What makes a great city? A few thoughts from my travels

[T0M]

Ok, so, I'm back.. (for those of you who'd never notticed I'd gone!)

After spending just over 3 weeks travelling round North America and seeing some of the best modern cities in the US and Canada it got me thinking about the different components which make a truly great city. Obivously there were numerous differences between each of the cities we visited (for the record Toronto, Montreal, Boston, New York and Niagara) but what I found interesting was that there were a number of underlying factors which effected our enjoyment of the cities in similar ways in every place we visited. And this got me thinking about Liverpool, about the current developments and our past history, and wondering what it'd be like to be a tourist in my own city.

Anyway, I thought I'd scribble down some of those musings in the off chance that they might be of interest to someone, and if nothing else so that I can look back later and marvel at the dellusional powers of jetlag.

I've tried to limit my musings to 10 factors which seemed fairly universal to all the places we visited and have implications for our own city. Some are quite general and subjective, others are more practical and functional - but together I think they add up to areas in which we can seek to improve our own city from the perspective of people visiting for the first time.


1. A sense of definition, personality and character.

This is probably the most vague and hard to define factor, but it's something which leaves the most lasting impression of a place you visit. Some cities have it, others don't but what I'm refering to is the feeling you get when you visit a place which help you describe it to people later. Similar to how you would describe a person you've met based on their personality and character.

I found that cities that know what they're about are in some ways easier to visit than cities which are either unsure, or a real mixture. Toronto for example, 30 years ago it was a relatively bland city full of white, middle class city workers (according to what I was told). But it decided to reinvent itself as an ethnically diverse, multicultural vibrant city - and as far as I can tell, succeeded. When I was there I got a very clear sense of 'this is what we're about' and it helped me appreciate aspects of the city that I'd otherwise have missed. Plus it's obviously helped them in terms of their developments. The CN tower was going to be 'just a communications tower' until someone thought, 'why not put an observation deck and restaurant up there and make it into a real attraction?' and because that idea fitted with the kind of city Toronto was aspiring to be, they went ahead and built one of the most iconic and record breaking buildings in the modern world - attracting millions of visitors every year. You can really see a positive investment in the arts, museums, galleries and in cultural areas such as China town. At the same time there's a thriving business community and new skycrapers are shooting up all the time.

Boston was a slightly different example as it's very clearly set up it's identity as a 'historic city' and orientates it's entire personality around it's significant role in American history, specifically during the American revolution. It's even gone so far as making a 'heritage trial' which includes a thick red line painted on the pavements and roads which leads you round all the significant buildings and historic sites which played a part in the counties history. At the same time it's set itself up as a major harbour city, with the old industrial docklands now a thriving and vibrant tourist centre with a pleasant atmosphere and lots of new apartments.

In contrast Montreal seemed the most confused (or confusing) city. This is probably partly sue to the fact that the city is culturally and linguistically split in half between the French and English speaking groups. It has a mixed history and some genuinely interesting buildings and venues, but overall didn't really seem to know what it was, or perhaps didn't really care how it appeared to 'outsiders'. As a result at times it felt rather hostile and intimidating, despite being relatively small and it was one of the few places we were actually glad to leave.

New York, well, it's like London really, it is what it is.... indescribable!

Niagara is like Blackpool, but a much friendlier, less seedy version - and it's got far more going for it in terms of one of the most awesome natural wonders in the world on it's doorstep (plus some very good indoor mini golf courses with UV illuminated marvel character adorning the greens).

My conclusions for Liverpool are, it's a good thing that we have a number of definitive, iconic characteristics, Beetles included, which ground the city and provide a usful focus for visitors, and we shouldn't be ashamed of that. Yes we're more than those things, but if we deny the very things that defined our character and culture we won't be able to move on past those things. People want to come and experience the things they know the city for first.. and we should be well equipped to let people do that, enjoy it and get it out of their system before they can start to appreciate the real subtlies and nuances that make us who we are. That's why the Beetles tours and museum, and even the new hotel are all great assetts to the city and we need to make sure they're of the highest quality possible so that people don't feel cheated, or that we don't care about our own heritage. The same goes for our football clubs.

But in addition we need to be cultivating other aspects and assets of our city. The waterfront is a prime example. Being in such a young country as North America certainly makes you realise how much of our history we take for granted. Most cities would kill to have a perfectly preserved set of historic and culturally significant buildings like the Albert Docks and the three graces in such a prime location, and yet in Liverpool they've almost been like an awkward child which no one wanted to completely abandon, yet no one wanted to take full responsibility for either. Fortunately that's changing and soon the waterfront will be a genuine 'feature' of the city, somewhere that's accessible and interesting for visitors (and residents). And this is why even though there are differences of opinion over the asthetic aspects of some elements of the Pier Head redevelopment, from a tourists perspective it's the best thing to happen to this city in a long, long time. I think that most visitors are less concerned about the specific asthetics of a particular building and are more interested in the function it performs and the general 'feel' of an area. The Pier Head and Mann Island developments will totally alter the feel of that area, which is why the fact that the new buildings are being built is more important than the specifics of their design. If the feel of the area changes signficantly then designs can be improved if necessary in years to come, but every revival has to start somewhere. Basically it's about working out what defines the city, what makes it unique, what makes it tick, and then investing in those areas first.

