Boston population rises to 645K

Shepard, your plan sounds a lot like what went on with the merger of Canadian cities. See for example what happened in Montreal - former towns and cities became boroughs of the new, Greater Montreal, and some major neighborhoods were given autonomy as well (though eventually, some very independent-spirited former suburbs seceded back to their original status):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganization_of_Montreal

Every major city in the US should be doing this; it would help ease administration of issues from transportation to education across metropolitan areas, which usually don't have any unitary government beyond fragmented municipalities and the states (and sometimes, in the case of multistate metros, the federal government). It's ridiculous that you need to use federal resources to investigate and prosecute crimes that take place entirely within metropolitan New York or St. Louis, for example. City-county governments and regional agreements have been implemented, but they haven't really been up to snuff.
 
In the Montreal merger/demerger, there was the uniquely Qu?bec factor of language involved in the process. 14 of the 15 suburbs that demerged are English speaking communities and residents felt that their language rights would be diminshed in the megacity.

Also, the only interprovincial metro area in Canada is Ottawa/Gatineau and hell would freeze over before there could be and interprovoncial government between Ontario and Qu?bec.

Can any reader here contemplate the Massachusetts legislature mandating a merger of Boston and 30 of its suburbs with monimal debate? Canada and the US have such a different political culture. In Canada, there is the feeling that the government knows best. But even in Montreal, this was challanged when language became an issue.
 
Shepard, I'm partial to your plan, primarily because of what czsz noted:

czsz said:
...it would help ease administration of issues from transportation to education across metropolitan areas...
Click to expand...

...but I'm not entirely convinced that "educational fund distribution" is a good idea, regardless of feasibility (in this political climate, I can't see it happening anytime soon). If these suburbs are given independent status, they will be free to form their own policies to improve life within their town. People will be choosing to live, and pay taxes, in these towns because of those policies. Why should money be taken from people that live in Newton to pay for schools in Dorchester? I realize that without some form of economic power, this 'authority' would have very dull teeth, but perhaps there can be another way to raise and distribute funds than further taxing the communities?
 
Kennedy, the point is that right now the wealth that exists in Beacon Hill and Back Bay help fund schools across Boston proper. So in an agglomerated structure, why shouldn't the wealth in Brookline or Newton do the same? At the same time, why shouldn't there be redistribution towards disadvtanged schools in inner-city towns outside of Boston proper that don't even have pockets of affluence?
 
B/c some would rather see America burn in hell than have rich people's taxes help out the poor, which in turn would make America much stronger. After all this is the same country that had it's bloodiest war over slavery, as if that wasn't clear as hell.
 


Spending does not a good school make.
 
^ A misleading graph. "We spend increasingly more and more but it doesn't do a damn thing" is what you're supposed to take from it. In reality, year after year, schools are actually NEEDING to spend more and more to deliver the same - not even a greater - level of education.

Two examples. First, what's considered a competitive teachers' salary has advanced well beyond inflation. In NYC starting teachers' salaries are near $45k. Schools need to spend more to keep up - essentially treading water in place. Second, technology has advanced, and I probably don't need to mention that the schools of today require far more beyond bricks and mortar and chalkboards than schools in the 1970s or 1980s did. These technologies do not make students better at reading or math (in fact, perhaps, the opposite) but they are considered a new baseline for educational standards. Again, treading water in place.

Yes, there are superfluous programs, but I'm certain that the vast majority of the increase in spend is not earmarked for these.
 
Last edited:
Wow another cost of society on an unsustainable rate. It can get put in there with higher education, health insurance, global debts, defense (especially in time of war), union rates, pensions, construction of anything (22 million for two elevators for a T station). Something's got to give.
 
Does that chart include capital spending? If yes, then it is highly misleading, because we are spending a lot now to make up for deferred maintenance of physical plant. And then there is quite a bit of retrofitting for ADA compliance. Interestingly enough, the actual testing that gives us the red and green line data is a significant cost driver, too. Let's remove all of these things, make other appropriate adjustments for inflation (I don't want the people who teach our children making poverty level wages), then see how the lines match up.

