Boston population rises to 645K

racerc03 said:
The 20K-30K we are talking about may grow to 50K if we incorporate surrounding towns.

I don't have the numbers, but it's also about growth in the cities surrounding the MBTA. Cambridge is building more housing at Alewife, Kendall, and NorthPoint. Somerville is building Assembly Square. Quincy Center is adding more units.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. We really muddy and confuse our statistics/numbers by talking about "Boston" which excludes so much urban area and "Greater Boston" which usually includes too much suburban area (out to 128).

I propose "Urban Boston" to include the communities significantly served by rapid transit:

Boston
Cambridge
Somerville
Brookline

Population approximately 850,000
 
^I don't agree. Let's just focus on Boston please. Then add in the urban centers around us.
 
Use a rough estimate of 150K Ugrad students for surrounding colleges and you are about at 1M.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
^I don't agree. Let's just focus on Boston please. Then add in the urban centers around us.
Click to expand...

I'm curious - why draw a distinction at Boston proper? I see Cambridge as more a part of urban Boston than Hyde Park or West Rox. I don't think it does Boston a disservice to include Cambridge. Hell, I bet Boston would trade half it's territory to get its hands on Cambridge's tax base.

Choose any meaningful "epicenter" like the State House, City Hall, the 4 main transfer stations of the T, Copley Sq. No matter what you choose Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline are very much "in the city."

The only definition of "Boston" I see that could exclude them is the political boundary.
 
Because the city just North of Boston is called Cambridge and the city west of Boston is called Brookline. Calling something "Boston proper" confuses the average man/woman and they sometimes think that also includes Waltham, Newton, Needham, Dedham, etc....
 
The fact that Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline are not part of Boston is confusing to no end for people not from the area. Many people who move here from out of state just assume that Cambridge is a part of Boston.
 
^Brookline has good public schools so they will never want to merge with Boston.
 
racerc03 said:
Use a rough estimate of 150K Ugrad students for surrounding colleges and you are about at 1M.
Click to expand...

Already counted as part of Boston's pipulation.

Census rules:

College students living away from their parental home while attending college in the U.S. (living either on-campus or off-campus) - Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

College students living away from their parental home while attending college in the U.S. (living either on-campus or off-campus) but staying at their parental home while on break or vacation - Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

U.S. college students living outside the U.S. while attending college outside the U.S. - Not counted in the census.

Foreign students living in the U.S. while attending college in the U.S. (living either on-campus or off-campus) - Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time.
Click to expand...
 
I think this population density map tells a good story about what really is "the city."

http://bostonography.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/density2.jpg

Whether you call that city the City of Boston or Greater Boston or Boston Metro Area, whatever. Most people on this thread know in their gut when they are in a neighborhood that merits posting to this board--and one that's just another suburb. Based on density "the city" to me is bounded on the north by the Mystic and Alewife Brook. To the south by the Neponset. To the west by the reservoirs (Jamaica Pond, Brookline Reservoir, Fresh Pond Chestnut Hill Reservoir). And to the east by the "wine dark sea."

The big question is, based on density, why aren't the North Shore neighborhoods drawing more attention? Chelsea, as the crow flies is closer to downtown than, say, JP. Complicated answer, but one guess is the New Jersey syndrome. Folks would rather be deep into Brooklyn rather than live closer but across the Hudson.
 
kjdonovan said:
The big question is, based on density, why aren't the North Shore neighborhoods drawing more attention? Chelsea, as the crow flies is closer to downtown than, say, JP. Complicated answer, but one guess is the New Jersey syndrome. Folks would rather be deep into Brooklyn rather than live closer but across the Hudson.
Click to expand...

More than that, it's transportation. People forget about Chelsea/Everett more than say JP or Somerville because transportation to get there sucks, whether by car or by public transport. There's either a tolled tunnel/bridge, or a circuitous detour. By public transit there's overcrowded, neglected bus routes that either have to use said tunnels, or transfer to the rail network somewhere outside downtown. Every couple of years people say that Chelsea is on the verge of a breakthrough and it never happens. How much of that is because it's wedged between the Chelsea River, the Mystic River, the power-plant industrial district, and Route 1/Route 16 traffic nightmare? It's kind of a bitch to get to, in spite of its proximity to downtown. Even more than that, it feels like a bitch to get to, even if it's not any worse than parts of JP or Somerville. The perception is also important.
 