We shouldn't become confined by those characteristics (in Boston you did get the feeling occasionally that the town was only significant for it's history and therefore there wasn't much else to see, which wasn't true) but neither should we neglect them. This is one area where I feel Liverpool is able to excel over other cities like Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc... we know who we are and what we're about, we've got a great and famous past on which to build a new, thriving city.


2. A bold skyline with a central focus or defined clusters.

This struck me straight away – from a distance, you’re city is defined by your skyline, and the more distinctive the skyline, the greater the first impression. It’s true what people say, first impressions do count. It’s also true that last impressions matter most, but a first impression will tint the lense through which everything else is viewed. Certain cities have got it (in our travels, Toronto, New York and Niagara had it) and others (Montreal and Boston) don’t (to the same extent).

What I also realised is that it’s important to have definition in your skyline. Without the CN tower Toronto would just be another big city on the lake… with the tower Toronto has a world famous skyline, all because of one building. Boston and Montreal both have their fair share of impressively large commercial buildings, but when they’re all spread out and around a similar height, the overall effect is diminished. I also realised that this is why the twin towers were so important to New York, not only for the service they provided to the city, but because they provided a focal point on the skyline, a definitive stand out feature which said, ‘you’ve arrived, this is New York’. Without them the skyline is still impressive, partly due to the organised grid system on which it’s built, and the two distinct clusters, but because there are so many tall buildings competing for attention, you don’t come away with a clear overall impression based on the skyline alone. Think of what the Eiffel Tower does for Paris.

For years the three graces and the two cathedrals provided Liverpool’s skyline focal points, then the St John’s tower added to that, but now we’re entering a phase in which those visual landmarks are rapidly changing, and the city needs to be bold and brave in considering how it’s going to reinvent it’s skyline, where the focal points will be and how we stop ourselves from turning into ‘anywhereville’ when we have a plethora of new talls.

We also need to consider the approaches into the city. Each city is different and most cities have numerous approaches, and sometimes the cities with the best skylines have the worst approaches... arriving in New York by coach you never once get a clear view of the skyline, and if you were just passing through you'd miss it altogether. The approach to Montreal by road involves 20 minutes of driving through a concrete chaos of underpasses and derelict industrial estates.. by the time you reach the city (which is lovely in places) you're expecting an Eastern European communist state..
Liverpool is tricky by land because you don't get a clear view of the centre, so the higher we build, the better the first impression....


3. Well defined 'sectors' or villages within large cities

Big cities are hard work. After walking more miles than I care to count I realised that large sprawling cities are simply exhausting for people who are unfamiliar to them. And this is where the concept of neighbourhoods, zones, villages really helps to break up a city into manageable bite-sized chunks. Toronto was another great example of this. It's a decent sized city, but it's has a number of very well defined distinct areas which make it easy to navigate and experience in a short time. Rather than just jumping on and open top bus and seeing the whole thing in one go, it's easy and more enjoyable to explore the various districts and neighbourhoods one by one, gradually expanding to cover more and more of the city, and at the same time experiencing a wide variety of diverse cultural, social and economic elements which make up the whole.

New York also works well on this principle, and although the villages developed out of practical necessity, they make it easier to digest and navigate what would otherwise be an overwhelmingly vast urban sprawl. This was also another area that Montreal was lacking in - it had a number of streets which specialised in independent shops (and lots of sex shops), it had a financial district, it had various museums and cultural venues and a potentially impressive waterfront - but most of them seemed to have evolved by chance and there was no coherent structure to the place, everything just blended into everything else, so it made it difficult to experience the various elements of the city, because it all seemed on top of each other.

I'm not suggesting that we should create artificial zones or have segregated villages or conduct mass town planning exercises to redefine cities, but in a place like Liverpool it's about identifying the natural delineations between areas and enhancing the unique characteristics of each area and encouraging those areas to grow in their specific identity. There has to be a natural flow between the areas, but you should be able to stand in any place in the city and know where you are, other than just 'in Liverpool'. Areas like the Cavern Quarter, Ropewalks, the Albert Dock etc should all be encouraged so that as the city expands it's limits it retains it's individuality and unique areas.


4. Clear information and signage

This is a practical follow on to the previous points, but when you’re new to a city you suddenly realise how dependant you are on the local signage to help you navigate your way around, and after our experiences I’m pleased to say that I think in the UK we’re doing pretty well in this respect. We wasted a number of frustrating hours in most of the cities we visited for the simple reason that there just wasn’t adequate signage for pedestrians to navigate their way to major attractions or even just round the streets.

The one notable exception was the heritage trail in Boston which was extremely clearly signed and marked with a bold red line along the pavement, so you always knew where you were, assuming you wanted to be on the heritage trail.

