Talk:Mission Hill, Boston

message: I appreciate your comments on this matter and am sorry that it has apparently caused you great frustration.  As you see in my second paragraph of comments above, the realization that my understanding might be flawed was dawning on me prior to your admonishment.  After checking with the City of Boston website and some other sources I feel I was wrong and you are correct on the point of Mission Hill not being considered a part of Roxbury today.  I am glad to end 2006 with a reminder of the wisdom of questioning what one knows.
By way of explanation, my understanding was not only based on historical record but also on living memory of a situation which has changed only in recent decades.  Knowing many people who grew up on Mission Hill when it was universally regarded as a section of Roxbury just as Forest Hills is still regarded as a section of Jamaica Plain put some very definate ideas in my mind.
I've spent considerable time on the Hill myself and was never confronted by evidence to the contrary.  I hope you're satisfied that I've eaten my crow and will be open-minded to the explanation that most everything you list as defining Mission Hill as being on an equal categorical level with (for example) Hyde Park or Back Bay actually does not.  Forest Hill has parking stickers.  Newbury Street has a newspaper.  Washington Street has a naming program.  Many minor areas of the city have library branches or community associations with the name of that area.  There is one of those round blue signs for New Market (or maybe its South Bay, I don't recall which).  The zip code situation in Boston is way more complex than you may realize.
So what does define a neighborhood in Boston?  That's the rub.  There are no official boundaries to these neighborhoods, only (often debated) conventions.  They only exist de facto and don’t exist de jure.  Even this official document regarding City Council districts is meant to reflect rather than define the names and boundaries of the neighborhoods (it is defines districts instead).  This is the same document which is excerpted here on the City of Boston website.  My admission that your view is more correct than the one I advocated is based in part on the fact that Mission Hill is listed in its column as MH rather than listed as ROX/Mission Hill the way ROX/Highland Park is listed.
It's often claimed that Harvard and its Longwood Area neighbors acted successfully to have that territory not considered Roxbury.  In a similar vein, West Roxbury absorbs several streets of  Roslindale each decade as homes in the Roslindale side of the undefined border are listed and sold as being in West Roxbury; The Roslindale post office delivers an ever-increasing mail load that reads "West Roxbury, MA 02131".   My guess is that he relative speed in which Mission Hill has grown to be considered separate was driven by the desire of property owners (institutional and private) to not be in Roxbury.
Harvard's Rappaport Institute has this great article about the ambiguous neighborhood boundaries of Boston that is so worth reading in whole that I won't excerpt from it here.  Keeping the spirit of this article in mind while writing this Forest Hills, Boston article, I avoided the pitfall of pedanticism and prescriptivism when discussing the boundaries of Forest Hills and the White City subsection.  With Mission Hill, unfortunately, I stuck my foot in it.
  
All articles about Boston areas should note the ambiguity that frequently surrounds city geography.  Accordingly, I think somewhere in the Mission Hill article it would be very informative and accurate to mention (maybe in the history section) something along the lines of:  
Until recent decades, the Mission Hill neighborhood was considered a section of Roxbury immediately around Mission and Parker Hill and extending only about as far as the Brigham Circle area.  Now Mission Hill is almost always regarded as separate from Roxbury and refers to the much larger area described above.
I hope this epistle is well-met not only as a satisfying concession in the specific debate at hand but also as at least somewhat interestingly illustrative of now complex the issue of neighborhood is in Boston.  Happy New Year.  House of Scandal 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concession 

message: I highly agree. I've been to many community meetings where distinct boundries are characteristically ambiguous. Not that they shouldn't be in some way. Neighborhoods grow, change, prosper and decline -- then begin the process again. This is the beauty of cities. In this, boundries often move around as well.
The institutions in Mission Hill, those that can be definately tied to the neighborhood -- Brigham & Womens', Harvard Medical, Public and Dental, and DFCI -- have sought to be away from the Hill but I do think that is changing. Many are realizing the area's rising political might.
Your wording should be included somewhere on geography, true. And perhaps, additionally, on the Neighborhoods in Boston page, we could go with what the City currently says the neighborhoods are and use their map. I'll see what I can do in this respect, post it and see where it flys.
Thanks for the excellent references.151.203.20.147 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed 