Quincy is served by the red line, yet none of you proposed it was also part of "Boston proper." You guys are going to have exceptions for every city served by the T. Just call each city by its own name please.
 
^ Obviously they're each their own municipality, and will be referred to as such. I think the point is more about discussing the demographics of the area, and that local political divisions (of many cities) make meaningful comparisons difficult, hence the use of Metropolitan Area in most comparisons. Honestly this is silly lexicon semantics we're arguing about.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
Quincy is served by the red line, yet none of you proposed it was also part of "Boston proper." You guys are going to have exceptions for every city served by the T. Just call each city by its own name please.
Click to expand...

By definition, "[city] proper" refers to the legal city limits of a municipality. I don't think anyone is trying to change that. It's just that basing anything on what happens within the city limits of Boston is not representative of the area as a whole. To illustrate, which one of these is the more apt comparison?

City of Memphis: ~655K people, 315 sq mi
City of Boston: ~645K people, 48 sq mi
City of Seattle: ~635K people, 83 sq mi

City of New York: ~8.4M people, 300 sq mi
City of Chicago: ~2.7M people, 227 sq mi
"Urbanized" Boston (Boston + area bound by 128): ~1.9M people, 251 sq mi
 
omaja said:
City of New York: ~8.4M people, 300 sq mi
City of Chicago: ~2.7M people, 227 sq mi
"Urbanized" Boston (Boston + area bound by 128): ~1.9M people, 251 sq mi
Click to expand...

That's not fair. You can't do that. The cities around 128 are suburbia and there is no comparison to megladon-cities. You guys should just be proud so many Bostonians fit in a smaller land mass.
 
^ It's definitely fair... it's a population per square mile comparison, versus a population per arbitrary political border comparison that gives you no context.
 
^Not really. Each of those municipalities have different local laws when it comes to the control of public noise, real estate taxes, permits for businesses to operate past a certain time, zoning, and all this has a direct influence on how a city will turn out over 40-100 years. How many different mayors does NYC and Chicago have at a time? If you're bad at arithmetic, the answer is one. How many mayors does "Urbanized" Boston have at a single time? Let me help you again on your arithmetic, 16? "Urbanized" Boston has had hundreds of mayors over the last century, while NYC and Chicago have had at most 25. For more of a comparison; "Urbanized" Boston has had thousands of city councilors while NYC and Chicago have only had hundreds.

Where am I going with this? NYC and Chicago have had more control over their land mass because there are/were less mayors to make the rules for their cities. However, the mayors of "Urbanized" Boston don't work together because they're the boss of their own territory and why the hell would they want the same rules as the mayor of the territory next door? Ever hear the phrase, "Food isn't prepared well if there are too many cooks in the kitchen?" Well this applies to your "Urbanized" Boston theory when comparing land mass. It's comparing apples to oranges and completely disregards the different rules each city within 128 has had for the past century.

If you want to do a real comparison, then I suggest you become mayor of "Urbanized" Boston and force all the different municipalities to merge into one mega-city. Of course then you'll have to collect data for the next 100 years and then you should be able to make a direct comparison.
 
We certainly have a ways to go in terms of density before we approach the size of Chicago or New York - which is perhaps what you are getting at - but my point is that the governmental boundaries are inconsequential since it isn't just the 645K people living within the city limits of Boston that make the area what it really is. You absolutely have to think of the whole urbanized area when comparing to other "cities" which are several hundred square miles larger.
 
Urbanized area is definitely the best comparison of city size. The federal definition is a little low density at the fringes though (I think its >1000 ppl/sq mi). A better definition of "urbanized" would be contiguous areas with >5,000 ppl/sq mi, which is roughly what you need to support decent local bus service.

In fairness though, NYC's vast municipal boundaries still do not encompass its entire urbanized population (by either definition). New Jersey from Elizabeth up through Newark to Passaic and then over to the Hudson River (including JC, Bayonne, Hoboken, Weehawken, etc) is effectively a 6th borough and would add well over a million to NYC's population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top