Liverpool has improved greatly in this area in the last few years and it’s something that we should never underestimate the importance of for people visiting the city for the first time. Nothing makes a weary, disorientated tourist more pleased than stumbling across a large map with a big red arrow saying ‘you are here’. Signage should also give more information then simply where you are, it should tell about where you are, what’s historically significant about the area, what district you’re in etc..

We’re moving in the right direction generally (the exception being those stupid info-pods which are many times more expensive than a normal sign and many times less useful) and it’s something we should continue to invest in. One area we’ve never cracked sufficiently (as anyone who’s ever been asked on the street will know) is how to guide people from the centre of town to the Albert Dock. Hopefully the opening of L1 will make it easier to get people there, but we shouldn’t assume that people know how to get there, especially when you can’t actually see if from the centre of town. We should be actively encouraging people to see our best assets and not keeping them hidden until people accidentally stumble across them whilst looking for something else.


5. Numerous small stores instead of large department stores.

There’s been a lot of talk about getting new department stores for the city with the addition of the L1 project, but over the last few weeks my opinion on the value of large department stores has changed significantly. The North American’s know a thing or two about department stores.. when they make them, they make them big! But after a couple of visits I found myself wanting to get out of department stores as quickly as I went into them. Even in New York, we visited Macy’s (supposedly the largest department store in the world, which covers and entire block) and Bloomingdale’s – but neither excited me anywhere near as much as I’d expected.

The truth is, these days department stores are all the same and most of them offer nothing unique or exclusive that you can’t get from a number of smaller retailers, and most of them fail to offer a pleasant shopping environment as you’re simply overwhelmed with choice and bewildered by the vast array of counters and outlets.

US department stores are also very poorly signed and extremely difficult to navigate and once the novelty had worn off we found ourselves avoiding them and seeking out the smaller shops which were generally friendlier and easier to navigate. It did make me pine for John Lewis, and realise that of all the department stores in the UK John Lewis is probably my favourite in terms of the products they sell, the general cohesion of the store (as opposed to the random chaos of most department stores), the way the stores are laid out, the staff and the way the company is run. John Lewis are everything that’s good about department stores and given the choice I’d rather have flagship John Lewis than a Macy’s any day (although ideally I’d combine the prices at Macy’s with the experience of John Lewis!)

The best shopping experiences were in areas like Queens Street West in Toronto which has a wonderful mix of upscale retail outlets and funky, whacky independent retailers, none of which occupying more than two units in the row. Mixed in was a brilliant variety of restaurants, coffee shops and take aways, meaning that you could shop for hours without getting bored. Macy’s in New York probably covered a similar area in terms of retail space, but I couldn’t tolerate more than a few minutes before I wanted to get the hell out. I found this in every city we visited, and am more convinced then ever that Liverpool is heading in the right direction with it’s retail centre. We may not have the variety of shops we need yet, but between the three central streets, the Met Quarter, the Cavern Quarter, L1 and the Albert Dock Liverpool has the potential to be a vibrant and genuinely pleasant shopping experience, which brings me nicely to the next two points…


6. An 'open city' in the evening

Another factor which makes for a great city to visit is how it functions (or doesn’t) in the evening. The first major difference I noticed in North America, especially Canada is that most of the shops don’t open until 10 or 11am – which means that they also stay open until 10 or 11 pm! All in all it makes for a much more relaxed, friendly and chilled out shopping experience. If you know the shops don’t close till 10pm it has all sorts of good impacts. Firstly there isn’t the mad lunch hour dash to buy stuff or that crazy hour between 5-6 when everyone leaves work and tries to cram in as much shopping as possible before the shops shut. Likewise on the weekends you don’t get a crazy rush when every man and his dog want to do a weeks worth of shopping on a Saturday morning.

People are more laid back when they shop because they’ve got more time to do it. It also means that the city doesn’t pack up and shut down come 6pm… it just rolls quietly on into the night. It’s a great feeling going out for a meal in the evening and everything being still open, even popping in to a shop on the way back to buy a CD you forgot to buy earlier in the day. Generally speaking in North America they’ve cracked the whole evening/nightlife business, and it’s led by retailers staying open later.

Most of us have been saying the very same thing about Liverpool for ages now – a small number of shops being open until 8pm once a week does not constitute ‘late night shopping’… There needs to be a concerted effort to encourage retailers and cafes to stay open later (and restaurants to open earlier),till at least 8pm every night of the week before we’ll ever experience the sort of ‘continental’ vibrant nightlife that most of the rest of the world seems to enjoy. It would also allow shop workers to work more flexible hours (it seems ridiculous that in this day and age an entire country is still stuck in a 9-5 cycle) and potentially create more jobs and part time jobs which will benefit the economy.

Not once when I was away did I experience that scary ‘ghost town’ feeling that you get around 7pm in the centre of Liverpool when the only people who seem to be hanging around suddenly appear very sinister. And because a large portion of the workforce don’t have to be in work till 10am the next morning people are more chilled in the evening and aren’t driven by a need to get wasted on the weekends and drown their sorrows during the week. I’m not implying it’s the answer to all our woes, and that everyone else is living in an idyllic urban utopia, but it does seem as though this is one very small but significant step that could easily be taken to improve our city immeasurably.


