities. But the real surprise was that the entire nation of India has a population density only a tad less, at 890!

That's a region one-third the size of the entire United States including Alaska, with about the same population density as our supposed megalopolis here.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag added to article

I have added the {{Disputed}} tag to this article and used it to direct readers to this discussion. The entire section containing this subsection should be read to gain an understanding of the dispute. To summarize concerns voiced above:

BosWash is not the correct name of the area described. It is a term used by an author from the ~~early~~ sixties, ~~Jean Gottmann~~ Herman Kahn.^[1] It is not a popular term used today to describe the Northeastern United States, although because of the existence of this article and the resulting mirrors of it at hundreds of other sites, it may appear to be popular. Most of the content of this article is covered by the article Northeastern United States and where content here is sourced the original material is describing various locations not called "BosWash". Using that material to describe a made-up name constitutes a violation of the policy against original research.
The extent and density of the area are subjectively described as constituting Gottmann's definition of a megalopolis. Again this is based on the original research and opinions of editors who are providing their own interpretation of what was intended by Gottmann.
The article is factually inaccurate and borderline spam. It is an unabashed attempt by some to promote the use of the term "BosWash" to describe an area that is purely subjective. This term is not preferred or endorsed by the governments of the constituency that resides within it. This promotion lessens the importance of the individual histories of Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. in favor of a term that seeks to mimic the official nature of similar officially endorsed regions such as Benelux without clarification of that inaccuracy.

As stated in subsections above this one, the article should be reduced to contain only a properly sourced discussion of the term as used by ~~Gottmann~~ Kahn.^[1] Sswonk (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b I originally misstated that the origin of this neologism was Gottmann. The first use of the terms BosWash, ChiPitts and SanSan was in a 1967 publication of Kahn's predictions for the future by the Hudson Institute: The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years, (MacMillan), ISBN 978-0025604407.

– Sswonk (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a little puzzling that after trying to address your concerns by adding material that makes the points you are making, you then tag that new section as unreferenced. --JWB (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification of intention to rewrite article

I am notifying editors of this page that I intend to rewrite this article to recast it as a proper, reliably sourced focus on the history and usage of the term "BosWash", in an effort to remove it from its current status as an example of original research masquerading as fact. All references to "BosWash" as a de facto place will be removed. The objections stated within the section above entitled "Isn't this kind of melodramatic?" state the reasons such a rewrite is required. Please state any comments or offers of assistance to this effort to improve the article below this notification. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good thing (though I may well object to some specifics) but what is even more objectionable and requiring change, is the normative use of "BosWash" for the Northeast metropolis in other articles. If you are fighting to keep the neologism from being presented as normative, searching Wikipedia for these uses (the "What links here" link at left is probably the easiest way) and changing them is even more important, and also does not require you to do any substantive rewriting as you will just be substituting another term. --JWB (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No question, the casual use of the term in articles in any way other than discussion of mega- type theories should be changed, and also Highways along the BosWash corridor and Largest companies based in BosWash should be put up for AfD to end in deletion or merging with other lists. But the primary focus should be recasting of this article first, we have time to get that done and then focus on the ancillary issues later. Here is my suggested new lead sentence for this article: "Along with ChiPitts and SanSan, BosWash is a term coined by futurists Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener in a 1967 essay which they used to describe a theoretical megalopolis extending from the metropolitan area of Boston to that of Washington, D.C. in the United States." Also, take a look at this example that supports the contention there is sparse use of this term: The multi-dictionary search site onelook.com shows only four separate sources with entries for Boswash: two describe it as "informal" English, another states "this definition appears very rarely" (Acronym Finder) and then a fourth, this article. I will be in and out of Wikipedia land today, if that suggested sentence looks good we can redo the lead section starting there. Sources are important, the Kahn book being key. Sswonk (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan so far. I've previously made some similar additions in the leads of ChiPitts and SanSan. --JWB (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should be AfD'd or at the most redirected to Northeast_Corridor. This is a neologism. Skrewler (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a 42 year old neologism, but I disagree with AfD. The article has moderate traffic, about 300 hits per day. So people are looking for Boswash. However, instead of redirecting to Northeast Corridor, which would give the sense that Boswash is a synonym for the busy Amtrak line, the article should be (and will be soon) recast as a history and usage of the term, pointing out to anyone who lands here that it is not an official name of anything. Sswonk (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) The article now states clearly that this term is not formally used to describe the area. I have begun the process of finding Special:WhatLinksHere/BosWash articles and changing the text to link to the Northeastern United States article wherever it concerns geography. Pages which use the term as it is now described in the article remain linked here. I could use help doing this. The Highways along the BosWash corridor and Largest companies based in BosWash lists are up for AfD. Sswonk (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, the article has gone from a steaming pile of crap to a good article. Nice work Skrewler (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