message: In spite of what real estate agents want to tell you, Mission Hill is, and always was, part of Roxbury. Mission Hill is not analagous to Jamaica Plain. Jamaica Plain seceded from Roxbury as part of West Roxbury, before it was annexed by Boston. Mission Hill was never independent and self-governing in any official sense. The existance of special parking stickers notwithstanding, Mission Hill remains part of Roxbury as Hyde Square is part of Jamaica Plain. MarkinBoston 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Hill is Roxbury 

message: MarkinBoston,
Please do not try to change the facts. Mission Hill is a recongized, independent neighborhood of Boston, as attested by offical documents from the City, the Mayor's Office, and the BRA. We are are the same as Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway and South End in that we are a neighborhood. True there is no self-governance, but there isn't for any of the other neighborhoods either. Roxbury was once huge, as it was a city in its own right -- just like Dorchester. But it isn't anymore. Roxbury is a neighborhood -- something defined by those that live there and the city that governs them. Roxbury is Dudley Square and on the other side of Columbus Ave. Multiple maps point to this fact. Mission Hill is its own and proud of this.
This has been discussed earlier on this page and concluded. 141.154.31.196 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: City sign SAYS that Mission Hill is part of Boston, but what PART of Boston.  It's IN Roxbury Crossing (02120), which is all part of Roxbury, Boston. MaynardClark (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Hill is it's own neighborhood 

message: Why is this article collecting a list of external links to unremarkable local businesses?  An encyclopedia shouldn't be functioning as directory.  These sections should be cut back to the root or removed entirely. --House of Scandal (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellow Pages?

message: I propose that this be the primary article under Mission Hill. It's a more intelligent and relevant article in an encyclopedic sense than that of a failed television show. Let's stop Wikigroaning here, shall we? 132.177.45.143 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Hill Redirect 

message: The article reads: "In 1870, the Redemptorist Fathers built a humble wooden mission church that was replaced by an impressive Roxbury puddingstone structure in 1876."  My understanding is that the Mission Church 'puddingstone' building was completed in 1878, not 1876.  Some give the date at 1879. The Wikipedia article Basilica and Shrine of Our Lady of Perpetual Help gives the completion date as 1878.  For that reason, I'm changing the date in the Mission Hill article. MaynardClark (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mission Church

message: I would question the accuracy of "the population of approximately 18,000 people" (I have been told, consistently, that the poulation of the Mission Hill area is about 12,000). MaynardClark (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that CURRENT Mission Hill population is about 19,000. MaynardClark (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: The Brigham Circle photograph shows the Mission Hill sign that still says "Mayor Tom Menino" - a newer photograph is needed (with a more current Mission Hill sign). MaynardClark (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The same sign is still there (though I don't know if Walsh's name is now on it). I don't think the former mayor's name in the current picture takes away from what it's trying to portray. Grk1011 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The REPLACEMENT signs were installed SOON AFTER Marty Walsh replace Tom Menino.   One of us with a faster camera could take better photographs during the daytime. MaynardClark (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

text: No, it's not a good use of time and resources. I've changed it back to the older picture because it actually shows something. It's a street view with the distant Mission Church and the sign. If someone wants to take a similar picture with the updated Mayor that's fine, but a wicked zoomed version of just the sign doesn't add much to the article and IMO is not suitable as the main image. Grk1011 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Re-emphasizing this point. The older picture is better overall. It doesn't matter that the old mayor's name is on the sign. The sign portrays the business district of the neighborhood. It's purpose is not to remind the reader of who the current mayor is. Grk1011 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, BUT so MANY persons in Boston and Mission Hill had asked for a newer photograph.  Mission Hill residents will NOT be very happy with the change to an outdated photograph. MaynardClark (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Fixed - August 2016 I shot in the daytime and uploaded a new set of daytime photos in August 2016. MaynardClark (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Aged photographs

message: Someone tried to 'improve' footnotes 31, 32, and 34 but 'messed them up'.  Could someone who CAN properly footnote those online websites please repair footnotes 31, 32, and 34? MaynardClark (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Repair footnotes 31, 32, and 34