7. Pedestrianised streets

Another contentious issue – but after trying to navigate through some of the busiest streets I’ve ever been on whilst looking for the next shop I want to visit and trying to not to get killed (or arrested for jay walking) I’ve concluded that a pedestrianised city centre is a fantastic idea. New York may be the retail capital of the world, but for an actual shopper, on foot, it’s a total nightmare to navigate. Basically you can’t walk further than a block in any direction before you’re stopped at traffic lights where you have to wait, sometimes for minutes, before you have the privaledge of taking your life into your hands and trying to cross the road.

All in all it’s a horrible experience, the sidewalks are overcrowded, you’re breathing car fumes every time you step outside a shop and it takes literally twice as long to get anywhere because of all the traffic lights. Plus it’s genuinely dangerous as taxis drive aggressively and without any care for pedestrians, often running lights and ignoring your right of way. By the time you’ve walked a few blocks you’re stressed our and exhausted, and that’s before you’ve even started shopping! And ironically it was no better if you were in a car or on a bus as you still get stopped at every block to wait for traffic lights (they’ve never heard of roundabouts) so everything crawls at a snails pace and everyone is constantly tense and impatient.

In the other cities it was generally less dangerous and less hectic, but you still had to shop on one side of the road and walk an entire block if you wanted to nip over to a shop on the other side of the street.

All in all I now fully appreciate our pedestrianised city centre more than ever and am convinced that it makes for a much safer, more relaxed shopping environment. I do think there’s a case for trams, and possibly having roads which are open to cars between certain hours, ie in the early morning and late evening, but given the choice between all or nothing, I’m extremely glad we don’t have to contend with cars in our city centre.



8. Litter (or lack of)

It’s obvious, we all know, but it’s still an issue. The absence of litter from the streets struck me almost immediately on every place we visited on our travels. It’s just so much more pleasant walking along a litter free street, and it’s an indictment of our city that for most of us it’s still a novel experience. But even worse, for visitors who come from cities where there is no litter it must be genuinely unpleasant and off putting to come to city strewn with rubbish on the streets.

What can we do about it? A mixture of provision and enforcement. Keep adding bins. The city has undergone a programme of adding new bins, and it is working, most people will put litter in a bin if they know they’ll find a bin before too long. Some people will throw litter on the pavement even if they’re standing right by a bin, that’s when you need enforcement. Start giving out on the spot fines, pay people to be litter wardens in the same way as we have traffic wardens (although make them undercover). They’d easily cover their own costs, and once they stop covering their own costs hopefully that will show they’re no longer needed.

Since being away I’ve become really concerned about the awful impression this city must given based on it’s litter and think this should be an urgent priority in the coming months before 2008.


9. Transport

Ok so this is a ‘biggy’ – and I won’t go into the ins and outs of the importance of an integrated public transport network connecting the city etc… what I will say from my experiences of other major cities is that from the perspective of a short term visitor, the single most important element of your transport system (apart from things running on time) is how clearly the information is presented.

For example you could have the most extensive public transport network in the world, but if you can’t communicate how it works to someone, it’s useless to a visitor. I’d rather have a small scale, less frequent service that I can actually understand, than a rapid, sprawling network which I have no clue how to use. For example in Toronto they have a great tram system, but there’s no little information on how you use it, where it stops, when it runs etc. The only time I used it was when I asked a local who was about to board it. And even if you do figure out where it stops and when and manage to get on you’re confronted with a non communicating driver and an automated fare system which only takes exact change (no notes). Likewise with the buses in New York, my wife and I waited ages for a bus, only to get on and be told that we couldn’t pay for our fare with notes (even though we had the exact money) and we’d have to get off and go to a metro station to buy a metro card!

The New York subway is another example, in theory it’s a great system and it seems like it should be relatively clear (mostly tracks are given either numbers or letters and run north to south) but try navigating a subway station and it’s a different story. Most of the time you have no idea if you’ve ended up on the right track and even when a train arrives you don’t know where it’s going. Also there’s no one around to ask and very little written information.

The question we need to ask to make the system more visitor friendly is ‘could an idiot use the information provided to get where they needed to go?’ and if not ‘can they find this information out from anyone in person?’ I think we score fairly highly on both those questions at the moment, and my travels made me appreciate the fact that we still sell tickets in person and that any bus driver or ticket inspector can give information to people who need it. In New York we walked for about 20 minutes in one station before we could find anyone who could answer a simple question about our train. The one thing they have got right over there is the taxis which are all clearly marked and are legally obliged to display a very clear information sheet in the taxi which states the rates of the fare and display the running total. This is a great relief for a visitor as it takes the expensive mystery out of getting taxis.


10. Food

It sounds obvious, but when you’re visiting a city, unless you’re staying with friends and family, you eat out. It is obvious, but when you live in a place you don’t realise how important it is that your city has a good enough variety of types and prices of food on offer. In the last 3 weeks we probably had more meals out than in the previous 3 years, so we got a lot of experience of good, and bad cuisine.

