Erie Canal Takes Center Stage In Boston-Philly Debate

Two weeks ago, Julia Vitullo-Martin had a piece in the Wall Street Journal talking about how much better Boston is than Philadelphia. Blah blah blah.

The Daily News ended up reprinting the article last week, and Mark Alan Hughes responded earlier this week in the DN, and said that… uh… the Erie Canal was what made New York City great, while Philly rules and we shouldn’t respond to Vitullo-Martin’s column because of tipping points and straw men and Rittenhouse Square and blah blah blah in a column that probably hurts Philly’s image more than the original WSJ one.

Today, Hughes gets a letter responding to his column. Naturally, it’s about his criticism of the Erie Canal:

I wrote a book on New York City’s water and have one coming on the Erie Canal. As to water, Philadelphia’s brilliant Fairmount system was world famous while New Yorkers were still dying from wells sunk next to privies; a lot of good geography and the civic will of one now obscure alderman (Myndert Van Schaick) eventually delivered excellent mountain water to New York City. As to canaling, New York was favored by geography with the only break in the 1,000-mile Appalachian chain, and the extraordinary political will of DeWitt Clinton.

For my money, two things are key to any city’s greatness: chance and character. So, buck up, Philadelphia, and find yourself a hero.

Alright. All we need to do is find an top-notch alderman and we’re set. Get on it, people!

A little N.Y. history and a geography lesson [Daily News]
Mark Alan Hughes | Smart thinking on a witless diss [Daily News]
A Tale of Several Cities [WSJ]