Also, it would be interesting to see the missing 7 years. Does the increase in spending represent a ramping up of investment with a lag in benefit? Maybe charting it to 2010 would show some improvement. Then again, schools are just a proxy for problems created elsewhere. A school serving impoverished students will not perform as well as one serving middle class students. A school located near a crime center will not serve as well. Are we spending more in schools because we are spending less on poverty reduction? Or are we, by spending less on poverty reduction rendering the increased school spending ineffective?

It's just not so simple an issue as some would have us believe.
 
a630 said:
erikyow I don't think there are 2 million people within 150 square miles anywhere in massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, that did seem a bit high. So I went back and redid the numbers. I was over, but not by a terrible amount. Here's the table. Most of these numbers seem to be based on the 2000 census, so this number may have increased a bit since then, but you get 1.4 million in 149.1 sq mi.

Here's my math

City Total (sq km) Land (sq. km) Population

Quincy: 69.6 43.5 91,073
Milton: 34.4 33.8 26,062
Boston: 232.14 125.43 645,169
Brookline: 17.7 17.6 57,107
Newton: 47.1 46.7 83,829
Watertown: 10.8 10.6 32,986
Cambridge: 18.47 16.65 105,594
Winthrop: 21.5 5.2 20,154
Everett: 9.5 8.8 38,037
Chelsea: 6.4 5.7 38,203
Somerville: 10.9 10.6 77,478
Belmont: 12.2 12.1 24,194
Medford: 22.4 21.1 55,765
Malden: 13.2 13.1 56,340
Revere: 26.0 15.3 55,341
_________________________________________________
Total 552.31 386.18 (149.1) 1,407,332

So, while I must have entered an extra digit somewhere to come up with an additional 600,000 residents, it does show that the immediate areas around the city are quite built up and form a good core from which a broader level of government overseeing certain aspects of life could be made.

Also, the only interprovincial metro area in Canada is Ottawa/Gatineau and hell would freeze over before there could be and interprovoncial government between Ontario and Qu?bec
Click to expand...

True. But a desire in the city to create a capital region (much like Washington or Canberra) has simmered for a while, but there's little political will to do so. I am strongly in favour of such a move. There would be many advantages, from the region being able to harmonize many services that right now cannot be due to the fact that monies must come from the individual provinces, to the removal of a layer of government.

Unfortunately, there's little appetite for it (the province wouldn't want to lose its second largest city, not sure the government wants the headache). However, the cool breeze felt in hell right now is the ever-present notion that one day Qu?bec will vote to separate and when that happens the Gatinois (many of whom receive their paycheque and future, cushy pension from the Federal government) will not go easily into the night with La belle province and that will probably usher in a federal jurisdiction of some type.
 
^ Interesting that you could reach 1 million with just a handful of those (Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, Somerville, Newton, Chelsea for example).
 
a630 said:
your conversion to miles from kilometers is off too. 386 square kilometers = 239 square miles. 1.4 million in 239 square miles is 5857 people per square mile, not a dense urban area! that's like dallas.
anyway, yes i'm all in favor of regional government on a variety of matters (land use is what I study).
Click to expand...

386 Square kilometers = 149 Square miles.
We're dealing with square (not linear) kilometers/miles.
 
Jiminy Cricket, I don't understand the Census.

Last year, they estimated Boston's population at 645,000.

This week, they've adjusted it to 625,000.

First is a one-year, second is five-year rolling estimate.

Get excited, because updated national and state population figures from the 2010 census will be released on Tuesday. Will we or won't we lose a Congressional seat (and can it be Barney Frank's if we do?)?

http://www.factfinder.census.gov/se...-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

http://www.factfinder.census.gov/se...lse&-format=&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_G2009_T001
 
I'm pretty sure its the average over the 5 years.
 
The 645k was after the bureau initially claimed 589, so maybe this will result in Boston closing in on 700?
 
Add in 30k illegals it makes perfect sense.
 
Considering this census delivered a population loss to Chicago and handed Detroit the largest absolute drop and New Orleans the highest percentage drop in US history, I think a 4.8% growth rate is pretty good (I think the overall pattern this census seems somewhat screwy...still shows a lot of gains in suburbs and the Sunbelt. Unless everyone's just been drinking too much urbanist kool-aid this decade to see that longtime trends have gone unreversed?)

Anyway, hats off to Worcester, which apparently grew at a higher rate than Boston!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top