We all know it’s important that the city offers the best possible selection of places to eat out, and generally speaking I think that although we don’t have quite the number, or variety of places that we should have, we at least have a good pick of quality restaurants to offer. There’s nothing worse than paying over the odds for dodgy food (which we did a few times).

Simple observations – when people come to a new city, especially from another country there’s an innate desire to try the ‘local delicacy’. That one gastronomic anomaly which is the best of it’s kind anywhere in the world, something unique and distinctively ‘local’. In Toronto we had amazing grilled sausages which they sell on tiny carts along the roadside for about $3 each, in Montreal we had a bizarre cheesy, gravey chips things and some good smoked fish, in Boston we had fresh lobster and crab and clam chowder, in New York we had incredible deli sub sandwiches, fresh bagels with cream cheese and smoked salmon, pretzels, cheesecake and a $70 porterhouse steak(!) and in Niagara we had lots of fudge and ice cream… (you hungry yet?) the point is, in each place we sought out the few dishes which they were famous for – and to a greater or lesser extent really enjoyed them. Which makes me wonder what we’d serve people if they asked for a local dish, and why we don’t have good quality scouse on more menu’s round the city?

And expanding on that idea, what makes a city a great place to eat is the local restaurants, those unique little places which you won’t find anywhere else. Sure it’s fine to have your brand name chains, but the greater the diversity of truly local eating places the better the experience. I think we need to encourage more independent restaurants, coffee shops and deli’s, and if necessary place restrictions on the number of corporate branches of chains like Subway, McDoonalds, Starbucks etc to great space for new businesses to start up without the intense competition cutting them out before they can make a go of it. That’s not to say we should accept low standards, I’d rather have a good sandwich from subway than a bad sandwich from a local café – but finding ways to encourage high quality regionally focussed restaurants is a challenge for this city, especially once it holds the title ‘Capital of Culture’.


11 - (I cheated!). Friendly, helpful locals

Lastly(!), but not leastly, you just can’t underestimate the value of a friendly, outgoing, cheerful, helpful local population. And I’ve got to say, generally speaking we’ve really got one over on them on this score. Personally I found Canadians to be quite cold, and when they were friendly it didn’t seem sincere. Americans were much more outgoing, but often over the top (especially in shops, ‘Hi how are you, how’s your day, can I help you with anything, are you looking for anything?’ before you’ve got more than two steps, but then if you do ask for help they don’t always back it up) and again not terribly sincere. The most friendly place was Boston, were people clearly see a lot of tourists, but don’t seem to be so rushed that they don’t have time for you. In one diner in Canada they even had a sign over the till area saying ‘this is where the waitresses come to gossip about you when you’re waiting for your order’… which would have been funny, if you didn’t have a sneaking suspicion that it was actually true.

In most stores assistants are trained to appear friendly and ask all the right questions, but aren’t actually very good at being helpful if you do have a question, and can get quite irate if you ask a question which falls outside of their text book response list (whereas in the UK most assistants aren’t very friendly or helpful at all until you manage to get their attention at which point they tend to be better at meeting your needs). On the street I found that people just aren’t as courteous and everyone has a ‘you’re in my right of way’ attitude so you often find yourself on the road as people walk past without making way. No one holds doors open (and are surprised when you do it for them) and generally there’s a bit more of an everyman for himself attitude which surprised me.

I knew I was home when the second we got in the taxi at Liverpool airport the driver started gabbing on to us as if we’d been met by an old friend and didn’t stop until we were at our front door. I think this city is one of the most friendly places I’ve ever had the pleasure of visiting, and aside from a small minority, the people of this city are the greatest asset and the best guarantee that visitors will enjoy their stay. I always used to be surprised when people commented on how friendly scousers were, assuming that everyone was like that, but these recent travels have proved that there is something unique in the warmth and humour in this city and it’s of immeasurable value to the city.

-----------

Here endeths the essay! Sorry it turned out to be such a long winded post... congratulations (or commisserations) if you read it all.... if you've got any other thoughts... just click 'reply'... but if youjust read all that, have yourself a first.

[begsy]

Top post Tom.

[T0M]

Originally Posted by begsy

Top post Tom.

Cheers ears.. does that mean you actually read it!! If so, have a pint on me lad!

[Joe the red]

You couldn't expand on that brief summation could you Tom.

[T0M]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

You couldn't expand on that brief summation could you Tom.

Don't tempt me.... I have 3,500 photos to append my thesis with...

[Awayo]

Boston is an example of a city that has paid to little attention to its history and its essential urban fabric in particular. Things are improving now, but what happened to its south end and the horrendous motorway that cut through its heart and separated the CBD from the city's waterfront and its historic north End is worse than anything that Liverpool suffered.

Add to that the concrete groundscraping bunker of its civic centre and adjacent highway, right next to the State House and the scene of the Boston "Massacre" and the obliteration of much of Charlestown (site of the Bunker Hill monument) and parts of the Back Bay in the 60s and you count your blessings Beacon Hill survived.