agreed, it is keepable in this form. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Separate article?

I was all ready to start a big huff over this, but I gotta say: THANK YOU!
In my own experience, many people seem to be generally aware that the Region Formerly Known as BosWash is somehow special, and a few even know that there is talk of it being special. "BosWash," as a term, however, is well-nigh nonexistent.
So, while I think this article is great, would it not be good to write a separate article on... what this article used to be about? Drop the neologism, drop the ever-contentious Original Research list, get back to sourced statements? Jean Gottmann did write an 800-page study on this, which has achieved considerable fame: Senator Pell's (of the Pell Grants) book Megalopolis Unbound, and a National Geographic map of the "Boston to Washington Megalopolis." I think these are good indications that there is merit in Gottmann's idea. In the past, I've argued that the region is unique, and special, and a cohesive concept... but up until now, the article has buried that under exaggerations unsustainable statements.
What I propose is that (1) an article "Boston-Washington Megalopols," or somesuch, be written; that (2) at first, it be a very condensed version of the article that was previously here, that (3) it make clear that it has occasionally been called "BosWash" by a select group but that this term has never gained purchase with the general public, that (4) this article refer to the new article, and that (5) some of the articles that are currently being purged of BosWash be directed there.
What do y'all think? Korossyl (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that Gottmann's Megalopolis preceded the futurists' BosWash essay by six years, which makes the latter another example of the influence and salience of the former. Korossyl (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there's already an article about this arbitrary region Northeast_Corridor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrewler (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, that article is about a railroad line and has little to do with the topic he is asking about. It states that in the hatnote there. Sswonk (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So then Gottmann's talk page and Northeastern United States#The Northeast as a megalopolis are areas I would suggest you float this idea. But the point I think you may be missing here is that your enthusiasm over the megapolitan concept isn't shared by several other equally thoughtful people. Take a look at this for example. I know it is a critique of Kahn and futurism, but it serves to point out that the concepts they embraced generally do not wash in the real world. Yes Gottmann got some people thinking about this, but Wikipedia isn't going to support another BosWash article as it was simply reposted under another title. As it is, the section of Northeastern United States that is linked above is very poorly sourced and almost as equally supportive of a point of view that is not neutral. Why not work to find reliable sources for that section first, rather than trying to restate your views in another new article? This has to be thought out carefully; ask for help from an admin or two if you need it. Personally, I see the big northeast as a great place, but it is not a single entity at all. Not even close. The comments from last year in "Isn't this kind of melodramatic?" raise a lot of objections to the theory of a "megalopolis", all politics are local, and I just can't find a reason to support any new article that rehashes originally researched claims as you are proposing. I also suggest you read very carefully WP:OR to see where the potential problems for your suggestion lie. Sswonk (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree and disagree. I'm not sure if you read my earlier comment in full; as I said, the former article on BosWash was so bloated with OR and trivia as to be beyond salvation. This is neither my intention nor my proposal. However, the Boston-Washington Megalopolis is a concept that does not need to be associated either with the word "BosWash" or with the previous article. I understand that many do not agree with the concept, but at least some notable and source-worthy figures have (Sen. Pell and NatGeo, for starters; also many other less-famous published researchers such as Robert A. Harper). The BosWash article should not be resuscitated. However, it leaves a hole (albeit a much smaller hole than it tried to fill). Yes, the Megalopolis could be floated as just a theory by Jean Gottmann, but that would be denying both the content of other Wikipedia pages (which did link to BosWash, problems and all) and also the majority view of published literature: I think you will be hard-pressed to find many notable sources that disagree with or attack the Megalopolis idea, wile there have been a great many that, if not in outright support of it, use it a a workable theory on which to base further ideas and policies. I could be wrong, but this has absolutely been my experience while researching the concept.Korossyl (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope you all are aware of Megapolitan Area also. --JWB (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a number of Google Scholar, Book, and News hits for "BosWash". While the term may not be common or official, there is definitely room for a separate article on the concept of the Northeast megalopolis as it appears to be well-entrenched in various urbanization studies. I do think separating the article on the term from the article on the specific region is useful. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have about ten different things I would like to say, mostly regarding the Korossyl proposal, but am sure not to be able to say them in the short amount of time before another edit conflict will make some of it moot. Basically, I first would agree with Polaron on the number of hits in two of those sources, Scholar and Book, and more or less wouldn't pay much attention to News or especially the main Google Web search. This is because the samples there are polluted by blogs and mirrors of Wikipedia. I won't repeat what I found in researching Web search in this comment, but will look it up again after writing this. What I suspected about mirror pollution was born out when I searched BosWash WITHOUT a unique identifier for the previous version of this article, a phrase that had existed within it for over three years and when placed in quotes and excluded winnowed the search down significantly, something like 25% of the hits for just BosWash.

