Boston population rises to 645K

Yeah, the revolutionary period is definitely an underrepresented time in Boston's history that needs further exploration and investigation. #eyeroll

I would love to see a movie set in 17th century Boston. Or the 19th century.
 
czsz said:
Yeah, the revolutionary period is definitely an underrepresented time in Boston's history that needs further exploration and investigation. #eyeroll

I would love to see a movie set in 17th century Boston. Or the 19th century.
Click to expand...

It will be like Pearl Harbor but in 1776!!!
 
Bah, show me the Pearl Harbor of King Philip's War. Puritan suburbia being raised to the ground. Medfield wiped off the map. Now that sounds awesome.
 
I want movies set in Boston between 1880 and 1930. Back when the city was urbane and interesting. /thread was already off topic don't blame me
 
czsz said:
Bah, show me the Pearl Harbor of King Philip's War. Puritan suburbia being raised to the ground. Medfield wiped off the map. Now that sounds awesome.
Click to expand...

It would basically be the parts of Pocahontas that weren't allowed to be shown in Pocahontas, minus the love story and with a lot more scalpings (by the colonists)...
 
^ I hate population metrics to gauge cities. I mean, you can spend an hour driving across half those cities on a freeway. Not too mention all the dense satellites, like Cambridge, Somerville, Quincy, Revere, Everett, Chelsea, Brookline, and even Newton that in most other areas would be absorbed in one. It's a very flawed metric, especially if you compared overall metros or even more importantly, GDP.
 
^ Agreed. Cities out west and down south are often so sprawling that the whole metro-area is within city limits. Boston, under those metrics would include Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline, as well as the inner-128 suburbs. If West Roxbury counts towards Boston's population, so should Waltham. Metro-area is a more accurate read on a city's impact on the regional population.
 
Obviously metro is a better metric. But then compare Boston to a city of similar area size. Boston has 48 square land miles, San Francisco has 46. And within that area, San Francisco has 815,000 people. Boston proper can still do better.
 
czsz said:
Obviously metro is a better metric. But then compare Boston to a city of similar area size. Boston has 48 square land miles, San Francisco has 46. And within that area, San Francisco has 815,000 people. Boston proper can still do better.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that at all. But honestly the city will have a hard time absorbing additional population without infrastructure improvements.
 
czsz said:
Obviously metro is a better metric. But then compare Boston to a city of similar area size. Boston has 48 square land miles, San Francisco has 46. And within that area, San Francisco has 815,000 people. Boston proper can still do better.
Click to expand...

I agree SF feels like and is a bigger city than Boston. But municipal boundaries come into play even with the above comparison. SF's 46 square miles encompass most of the metro area's densest 46 sq miles. Even the areas in the southern hoods of SF that you see from BART coming from SFO are as dense as most of what you'd see in Oakland or Berkeley.

If you traded W. Rox, Roslindale, Hyde Park and Mattapan for Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett and the northern half of Brookline, you'd probably still have roughly 48 sq miles but the population would be a lot closer to SF's.
 
200k more to go to break the record.


What I think is nauseating is the slow pace at which leaders want to grow the city. "10k more units in DTX BID area by 2030!" JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, THAT'S NOT GOOD, YOU ASS CLOWNS.
 
^ While I too would love to see this city explode with development, I'll reiterate what I said earlier, which is while Boston has held more people in the past, our infrastructure today will have difficulty rapidly absorbing tens of thousands more people. Unless the T is upgraded as rapidly as this supposed population growth, and car subsidies *ahem* subside a bit, the city will grind to a halt.
 
I think it is a chicken-egg scenario. If you bring the people in, get more revenue flowing, and then the infrastructure gets the improvement it desperately needs through more demand. I don't think it will work the other way.

Regarding San Fran, don't forget that at SFO is not in the city. Logan takes up at least 6 sq miles of inhabitable land within the City Limits.
 
type001 said:
I think it is a chicken-egg scenario. If you bring the people in, get more revenue flowing, and then the infrastructure gets the improvement it desperately needs through more demand. I don't think it will work the other way.

Regarding San Fran, don't forget that at SFO is not in the city. Logan takes up at least 6 sq miles of inhabitable land within the City Limits.
Click to expand...

Yeah well Golden Gate Park and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area take up around the same amount of area as Logan does if not more.
 
KentXie said:
Yeah well Golden Gate Park and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area take up around the same amount of area as Logan does if not more.
Click to expand...

Total parkland in San Francisco encompasses 5,384 acres. In Boston, total parkland is 4,897 acres. Logan airport is a total of 1,700 acres. If you assume that parkland cannot be developed (certainly a fair assumption in Boston and probably San Francisco too), Boston then has a total of at least 6,597 undevelopable acres - greater than 1,200 acres more than San Francisco, without, of course, taking other factors into account.
 
dirtywater said:
Total parkland in San Francisco encompasses 5,384 acres. In Boston, total parkland is 4,897 acres. Logan airport is a total of 1,700 acres. If you assume that parkland cannot be developed (certainly a fair assumption in Boston and probably San Francisco too), Boston then has a total of at least 6,597 undevelopable acres - greater than 1,200 acres more than San Francisco, without, of course, taking other factors into account.
Click to expand...

This actually kind of fun. 1200 acres translates to about 1.875 square miles. Since Boston is about 2 square miles larger than SF, they essentially have the same amount of developable land but with 180,000 more residents in SF. Definitely room for improvement.

Awesome links.
 
If you look at the population tables posted in the greater new england thread, A combo of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Everett and Chelsea put you at 900k. That's a solid size city. And I think even if just nominally Everett and Chelsea were put under the Boston name, you could drive a fair bit of population growth.
Better infrastructure would also help!!
 
choo said:
If you look at the population tables posted in the greater new england thread, A combo of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Everett and Chelsea put you at 900k. That's a solid size city. And I think even if just nominally Everett and Chelsea were put under the Boston name, you could drive a fair bit of population growth.
Better infrastructure would also help!!
Click to expand...

I always wondered, had Boston been a planned city (gridded roadways), would it be cheaper to support infrastructure improvements, and be more efficient in handling traffic, and thus support a larger population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top