[T0M]

Originally Posted by Awayo

Boston is an example of a city that has paid to little attention to its history and its essential urban fabric in particular. Things are improving now, but what happened to its south end and the horrendous motorway that cut through its heart and separated the CBD from the city's waterfront and its historic north End is worse than anything that Liverpool suffered.

Add to that the concrete groundscraping bunker of its civic centre and adjacent highway, right next to the State House and the scene of the Boston "Massacre" and the obliteration of much of Charlestown (site of the Bunker Hill monument) and parts of the Back Bay in the 60s and you count your blessings Beacon Hill survived.

I didn't know that - which shows that it's done a good job of improving it's image and placing it's heritage higher in the priority chain. There are some awkward juxtapositions of old and new, some actually work well, but others less so (the civic centre is a monstrous building, which I both admire and loath at the same time). There were some areas which still seemed a bit haphazard and not very well planned, the dock area around the USS Consitution for one. It's a shame they lost so much of Charlestown, it sounded amazing. Overall though I got a good impression from the city and would definately go back as the natural beauty of the surrounding area means there are endless places to visit and explore if you use boston as a base.

[sloyne]

Originally Posted by T0M

I think this city is one of the most friendly places I’ve ever had the pleasure of visiting, and aside from a small minority, the people of this city are the greatest asset and the best guarantee that visitors will enjoy their stay. I always used to be surprised when people commented on how friendly scousers were, assuming that everyone was like that, but these recent travels have proved that there is something unique in the warmth and humour in this city and it’s of immeasurable value to the city.

Surprised it took a NA vacation for you to realise this. Scouser's and the river have always been Liverpool's greatest asset. Excellent read, thanks for the post.

PS: I agree with most of what you wrote.

[Awayo]

Originally Posted by T0M

I didn't know that - which shows that it's done a good job of improving it's image and placing it's heritage higher in the priority chain. There are some awkward juxtapositions of old and new, some actually work well, but others less so (the civic centre is a monstrous building, which I both admire and loath at the same time). There were some areas which still seemed a bit haphazard and not very well planned, the dock area around the USS Consitution for one. It's a shame they lost so much of Charlestown, it sounded amazing. Overall though I got a good impression from the city and would definately go back as the natural beauty of the surrounding area means there are endless places to visit and explore if you use boston as a base.

Thanks for the reply, Tomskers. Those bits that have survived are often lovely, however. The boulevards of the Back Bay, Beacon Hill and the surviving parts of Charlestown. And nowadays they are perserved and looked after. Boston being a very successful city helps. Although there must be lessons for Liverpool in how this old and once declining port (with massive social and economic problems as recently as the late 60s - race riots, the lot) is again one of the richest cities in North America.

Boston was the first old city in the USA that I'd visited and it was an eerie experience spending so long on a jet plane and later wandering around a new and very distant city who's architecture (in Beacon Hill, at least) was so reminicient of back home. Even it is was only owing to Boston's reddish/brown bricks, I found its Georgian parts a lot more evocative of Canning than of the Georgian parts of London. Goldie pointed out elsewhere on this forum that Boston's old streets are mostly older than Liverpool's and so the streets on Beacon Hill are narrower, and a little less regular than the grand, wide axes of Canning's grid, but the littler snickets and ginnels of Liverpool's Georgian corner, such as Little St Bride Street was very like the side streets of Beacon Hill I thought. I suppose, in London, outside of the centre, in places like Greenwich and Hampstead, you find a not dissimilar streetscape.

[T0M]

Originally Posted by sloyne

Surprised it took a NA vacation for you to realise this. Scouser's and the river have always been Liverpool's greatest asset. Excellent read, thanks for the post.

PS: I agree with most of what you wrote.

Cheers sloyne, I guess I always knew about our greatest assets, it was more a case of having it confirmed by being somewhere so different, yet so similar. Glad you enjoyed the read, it's hard trying to get meaningful insights from a relatively short stay somewhere and you always end up making sweaping generalisations... so I hope I didn't offend anyone..

[T0M]

Originally Posted by Awayo

Thanks for the reply, Tomskers. Those bits that have survived are often lovely, however. The boulevards of the Back Bay, Beacon Hill and the surviving parts of Charlestown. And nowadays they are perserved and looked after. Boston being a very successful city helps. Although there must be lessons for Liverpool in how this old and once declining port (with massive social and economic problems as recently as the late 60s - race riots, the lot) is again one of the richest cities in North America.

Boston was the first old city in the USA that I'd visited and it was an eerie experience spending so long on a jet plane and later wandering around a new and very distant city who's architecture (in Beacon Hill, at least) was so reminicient of back home. Even it is was only owing to Boston's reddish/brown bricks, I found its Georgian parts a lot more evocative of Canning than of the Georgian parts of London. Goldie pointed out elsewhere on this forum that Boston's old streets are mostly older than Liverpool's and so the streets on Beacon Hill are narrower, and a little less regular than the grand, wide axes of Canning's grid, but the littler snickets and ginnels of Liverpool's Georgian corner, such as Little St Bride Street was very like the side streets of Beacon Hill I thought. I suppose, in London, outside of the centre, in places like Greenwich and Hampstead, you find a not dissimilar streetscape.

