Boston population rises to 645K

Some gridded cities actually have lower population densities than they could support. The issue is that they lose inhabitable space to wide roads that aren't necessarily needed. NYC is usually the prime example. But then again, NYC still manages to support such a huge population, so who knows. I guess the only thing you could say about it in all honesty is the idea of using a grid plan to allow for a higher population density is incomplete at best.
 
Tokyo, Madrid, London and Paris all support high populations without a grid.
 
The whole city size/population discussion would probably play out a lot differently had NYC not consolidated in 1898. Would there be a lot of hand-wringing in NYC today that the once might city had fallen to 5th in popultion, and was likely to be surpassed by San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix in the near future? Probably not.
 
KentXie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I love that kind of thought experiment. I try and imagine if "Boston" had included present day Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Chelsea and Everett what the harbor and Charles would be like today. I imagine something similar to the myriad river crossings you have in a place like Chicago, Esplanades on both sides of the Charles and more recreational use of the water ways.
 
belmont square said:
The whole city size/population discussion would probably play out a lot differently had NYC not consolidated in 1898. Would there be a lot of hand-wringing in NYC today that the once might city had fallen to 5th in popultion, and was likely to be surpassed by San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix in the near future? Probably not.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it'd mean we always considered metro rather than city limits populations, the way Australia (where Sydney "city" has just a few dozen thousand people) does.
 
Shepard said:
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.
Click to expand...

*grin* Blasphemy. WE in Cambridge have too much fun with our figurehead Mayor and strong City Manager form of government. Besides, us in this city can pride ourselves knowing that our just retired City Manager *NOT* only earned a bigger salary than the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but now also a bigger salary than the President of the United States of America. In order to spread the wealth, each of the areas you mentioned should emulate that and spread the wealth too. P.S. in case you're wondering our new City Manager will earn just under what Obama makes.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridg...idge-City-Manager-to-receive-330-000-annually

(Quote)"Cambridge Deputy City Manager Richard Rossi will receive a $330,000 annual salary beginning in July (2013) with the start of his contract, approved by the City Council in a 7-2 vote Monday.

Rossi’s promotion comes with an 18.5 percent raise, making him one of the highest paid municipal employees in the state. Rossi will make more than double that of Bay State Governor Deval Patrick’s annual $140,535 and nearly double Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s $169,750. For comparison, Rossi will make just under President Barack Obama’s $400,000 salary.(End Quote)"

On a more serious note. Annexation is likely off the table nowadays, however what of the idea of regional municipal corporations. I.e. for example lets say Cambridge/Somerville say they share some neighborhoods and there's a high costs associated with public school administration. Suppose both Cambridge and Somerville combine school districts with a shared superintendent, and other administration. Allow students from both cities goto any school in their shared areas much like how Somerville is already a part of the City of Cambridge Health alliance with Cambridge/Somerville hospitals work together.

As more services are merged perhaps cost savings could be realized that way. Combined Cambridge/Somerville PD, fire dept, etc. whereby services of both cities lend a hand. Cambridge PD could serve the eastern halfs of both cities and perhaps Somerville PD would serve the western halfs of both etc. If those two decided to expand that relationship to other municipalities that could be an option with the specifics worked out among municipalities involved.
 
Last edited:
KentXie said:
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.
Click to expand...


So if Boston wasn't Boston, would Boston be different from Boston?
 
From an article on Bisnow.com, the BRA is touting 5K units under construction and 4.5K about to get started by early the end of the year.

Think you're seeing a lot of residential construction in the city? (Are you finding discarded pieces of crown molding in your coffee?) Mayor Thomas Menino agrees, and as he prepares to leave after 20 years, his administration is tallying it up. Here are some new findings from the BRA. Now under construction are 5,024 residential units (including the $130M Waterside Place above) valued at $5.6B. By year's end, another 4,504 units ($3.7B) are expected to launch. Already approved are another 3,964 units valued at $12.6B, and an additional 3,964 units valued at $3.9B are under review. Since 2000, 20,000 new housing units have been built, including 30% affordable.
Click to expand...

http://www.bisnow.com/commercial-real-estate/boston/when-to-pull-the-plug-on-old-medical-buildings/
 
Touting 20,000 new units in 10+ years like it's some major accomplishment is like trying to pass off a 2.0 GPA improvement when you've just gone from 0.0 to 2.0. Good job there champ; you're not quite as huge a failure as you used to be!
 
Exactly, however, from the numbers we could surpass 20K units over the next 3 years, which would be great.

Didn't Menino say he wanted to build 30K units by 2030? If so that seems like a very low goal with what's happening.
 
20k by 2020 I think. Some candidates have morphed that into 30k by 2020, which is better.
 
Is Boston really going to get another 20,000 people in the next 10 years? Usually we only average an increase of 10k people every decade.
 
There are more people in their 20's and 30's living with roommates than would prefer to. High rents force Bostonians (and New Yorkers, SFers, etc) into sharing when they would rather living alone. There is demand for more housing even without population growth.

High rents also prevent or discourage people from moving here. Downward pressure on rents will certainly lead to increased demand (i.e. population growth) over our recent history.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
Is Boston really going to get another 20,000 people in the next 10 years? Usually we only average an increase of 10k people every decade.
Click to expand...

Well considering we've gone from 617k to 636k in two years with no signs of the trend abating, I'd have to say yes and then some.
 
I'm all for expanding the population of the city by 20-30k, whether it's over 10 or fewer years. However, the state isn't maintaining/expanding the transportation system in area to keep up with static growth, let alone strong growth... What will it take to kick the legislature in the ass and fix the financing of the MBTA??
 
^I think the transportation bill was a good first step, but the T, DOT and legislature have to make more explicit connections for people and continue to improve their budget and construction timelines. Under Davey, the T seemed much better about setting budgets and timelines and beating them. Thats what they did on Science Park-even if it was initially inflated. People like to know their money is put to good, efficient use. They need to get going and say, we need $X million to upgrade all the T signals and increase headways on the mass transit. And people need to see it. If people think it is decaying, then they aren't going to want to band-aid it, they'd rather it die. But if it seems competent and thriving, people will invest in it.

The T's problem seems as much PR as it is technical and financial.
 
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.

And as college/university's expand and take on more undergrad/grad students we have greater numbers there that arent necessarily counted in Population numbers.

At some point, the traffic on the T downtown will become too overwhelming.
 
racerc03 said:
At some point, the traffic on the T downtown will become too overwhelming.
Click to expand...

To that point, it's already overwhelming at times. DoT needs a swift kick in the ass, and the Great and General Court is the last body that's ready to give it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top