Also, before this group goes any further in discussing the Korossyl proposal, I want to state that Northeast megalopolis would be much preferred by me and I submit much less subject to parochial concerns over the title than Korossyl's proposed Boston-Washington Megalopolis. That, with the capitalized title and static framing, is not much different from BosWash.

Finally, and this is opinion, when it is asked why there aren't notable sources that refute the concept, I submit that in this case silence actually implies lack of consent on the part of existing institutions: state governments, city governments, and most importantly residents of the northeast. Megalopolis is an academic or institutional concept that has failed to attract widespread support for nearly fifty years not based on argument to be found in published sources but on the reality of facts on the ground. Common sense tells me that the forces of glaciation, tectonics and watershed formation that afforded the protected ports of Chesapeake and Delaware Bays and New York and Boston Harbors, combined with immigration patterns and proximity to the industrialized European continent, have much more to do with the numbers that exist on population, transportation and communication facilities in the area than do an overt desire to connect the metro areas. It is happenstance and history. The rest of what I want to comment on is about the Korossyl proposal, and some of it regarding text already in the encyclopedia I have already written above. In a sentence, Korossyl, please take some time to look at what already exists in other articles first.

On a different tack, I am currently at a crossroads regarding how to handle ChiPitts and SanSan. AfD would probably fail, but they need a treatment similar to what was done here as they both still exist largely as geography mishmashes. Sswonk (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pollution of Google hits by mirrors: These are the results of a Google Web search for Boswash alone and then Boswash excluding an identifying phrase that existed in this article for over three years prior to the rewrite:

Searching Boswash: about 153,000 Boswash

Searching Boswash -"The geographic trend was first identified": about 21,600 Boswash -"The geographic trend was first identified"

Results from 2255 GMT 2009-10-21

There is not much more to say about this, I think this shows the article was copied copiously throughout the internet and accounted for many false hits if one is trying to gauge usage frequency of the term. N.B., this is not in response to Polaron who looked at Scholar, Books and News, not the main Web search engine. Sswonk (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The name is unimportant. Gottmann referred to it simply as "Megalopolis," since he did, in fact, coin the term as a word for "supercity." Previously, it had only been the name of a tiny town in Greece (of very high aspirations). "Boston-Washington Megalopolis" is certainly the most descriptive; "Northeast" is only meaningful in the US. But whatever.

I disagree that it has not become prominent in non-academic circles. Sure, no politician or businessman talks about "a uniquely integrated massive urban area" or "megalopolis" or "BosWash," but they make policies that reflect their conception of the region as uniquely integrated: In politics, I would refer you to Claiborne Pell, again, who wrote an entire book specifically on Gottmann's work as the springboard for transportation policy; to the Obama administration's call for a high speed rail network in the US that would be led by high speed rail in the Northeast Corridor; the formation of the E-Z Pass system, now used nationwide, but originally intended to serve PA, NJ, and NY; etc. In business, there's Amtrak's unique Acela line, which runs the length of the megalopolis and nowhere else; with the various airborn shuttle services that have come and gone to fly people between NYC and DC, and which have not really been replicated elsewhere (air shuttles do exist, but generally not over such distances); the Chinatown bus lines that operate between DC/Phila/NYC/Boston, and are pretty much unique to the megalopolis; etc. All of these examples are transportation related, as the development of unique transportation means or corridors is, I believe, the measure of a unique geo-social relationship between two areas. For telecommunications data (that the vast majority of calls originating in the megalopolis terminate in the megalopolis), see Gottmann's book, pp. 587-593. Just because they're not couching their policies or discourse in academic terminology doesn't mean they don't see the underlying concept.