More interesting info - I guess on reflection there are a lot of similarities between Boston and Liverpool, some of which I spoted at the time, others I missed but can see now. The one thing i did come away with was a great sense of the potential that Liverpool has to utilise it's great assets such as the river and it's historic buildings. Boston is currently defining itself as the birthplace of modern America through it's role in the revolution and in some ways has the advantage of being able to focus on a very specific point in its history, whereas Liverpool has a much longer, more diverse and meandering history which is hard to summarise as neatly as Boston does. But it still shows that we are to some extend underselling our own history, a few clearly marked walking trails would be a good start (ones you can do without needing a guide or a map).

I also enjoyed the sense that Boston has a much more 'towny' feel to a lot of other major American cities, we stayed in a 130 year old house in Dorchester and it was nice to experience the real suburbian life. Also we found Bostonians the most friendly people on our tour (including a police man who we asked for directions to a restaurant ('The Barking Crab') who was very applogetic that he didn't know and promtly radioed control to get the information for us). We did the whale watching excersion which was good fun and reasonable value but didn't get to enjoy any of the great beaches sadly as our stay was too short. Would definately like to go back.

[Awayo]

I found Bostonians to be very friendly as well. In the States New Englanders can have a stereotypical reputation of being cold/snobby, etc., but that wasn't my experience.

What greater Boston has that Liverpool doesn't is two of the world's leading universities (and plenty more pretty good ones) and all the high-tech spin off, intellectual capital benefits that they provide. Liverpool's universities are so-so by even UK provincial standards. Why is Liverpool Uni lagging behind Sheffield Uni for example in all of the league tables that I see?

Otherwise, however, in architectural and historical assets Liverpool has all the potential that Boston has - will we ever see it realised.

Boston's historical importance is great - a handful of events that happened there gave rise to what is now the greatest nation on earth and, as you've noticed their tourist industry is largely based on this claim to fame.

However, Liverpool for two or three centuries was one of the most important cities in the world (for a brief moment, arguably the most important international commercial centre on the planet), a more important city than Boston. Its history is intertwined with that of nations and cities all over the world. It should be a cinch to market it. All we get, though is the Beatles (fair enough but still...) and a huge focus on the slave trade. In the latter case, so much so that I increasingly get the impression that the "received" version of history for most British people was that Liverpool became rich only on the slave trade and then collapsed into whinging, subsidy-mongering victim mentality status as soon as the city (being totally evil, of course) no longer was allowed to pursue its evil trade.

[liverpolitan]

Excellent post Tom, that is a very useful essay. An embarrassing and cheesy truth is that Liverpool is a friendly city to visit, more so than many others around the world (and so, incidentally, is Manchester, I think that is one of the things those two cities have in common) and as you rightly point out that can't be manufactured.

[Isaac Newell]

Interesting stuff, I'm a little surprised by your view about Montreal but maybe I'm biased as it's my favourite North American city. It has it's own distinct architecture in those rows of cold water flats with the metal staircases, it has great inner suburban neighbourhoods in the "east end" on the plateau, places like Mile End and Outremont with long streets of non chain shops and cafes. To me it genuinly feels like it knows what it is and is glad of it.

The problem is language and the history of the French speakers as second class citizens. This allied to the sepratist movement and the assertiveness of French lingustic laws in the province of Quebec has caused the economy to decline and the English speakers and their businesses to flee.

This has left the city looking neglected in parts but it is on the up. The trick with Montreal is to speak as much French as possible, the fight for language rights has been hard and needs to be respected. People know when you are trying (an failing like me) and the general attitude becomes more friendly.

For me it's a real treat to be able to walk around a city and immerse yourself into it's streets and culture. Montreal offers the chance to do that more than any other North American city.

[Martin S]

I read your brief travel notes to the end Tom - very interesting.

Of those cities you describe, I have been to three of them. I would love to see Boston and Toronto but I have been to Montreal (many years ago, my main memory was seeing the Expo 67 site and going into a shop and being spoken to in French for the first time ever) and Niagara (honestly, I wasn't even aware it was a city, the main attraction being the falls and having a meal in the Skylon restaurant) and New York (three times).

One thing that you didn't mention about Montreal and I remember Sloyne talking about a year or so ago was the network of underground shopping streets (also in Toronto I understand) which help people walk about in the warm when it is all ice and snow above.

We may not have such an extreme climate in Liverpool but I have often wondered if we could adapt this idea by converting the little-used side streets of the city into covered arcades lined with shops, restaurants etc so that on gloomy, drizzly days people can have a pleasant environment in the city centre and also a pedestrian grid to improve accessibility between the main shopping and commercial areas.

