Boston population rises to 645K

IIRC, the case that Menino successfully made to the Census Bureau some years ago was that Census was undercounting the number of new housing units in Boston.
 
stellarfun said:
IIRC, the case that Menino successfully made to the Census Bureau some years ago was that Census was undercounting the number of new housing units in Boston.
Click to expand...

That's one reason I'm skeptical of this new number. I think these figures are more a product of politics than accurate information gathering.

Every single time new population figures are released, Menino cries to bump the numbers up. Meanwhile, the city's zoning does everything to actively discourage real population increase--this in spite of the fact that even if you believe these new statistics, Boston's population remains 20% below its mid-century high. The mayor seems to want the benefits of population (e.g. federal and state funds), but without the actual population.
 
The number from the 1950 census will likely never be reached again, simply because household sizes were much larger 60 years ago than they are now. There are more households in Boston today, just fewer people per household. To get back into the 800,000 range would require a comprehensive plan for higher density, rather than the sporadic infill that occurs now. Still, whether or not 645,000 is quite right, I can't say, but there is definitely population growth.
 
I agree that smaller households are one reason for the population decline, but are there really more households in Boston today? I've always assumed that the city never replenished the units demolished during Urban Renewal and the likes. I believe I've read that he West End alone was a net loss of tens of thousands of residents. Add to this the thousands of raw units demolished during that period not replaced with any housing, like the NY Streets neighborhood, and those lost to make way for the SE Expressway and Inner Belt, etc, as well as those lost to single-use zoning or parking lots, plus all those housing units converted to institutional use and I would think the city is still below its former level of units.

Another thing to consider is the fact that many of the newer "luxury" condo tower units added were bought as investments or are used not as primary residences. All you have to do is look up at all those dark windows at night to realize that many of these units are unoccupied.
 
^^And aren't there still a lot of empty lots in the inner city where triple deckers once stood but were burnt down for insurance money in the 60's & 70's?
 
According to The Boston Indicators Project of 2004, the city had approximately 32,000 fewer housing units in 1950 for 200,000 more people, or about 3.64 per unit .
It is very exciting that not only boston, but several eastern are seeing big gains (washington and new york), or some gains for the first time in 50 years (philadelphia anyway) other cities' decline seems to have slowed (even detroit!).... guess the recession hit providence pretty bad to not have grown at all??
 
HenryAlan said:
The number from the 1950 census will likely never be reached again, simply because household sizes were much larger 60 years ago than they are now. There are more households in Boston today, just fewer people per household. To get back into the 800,000 range would require a comprehensive plan for higher density, rather than the sporadic infill that occurs now. Still, whether or not 645,000 is quite right, I can't say, but there is definitely population growth.
Click to expand...

Unless we discover some miracle fuel, when gas hits $10 per gallon -- and it will -- towns like Hopkinton and Franklin will be doomed. People in the far suburbs will be looking to move closer to the central urban area simply because the cost of commuting (or driving everywhere to accomplish regular daily tasks) will become unaffordable for all but the wealthiest. Perhaps only then will Boston's (and Cambridge's and Watertown's, etc.) population exceed the 1950's figures, but it will happen.
 
I wonder if the recession is in fact the reason for these gains. I recall reading something stating that it was one of the reasons for a reduced number of internal migration out of Massachusetts towards other states. Namely since the biggest destinations for people leaving Massachusetts were the ones most affected by the recession (California, Atlanta, Arizona, Florida, etc). So, I wonder if this trend will continue once the economy starts picking up and real estate markets stabilize.

Furthermore, a lot of these numbers are empty nesters. The city proper has grown by about 9% over the past 9 years, however the metro area (MSA) has grown at about 4.5%. Amongst cities with MSAs of 1 million+ who grew slower than this were Los Angeles (4.12%), Hartford (4.12%), New York (4.08%), Milwaukee (3.93%), Providence (1.11%), Rochester (-0.22%), Detroit (-1.1%), Cleveland (-2.65%), Pittsburgh (-3.13%), Buffalo (-3.96%) and New Orleans (-9.61%).

Obviously, New Orleans has an excuse for most of it's population decline since 2000, but New York and Los Angeles aside, is this really the company we want to keep? I'm not saying that the area needs to grow at the levels of Atlanta (over 25%!), since that kind of growth is unsustainable and mark my words that those chickens will come home to roost and affect that city hard. But, it's clear that the region must do more to attract new business.

Boston can't do anything about its location, so the weather isn't going to change (which is one of the primary motivators for many to look south), so the city needs to do more to retain the people who live here and attract and retain new people to the area. Not that this is news to any of you here.

