Boston population rises to 645K

M

Mike

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
302
Boston population rises to 645K
June 22, 2010
By Globe Staff


Seeing more traffic on the roads, more homes being built, more people on the sidewalks? There may be a good reason.

Boston's population has jumped to more than 645,000 people, according to new Census estimates released today.

The July 1, 2009 estimate of 645,169 was up up from 636,748, the estimate the year before. And the number capped a decade of strong growth, with the city's population surging by more than 50,000 -- or 9.5 percent -- from the April 2000 Census estimate of 589,143.

With the increase, the city ranked 20th among the nation's largest cities. New York led with nearly 8.4 million residents, followed by Los Angeles, with 3.8 million, Chicago, with 2.9 million, and Houston, with 2.3 million.

In 2008, Boston's population rose over 600,000 for the first time since the 1970s, after the city challenged the Census Bureau's counts and the bureau revised the number upwards.

The annual estimates update Census counts to reflect births, deaths, and migration. They are also adjusted based on factors such as typical demolition rates, which are estimated using the ages of buildings. The adjustments are statistical estimates rather than actual counts.


Link
 
With the city opening its generous arms to the homeless, welfare, and illegal alien crowd, color me unsurprised there would be a large upshot in population during a recession. All the goodies are here for the taking.

If anything with all the job losses and the high cost of living, the city's population should have gone down.
 
You may be right, but I wonder how many of those folks show up in a census?
 
Lurker said:
With the city opening its generous arms to the homeless, welfare, and illegal alien crowd, color me unsurprised there would be a large upshot in population during a recession. All the goodies are here for the taking.
Click to expand...

Bitter? Even IF they were counted in this ESTIMATE they would be a very small percent of the total population. You just want to vent.
 
Most of the growth in Boston's population this past decade preceded the recession.

July 2000: 590K
July 2001: 602K
July 2002: 608K
July 2003: 608K
July 2004: 607K
July 2005: 610K
July 2006: 612K
July 2007: 623K
July 2008: 637K
July 2009: 645K

But really nothing to exult over. Among the top 20 cities, the only ones whose population is estimated to have declined between 2007 and 2009 are Memphis and Detroit.

New Orleans:
July 2000: 484,000
July 2004: 462,000
July 2006: 209,000
July 2009: 355,000
 
Dear Admin: is there a rule on this board against calling another member a 'douchebag'?
 
When will the numbers from the 2010 census be released? I wonder how the 2009 estimate will measure up to the actual measured numbers.
 
Bitter about people moving from outside the city into the city (some of which aren't even from the state or legally even eligible for government services) for the sole purpose of collecting tax revenue, which in turn stresses existing social services and thus reduces the quality of services for long existing residents? Why yes!

You might want to consider that in the 30 years or so I've lived in Boston, my neighborhood has gone from the ghetto skid row of literary nightmares to millionaires row, that gives me a certain perspective on city demographic changes. I have a really hard time believing that the city's population is growing significantly from any other segment than those whom are seeking easier access to government services, when employers within the city limits have been in decline.
 
So going from "ghetto skid row" to "millionaires row" is due to people seeking easier access to government services? what convoluted explanation is behind that one?
 
Lurker said:
I have a really hard time believing that the city's population is growing significantly from any other segment than those whom are seeking easier access to government services, when employers within the city limits have been in decline.
Click to expand...

So you don't include college students in your homeless/welfare queen/illegal alien crowd? Because I am willing to bet college students are fluffing the numbers waaaay more than homeless/welfare/aliens. You sound like every urban pioneer I've ever met, old, bitter, and having a conspiratorial level of distaste for anyone less fortunate than you.
 
"So going from "ghetto skid row" to "millionaires row" is due to people seeking easier access to government services? what convoluted explanation is behind that one?"

No, that comment was to clarify that I understand what is to live surrounded by everyone from ethnic militants (no really, there used to be some very angry people in the South End and Roxbury that were fairly hostile and determined to break away from the Boston), hobos (the alley used to be waist deep in trashbags), and crackheads (it was the 1980s!) to the trust fund or McMillionaire ivy league crowd.

College students don't get counted on population counts as permanent residents. Boston, and many university heavy cities, get shafted from not having this population counted towards receiving tax monies from the state and federal government.

I think you would have a vastly different opinion Van if you had to deal with a sudden and alarming uptick in criminal activity stemming from the Pine Street Inn.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
I think you would have a vastly different opinion Van if you had to deal with a sudden and alarming uptick in criminal activity stemming from the Pine Street Inn.
Click to expand...

I would because I would know the difference between population growth and an increase in homelessness due to the recession. You seem to just want to put the blame on the less fortunate because that is all you see.

What I meant by students were the ones that move here, especially for graduate school. Those get counted.
 
The homeless committing the crime aren't newly homeless due to the recession. These are long time street dwellers with a criminal record that were no longer able to mooch off public assistance down south that have since taken a Greyhound Bus north to partake in our city and state's noted generousity. Every spring there is an influx and in the fall an exodus, but this year seems to have brought a mother load of troublemakers to the PSI.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
You sound like every urban pioneer I've ever met, old, bitter, and having a conspiratorial level of distaste for anyone less fortunate than you.
Click to expand...

You left out guns, man. We got 'em and know how to use them!
 
Lurker said:
The homeless committing the crime aren't newly homeless due to the recession. These are long time street dwellers with a criminal record that were no longer able to mooch off public assistance down south that have since taken a Greyhound Bus north to partake in our city and state's noted generousity. Every spring there is an influx and in the fall an exodus, but this year seems to have brought a mother load of troublemakers to the PSI.
Click to expand...

So how does this account for the steady increase in population? You seem to be saying that it is only because of the homeless. This brings me back to my initial argument, you are just bitter because that's what you see everyday.

Yes homelessness is on the rise but it is such a small segment of the population (BTW, are they counted by the census?) that your argument just seems ridiculous and petty.
 
I doubt bums are counted in the census unless Acorn is running the Census Bureau.

P.S. Wasn't it Mel King who wanted the South End and Roxbury to secede? I forget.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
With the city opening its generous arms to the homeless, welfare, and illegal alien crowd, color me unsurprised there would be a large upshot in population during a recession. All the goodies are here for the taking.

If anything with all the job losses and the high cost of living, the city's population should have gone down.
Click to expand...

Actually I have to argue against that statement. It's possible with job losses and high cost of living that people move into the city (especially if it's just job losses and the cost of living didn't rise much if at all). First of all, by moving closer to the city, it decreases travel cost. Second, house prices dropped making more sense to actually move back into the city, than out. Third, there are more jobs in the city than in the suburb, making it more desirable to be in the city than out.

Edit// Also why are you complaining? Doesn't a higher population equal more funds from the Federal government?
 
Last edited:
I've lived in the city for most of the past 24 years so don't give me any bullshit about how 30 years gives you some sort of perspective on the whole thing.

You have no basis for your accusations. That's what's so appalling.

Here's the deal; let's wait 6 years. If at that point I end up having the same opinions as you, I'll agree you're right.

Odds are in my favor that I won't.
 
Recession comes and certain folks blame the worlds troubles on immigrants. How cliche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top