If there's a number of hits on Google Scholar, and as there are a number of books that have been published over the years, I think it is significant that the overwhelming majority of these treat the concept as real, or at least theoretically useful.

As to the pages on SanSan and ChiPitts, they receive far less traffic than BosWash, and are much shorter; why not toss a notice on their talk pages, wait a couple days, and make them re-directs to BosWash? Korossyl (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The arguments you are making are fine for a term paper or journal essay, I am not going to critique them other than to point out again that you tend to promote the concept from your point of view which is very "pro-megalopolis". I do find it a little curious that you wrote a few hours ago "I was all ready to start a big huff over this, but I gotta say: THANK YOU!", followed by "'BosWash,' as a term, however, is well-nigh nonexistent."

Why the change of heart? You first edited the page starting in March 2007, and had ample opportunity to change the language from using present tense i.e. the former opening "BosWash...is a group of metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States stretching from Boston to Washington, D.C.", the later sentences beginning "It has a population of 55 million..." and "Additionally, the region is home to six of the eight Ivy League universities...". These phrases all suggested to the reader that something called BosWash exists as an entity in real time like actual states or countries, which I perceive that you are eager to agree with. It is after all the article title. There is the comment from last year above, when answering the question posed by Struthious Bandersnatch you wrote "the concept -- and indeed name -- of BosWash has barely taken route [sic]" ; it seems to me you were eager for that day to come.

Then there is the research paper you offered me when I restated objections to the tone and focus of the article in July. Your title is "The Boston-Washington Megalopolis: Challenges of the New World". In it, you start with "'BosWash,' as the Atlantic megalopolis is known more colloquially known, must not only demonstrate that is, indeed, taking on characteristics of a unified city-region rather than just a sting of major cities, but must also face the consequences of such integration: every issue faced by other cities, writ mega-large." After that initial use, you use the word BosWash 41 more times in under thirty pages, almost always as the subject of a sentence that speaks in the present or future tense, only throughout the remainder of the paper you are using it as your preferred noun, without quotes to show colloquialism. Here, you are ready to start anew, with a new article, and making newer arguments about how real you believe this place to be, but you won't call it BosWash. It's curious.

The article that is listed in the BosWash hatnote, Northeastern United States, has a section all about the megalopolics of things along I-95 north of the Rappahannock River. The article Megapolitan Area talks about this as well. You and Polaron both see a reason for a separate article on the subject, and as long as it doesn't fork from those two, makes no case for or against the sources, maintains a neutral point of view, is well cited and avoids completely any tinge of original research, you might succeed in getting it past deletion arguments. I think if that is what you want to do, again I strongly urge you to discuss the proposal of a need for a separate article at the talk pages of those two existing articles. Sswonk (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Why the change of heart?" Two reasons. First, I have no particular loyalty to the term "BosWash." It is simply shorter than other names, so I have been using it. Now, however, it's apparently causing more problems than it's worth: it's preventing people from taking the concept behind it seriously. It's outlived its usefulness, so let's move on. Second, the article on BosWash was bloated, unprofessional, mired in petty controversies, and was all around giving the concept a bad name (literally! heheheh). So, let's get it out of the way (Thank You!), so we can start afresh and build a satisfactory article from the ground up. Don't hyperbolize and give in to wild claims or predictions. Make extensive use of notable sources so that it's got an unassailable core. That's the page the megalopolis deserves to have. Korossyl (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you were interested in doing that here but were an army of one and didn't see any hope. And I guess you've taken some of what I have been saying about the name into consideration. But, I still hear you begging the question over the validity of the theory or concept or what ever it is, to wit: That's the page the megalopolis deserves to have. Begs the question because you've already decided right there that the concept is in fact reality. There are people who will read your new article and say "this is bullshit" no matter how many sources you find. George Orwell already wrote about a new England, he called it Airstrip One. He was a satirist, but you're an enthusiast, this is an encyclopedia, and that can be very problematic. If you write anything, it needs to be about the theories, not about pushing their point of view. Sswonk (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I was trying to say above, and which would be incorporated into a future article: the evidence, both academic and not, seems to point to a broad consensus that the concept is valid, or at least useful. Korossyl (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Let the AfD begin! Skrewler (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on, this is not a valid concept. Like I said above Korossyl, based upon your own population density numbers this region only has a slightly higher population density than the entire nation of India and a significantly lower population density than Taiwan and South Korea.