That said, the city itself has grown to be the 20th largest (and should remain in the top 20 for the foreseeable future until Denver and/or Nashville overtake it eventually)and that population estimate gives it an average population density of over 13,000 per sq. mile, which puts it behind New York and San Francisco, but slightly ahead of Chicago.
 
Why do you say Detroit will overtake Boston?
 
Wait for El Paso. Wiki already has it at a higher population. These fakers with their large land area. Cities under 8k/sq mile shouldnt be counted.
 
If it's any comfort, Sydney, Australia "officially" has about 40,000 people...the rest of the "city" consists of independent suburbs. Boston could have it worse when it comes to population races with annexation-happy cities!
 
Likewise, here in Toronto the original city of Toronto today would have a population of around 700,000. However, in 1997 it was merged with its immediate, surrounding suburbs (with whom the city already shared certain municipal services - transit, waste and recycling, emergency services, amongst others - through a county-level equivalent of government called a Regional Municipality) to gain a population today put at about 2.55 million.

Being a geek, I looked at what Boston would look like if you merged all of the communities in the 617 area code (plus a few 781 cities, like Revere, Malden, and Medford) and you would end up with a city of 2 million in an area of just under 150 sq. mi, with an average population density of almost 13,500 residents per sq. mi.

However, I wonder if Australia has the right perspective. Sure, Boston is the 20th largest municipality in the US, but using the Australian idea of a city, it'd be the 10th, simply because Australia doesn't view its cities by their municipalities (technically the largest municipality in Australia is Brisbane. Sydney, at 177,000, is 25th) but rather by what the Australian government terms "Urban Centres", which more or less is defined as contiguous communities with more than 1,000 residents.

In the end, isn't that the real definition of a city? Given the fact that, in the US, you have eastern municipalities that are based on the English system of small municipalities, as well as newer municipalities that were given large land grants when they were frontier towns a hundred years ago, that now have over 1,000,000 residents but not much outside the city limits. For instance, San Antonio city comprises 70% of the metro population (1.4 m out of a 2 million metro) whereas Boston comprises only about 14% of its metro.

Anyway, that's my morning ramble.
 
Australia has it right, in my opinion (same model used in the UK, see London, for example). The strict municipal definition renders comparisons almost meaningless. Boston is a much more important city than 20th in size would imply. Even 10th in size would probably understate our importance, but at least then it would accurately indicate the size of the urban area. I generally think of the area defined by erikyow as the true Boston by virtue not only of population density, but also by geography, access to rapid transit, and several other factors.
 
My advice is get off the keyboard and get busy!
 
I don't think that anything we do will work. You have to get the suburban towns and cities to agree to an annexation of any sort.
 
How about denser housing development before sprawling out like ever other two bit auto-centric city built after 1950? It would help if the BRA/Mayor would loose the suburban everything needs massive open space mentality.
 
erikyow I don't think there are 2 million people within 150 square miles anywhere in massachusetts. In the United States except for New York City. That would require a density slightly greater than boston's over that entire area. while the dense urban area does extend beyond boston proper, it simply is not that large, and not that dense with the exception of cambridge, somerville and chelsea, which together only compose about 13 square miles. I think you went wrong somewhere.
that said, yes, annexation does have a different history in the northeast than in most of the country.
 
a630 said:
while the dense urban area does extend beyond boston proper, it simply is not that large, and not that dense with the exception of cambridge, somerville and chelsea, which together only compose about 13 square miles. I think you went wrong somewhere.
.
Click to expand...

Malden, Medford, Brookline, Winthrop, Everett, Revere, Quincy, Lynn and a few other "suburbs" are very densely populated and would not be considered suburban in most parts of the country.
 
First, I think there should a form of de-annexation. Give autonomy to East Boston, Charlestown, Roxbury, Dorchester, South Boston, A&B and so on. For these areas, being part of "Boston proper" typically means various levels of disregard. Put each in charge of its own development, education, public works, police...

Then, form a Greater Boston Council for all the different autonomous towns within 128. Redraw county boundaries if necessary to place this entire area under one jurisdiction. The GBC would be responsible for transportation planning, educational funds redistribution (yes, that means taking from Newton to give to Dorchester), and regional economic planning. The GBC level would also have central fire and police training functions, for example, to reduce redundancy.

Just a few silly ideas here, but the point is I think we need to level the field for all inner-128 communities (whether officially "part" of Boston or not) and then give serious teeth to a broader more regional body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top