137 replies to this topic

[Loughlin]

scoopernicus, on Apr 28 2005, 02:31 PM, said:

US Census Statistics

Manchester ranked 119th.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that stat include Nashua

[M. Brown]

Manchester is denser though.  If fits 111k in 33 sqmiles where as Portland only has 66k in 50 sqmiles.

[Loughlin]

M. Brown, on May 1 2005, 02:58 PM, said:

Manchester is denser though.  If fits 111k in 33 sqmiles where as Portland only has 66k in 50 sqmiles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, Portland has that much land, thats 6 square miles more than Boston!

[kurtosis]

I gotta say, I find the ranking of the Portland metro pop. above Manch-Nashua extremely hard to believe. For starters manch and nashua are both larger than portland so there's a big gap right off the bat.  the only possibility i see is that they define portland metro over a much larger land area (say all of southern maine) which is possible since there aren't really any other cities around. by contrast manch-nashua may be a pretty tigthly defined metro b/c you hit lowell once you take two steps south, concord to the north and seacoast to the east. i think all of those would be considered separate metros. so perhaps not the best comparison.

here's a question - i left NH after HS in 1993 and I never heard the term "Manch-Vegas" until long after i left. So  I have no idea what it means or who started it. Does anybody have a good explanation? Does it have anything to do with gambling? or general sleaziness? (manch is probably the only vaguely "sleazy" city in northern NE) or did people just want a cool nickname?

[M. Brown]

^I honestly don't know.  But isn't it Concord-Manchester-Nashua Metro

[scoopernicus]

First off my first post was probably too snarky. I'm sorry for that.  It is a real quote I'd heard, and I was trying to be flip, but in retrospect, it just sounds mean-spirited.

However, when you start a 'my city is better than yours' argument, it can get personal.  We can probably all agree that such comparisons are apples and oranges.  I have my reasons for living were I do, and for loving it, but they are my reasons and my reasons alone.  I don't expect everyone to share my reasons.

and I think, by the chart I linked to, Nashua had it's own metropolitan area.

[Loughlin]

I like both Manchester and Portland.

[scoopernicus]

Quote

I like both Manchester and Portland.

There's much to love about both.

[M. Brown]

Ron Newman, on Mar 6 2005, 09:05 AM, said:

I don't think 'Northern New England' as a whole can be said to have a hub.   It's too difficult to travel east-west through the region, because of topography and how the road network is laid out.

Manchester is only barely in 'Northern New England' anyway, given that it's 25 miles from the Mass. line but hundreds of miles from the Canadian border.

On purely geographical terms you could make a case for Hanover-Lebanon-White River Junction, since it's where I-89 and I-91 cross.  But it's not much of a population center, and you can't get there easily from Maine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True.  Never thought about that.

[pvenne]

test

[pvenne]

for as long as i can remember i have heard that manchester new hampshire is a dump.  it is a mill town.  it is this and it is that.  upon visiting it a few years back, however, i must say that it is really quite a modernizing and growing place that has apparently cleaned up a lot and is very forward looking in terms of development.  to its credit, it has a few buildings (at least two, i believe) that have broken the 20-story mark.  i must say, however, that if i had to live in a NNE city, it would have to be portland, where i am originally from.  here are the reasons why:
1.) the ocean and beaches V. the merrimack river
2.) Maine medical center (top 2% nationally, 4th safest in country)
3.) shopping (i have heard from several different sources that the maine mall area is the largest shopping district north of boston.  if this is not correct please tell me why)
4.) in terms of population manchester has portland beat, although if you take into consideration the differences in land area, the difference becomes much less.  incorporating south portland into the portland area, which would be considering a slightly larger area than manchester within its municipal bounds, would give the immediate and most dense part of the portland area a pop of approx 90k (just under), rather than its relatively weak 65k (which i believe had grown somewhat, though).
5.) in addition, portland had 80 thousand people in 1950 (i swear), and it has only grown since then, meaning the city is not dying, just getting less dense (ppl are moving to the suburbs rather than the inner city.
6.) metro portland stands on its own (for the rural state oif maine, that is an accomplishment).  manchester (in my opinion) is an arm of the boston area.  if portland was in the same proximity to beantown, it would be much larger.  some "towns" in mass. have greater populations than portland, but they are not cities.  portland is a city.
7.) which brings me to my next point: nashua is a bedroom for boston, a residential town where people live but dont work.  portland at least doubles in pop every business day and during christmas when the mall is packed south portland can get near 100k, so at some points of the year we are talking a day time population that is the better part of a quarter million for the two towns.  for maine this is a megalopolis.  
8.) nightlife: cant beat it, it is exciting, most of the time safe, and diverse.
9.) symphony orchestra (i dont know if manchester has one...anyone else know?)
10.) the art museum (manchester?)
11.) minor league sports teams (i know manchetser has some too, and that is a big plus)
12.) the view of the downtown from south portland...unbeatable...no omatter how stubborn mainers are in terms of development, the city looks amazing at night or during the day from key locations.
13.) POTENTIAL....this is a big one for manchester too.  both p-town and manchetsre have the potential to take the next step up the latter in terms of categorization from industrial cities to world-class.  that is exciting.