It's embarrassing that anyone ever thought calling it a "megalopolis" was a good way to promote the region in the first place. This minimalistic article concerned with the origin and use of the term is the way that it should be. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) It is not for me or you to decide this is a "valid concept;" it is up to the public, who have written extensively on it and adapted it to real-life policies.

(2) Calling it a "megalopolis" wasn't meant to promote it; it was the decade-long research work of an eminent geographer.

(3) It's not and never has been just the population density, it's how those people interact with each other relative to how they interact with people outside the region, and the infrastructures they've built up.

(4) The origin of the term "BosWash" came significantly after the origin of the theory of megalopolis.

Korossyl (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) I don't think you get the idea with scare quotes; you are the one who declared it a "valid concept".

(b) If you don't think that calling it a megalopolis is a matter of self-promotion by the residents of the region, many of whom obviously came to this article to try to make sure their city was included, I don't believe you're thinking very critically about this.

(c) In any case it's still embarrassing.

❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) What the heck are scare quotes?

(2) Please read my comments. I have specifically mentioned that the useless list of cities was one of the most unprofessional parts of the article, and that the new article should, before all else, leave that out.

I don't think this discussion is going to get anywhere further until said article is produced, in some form. Therefore, I'm retreating into solitude to work on it. Goodbye all. Korossyl (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

SB, a few residents. I am a resident, most of the "let's add Bethesda" or "Bangor!" article stuffing was done by just a few people, joy over the concept isn't consuming the northeast with pride. I do see your points, however, please just don't paint with such a wide brush. Sswonk (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to still have an article on the concept, there is no need to delete and recreate, we can just rename and edit. --JWB (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused. Rename what? Delete and recreate what? I don't know which part of this long thread you are referring to. Sswonk (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of editors were saying there should be a separate article on the Northeast megalopolis, but not this article. I'm saying we could simply rename this article and work on it. --JWB (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree with that because this article is about the term and I am thinking the other two articles, ChiPitts and SanSan should be similarly gutted and then soon redirected here as a place to account for all three Kahn neologisms. This article gets too many hits to rename, see also this discussion. I think it is probably inevitable that if Korossyl doesn't do his article someone else will, i.e. the section at Northeastern United States will be split out, but I don't think he meant he wanted to delete this one. Sswonk (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How many hits an article gets isn't relevant criteria to keep or delete an article Skrewler (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about "renaming" as suggested by JWB, not "keeping or deleting"; however, I could have phrased it in a better way. What I meant was, no, it should not have been renamed because "BosWash" is not about a Northeast megalopolis, it is about BosWash, the word, which apparently gets searched a lot on Google. Before, if someone searched that term on Google they got the previous version of this article and dozens and dozens of mirrors, all of which treated BosWash as a real place with geographic and demographic characteristics that people were pulling out of a hat at will. Original research and opinion. In reality, the vast majority of actual scholarly writing available on the internet mentions Boswash as a term used by Kahn and Wiener in their futurist essay, and then either continues referring to the northeastern U.S. urban corridor or some term they make up themselves, like "Northeast" in the VT study. The point of keeping this article named BosWash and maintaining it as a definition of the term is to follow the scholarly body of work, and to protect Wikipedia from damage as was done with the previous version, i.e. editors arguing back and forth over whether to include their favorite city in the list. It was ridiculous, and if you need confirmation of that just look at past edit summaries and the archived discussions. Sswonk (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[1]