New York is the city I have visited by far the most and which I have a particular affection for. New Yorkers pride themselves on their rudeness and unfriendliness to strangers (A Japanese tourist goes up to a New Yorker and asks '"Can you please tell me where to find the Empire State Building or should I go fuck myself again?") but that has not been my experience. People even talk to you on the subway, which is a criminal offence on the London Underground.

The thing I like about New York and which makes it very different from London is the sense of it being, despite its great size, a rather small town. Perhaps that has got to do with Manhattan being an island (only half the size of Liverpool) and also the fact that its geography is so easy to comprehend.

Though I lived in London for nine years, walking in Knightsbridge a few weeks ago, it occured to me that I had hardly any idea of where I would get to if I travelled North, South, East or West. After only a few days in New York, I felt I could give directions much as if I was in Liverpool.

In the case of New York, that comprehensibility comes about because of the long straight streets and the rivers either side plus the tall iconic buildings, which define certain areas. In Liverpool, we have the river and the Cathedral ridge and familiar structures like St Johns Beacon and the Liver Building. I, for one, am glad that our main area of skyscraper development will be in the north end of the city as it will aid, rather than detract from the comprehensibility.

Customer service is an important point. In Liverpool it is far from consistent and its probably the case that small, independent retailers offer far better service than large organisations, with the notable exception of places like John Lewis.

Although it is probably over ten years ago now, I still remember going up to the ticket counter at the Mersey Ferries office and waiting patiently for the man serving to finish his phone call. When he finally put the phone down, I thought he would be ready to serve me. Instead, without a word of apology, he picked up the phone again and started on another conversation. I remember thinking that it was a good job I wasn't a tourist.

Issues like litter are a constant problem but I do believe that the situation is improving, even if it still has a long way to go to meet the standards of the cities you mention. I remember coming home for Christmas in the 80s and trudging ankle deep through litter in Church Street.

More bins, more rubbish collection and fines (or even Asbos) for persistent offenders are probably the solutions. The streets also need to be pressure washed at frequent intervals to remove not only chewing gum but the accumulated dirt that clings to some pavements. There are some places (notably under the canopy in Great Charlotte Street by Wetherspoons) where your shoes stick to the pavement.

This situation has got worse recently with the smoking ban but I do notice that a lot of pubs and bars are sweeping up the accumulated ash and cigarette ends outside their doorways. It would be good if traders could take responsibility for the sections of pavement outside shops etc by washing them down on a daily basis as they do in Paris.

Anyway Tom, thanks for introducing the topic - look forward to seeing ten photos a day till the end of September 08.

[Tony Sebo]

They (Boston) had the original 'Big Dig' that put much of the damaging 60s' infrastructure underground and has enabled them to start focusing on the gridded legibility again.


Good post Tom, though I can't agree with your opinion on pedestrianisation. Where do you stop once ytou start on the 'path'? I think the piece does give a good starting point to check off what makes a great city though.

Originally Posted by Awayo

Boston is an example of a city that has paid to little attention to its history and its essential urban fabric in particular. Things are improving now, but what happened to its south end and the horrendous motorway that cut through its heart and separated the CBD from the city's waterfront and its historic north End is worse than anything that Liverpool suffered.

Add to that the concrete groundscraping bunker of its civic centre and adjacent highway, right next to the State House and the scene of the Boston "Massacre" and the obliteration of much of Charlestown (site of the Bunker Hill monument) and parts of the Back Bay in the 60s and you count your blessings Beacon Hill survived.

[Awayo]

Yeah, the tunnels are starting to leak a bit now. Hell, they were ambitious, they'll work through it. The new tunnels are great. Coupled with the city's almost downtown airport, they allow you to get a taxi from the airport, disappear down a tunnel and pop up again at the end of one of the grand boulevards of the Back Bay, right in the centre of town.

Liverpool's dig (some new pavements, a rethought one-way system and a tram that hasn't happened) was not big.

[LABlue]

Cant say I know why particularly but heres my own views on the best and the worst I have visited over the years. All the others were 'meh'

Best

Liverpool
London
Chicago
Boston
Vancouver
Washington DC
New York
Rio
Hong Kong
Singapore
San Francisco
San Diego


Worst

Manila
Delhi
Philadelphia
Dallas
Los Angeles
Bogota
Caracas

[Awayo]

Phillie? Oooh, wouldn't agree there. Center City, at least, it's great - dense, full of character, crammed full of history, intensely urban.

San Diego was good in theory, but a bit "meh" in reality. I didn't seem to have much "soul", awful expression but you get what I mean.

[LABlue]

Originally Posted by Awayo

Phillie? Oooh, wouldn't agree there. Center City, at least, it's great - dense, full of character, crammed full of history, intensely urban.

San Diego was good in theory, but a bit "meh" in reality. I didn't seem to have much "soul", awful expression but you get what I mean.

I could probably upgrade Phillie from a 'worst' to a 'meh' but I thought it was a bit overrated.

I still like San Diego - even if the dominating buildings on the waterfront are the Manchester Hyatt - why they are called that who knows ??

I also think theres a big difference between being a visitor to a city and being a resident.

Ooh I just remembered another one for the best list - Cairo (to visit-not to live)