this is not meant to be strictly a comparison of portland and manch with the intent of putting down manchester, which is a very cool place.  the reason it may seem like that is because i felt the other "cities" in NNE arent even worth bringing in to the discussion.   burlington, for example, where i go to college at uvm, is not a city like portland or manchester is...it is more like a meeting place for the towns that surround it...with maybe one building that reaches 11 stories or something like that, and even that is hidden by taller trees.  nothing of a skyline, though there are a few (and i mean a few) bars on church street.  lewiston, where i was born, is very urban, but that is not to say modern or developed.  urban only in the industrial revolution sense.  it is a real tough town with lots of conflicts between somali immigrants and racist mainers with pickup trucks.  were manchester on the ocean and a little more removed from the boston metro, it would certainly have a leg up on portland.  seeing as how it is not however, my opinion remains.  it is still an excellent place to visit though.  hopefully both it and portland can becoem the cities many of us want them to become.

[pvenne]

Loughlin, on May 1 2005, 03:58 PM, said:

Wow, Portland has that much land, thats 6 square miles more than Boston!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

okay okay, portland has more area than manchester (52.6mi squared versus manchester's 34.9).  fine fine, but consider this: only 21.2mi squared are above water; the other 31 and a half square miles are submerged in rivers or the atlantic ocean.  accounting for the islands included in portlands area makes the actual mainland city even smaller.  making the same adjustment for manchester, it appears that of its roughly 35 sq. miles, only 5 of them are water, leaving manchester with a greater land area than portland of almost 10 sq. miles.  portland is also more densely built in terms of housing units.  MANCHESTER: There are 45,892 housing units at an average density of 536.8/km² (1,390.2/mi²).
PORTLAND: There are 31,862 housing units at an average density of 580.0/km² (1,502.2/mi²).   what is scary about this is that, for all you vermonsters, burlington vermont is actuall more dense than both portland and manchester.  these statistics change nothing of the actual "feel" of either city, however.  we all know that comparing manchester and burlington is like comparing new york city to providence.

[pvenne]

Loughlin, on Apr 17 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

Cultural would be a draw between Portsmouth/Portland although Portland is bigger Port City (Portsmouth,Hampton,rye,new castle, and newington) have just as much if not more to do for fun and entertainment, Portsmouth also has more history,but it is some what of a yuppie city now .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

portsmouth new hampshire, a city?  i dont think so.  it is smaller than south portland, which is a town by all means, by a few thousand.  i have been to both places, lived in portland for many years, and i would have to disagree kindly on this one, especially on the history part.

[pvenne]

pvenne, on Jun 24 2005, 01:30 PM, said:

for as long as i can remember i have heard that manchester new hampshire is a dump.  it is a mill town.  it is this and it is that.  upon visiting it a few years back, however, i must say that it is really quite a modernizing and growing place that has apparently cleaned up a lot and is very forward looking in terms of development.  to its credit, it has a few buildings (at least two, i believe) that have broken the 20-story mark.  i must say, however, that if i had to live in a NNE city, it would have to be portland, where i am originally from.  here are the reasons why:
1.) the ocean and beaches V. the merrimack river
2.) Maine medical center (top 2% nationally, 4th safest in country)
3.) shopping (i have heard from several different sources that the maine mall area is the largest shopping district north of boston.  if this is not correct please tell me why)
4.) in terms of population manchester has portland beat, although if you take into consideration the differences in land area, the difference becomes much less.  incorporating south portland into the portland area, which would be considering a slightly larger area than manchester within its municipal bounds, would give the immediate and most dense part of the portland area a pop of approx 90k (just under), rather than its relatively weak 65k (which i believe had grown somewhat, though).
5.) in addition, portland had 80 thousand people in 1950 (i swear), and it has only grown since then, meaning the city is not dying, just getting less dense (ppl are moving to the suburbs rather than the inner city.
6.) metro portland stands on its own (for the rural state oif maine, that is an accomplishment).  manchester (in my opinion) is an arm of the boston area.  if portland was in the same proximity to beantown, it would be much larger.  some "towns" in mass. have greater populations than portland, but they are not cities.  portland is a city.
7.) which brings me to my next point: nashua is a bedroom for boston, a residential town where people live but dont work.  portland at least doubles in pop every business day and during christmas when the mall is packed south portland can get near 100k, so at some points of the year we are talking a day time population that is the better part of a quarter million for the two towns.  for maine this is a megalopolis. 
8.) nightlife: cant beat it, it is exciting, most of the time safe, and diverse.
9.) symphony orchestra (i dont know if manchester has one...anyone else know?)
10.) the art museum (manchester?)
11.) minor league sports teams (i know manchetser has some too, and that is a big plus)
12.) the view of the downtown from south portland...unbeatable...no omatter how stubborn mainers are in terms of development, the city looks amazing at night or during the day from key locations.
13.) POTENTIAL....this is a big one for manchester too.  both p-town and manchetsre have the potential to take the next step up the latter in terms of categorization from industrial cities to world-class.  that is exciting.

this is not meant to be strictly a comparison of portland and manch with the intent of putting down manchester, which is a very cool place.  the reason it may seem like that is because i felt the other "cities" in NNE arent even worth bringing in to the discussion.   burlington, for example, where i go to college at uvm, is not a city like portland or manchester is...it is more like a meeting place for the towns that surround it...with maybe one building that reaches 11 stories or something like that, and even that is hidden by taller trees.  nothing of a skyline, though there are a few (and i mean a few) bars on church street.  lewiston, where i was born, is very urban, but that is not to say modern or developed.  urban only in the industrial revolution sense.  it is a real tough town with lots of conflicts between somali immigrants and racist mainers with pickup trucks.  were manchester on the ocean and a little more removed from the boston metro, it would certainly have a leg up on portland.  seeing as how it is not however, my opinion remains.  it is still an excellent place to visit though.  hopefully both it and portland can becoem the cities many of us want them to become.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i would also have to choose p-town because of the fact that it has more high rise buildings, even if they are not as tall as manchester's two or three mini-scrapers.  portland has 17 buildings over ten stories tall, with at least one more planned to begin construction this summer (waterview) and possibly as many as two more on top of that in the near future...not to mention the lincoln center proposal that was steps away from becoming reality, haulted by only a lack of public will to fund it.  this makes for a more engaging and diverse city scape, and a more interesting place to walk around in or drive through.  also, amtrak has brought convenient access to boston to the portland area.

[M. Brown]

No. Manchester has a larger area than Portland and Manchester is Denser as far as population goes.

[pvenne]

M. Brown, on Jun 24 2005, 06:06 PM, said:

No. Manchester has a larger area than Portland and Manchester is Denser as far as population goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YES. manch is more dense in overall terms, but its housing units are not built as densely as are portlands.  thus, it is less dense.  and my argument was that portland has a smaller area than manch...someone else said it had over 50 sq miles, when in fact most of those are under water...that is all.  no doubt manch is a bigger city in overall terms.

[pvenne]

it should also be noted that portland housing is more dense simply due to the fact that our tallest structures are for residential purposes; it is the other way around in manchester, which i believe has taller office towers than res structures.  portland: back bay tower (15 st.) franklin towers (17 st.) some old person home on forest ave (11 st.) and then multiple apartment buildings in the 6-9 story range...we need some more modern office structures if you ask me.  manchester is on the right track as concerns this.

[pvenne]

oh yeah, not to mention those two condo buildings on the east end, one of which is 14 st. from one side and the other of which is 13 from every side..

[Hudman]

You cant honestly think Portland has more history than Portmouth.

[Hudman]

kurtosis, on May 1 2005, 06:10 PM, said:

(manch is probably the only vaguely "sleazy" city in northern NE)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rochester,NH
Lewiston,ME
Sanford,ME
Nashua,NH
Bitteford,ME