Gigantic plans for Westbrook

Excellent points corey. I think Portland should buy the rights to have this guy develop in Portland. By that I mean, as you said, the reason he is making the poor choice (from an urban planning perspective anyway) to build in westbrook is because that is where he owns the land. true. but if it is only a matter of owning the land, the city of portland (which in my opinion should bend over backwards to keep the civic center) should just give this guy free land and have him guarantee that in return he'll build the arena. That would, in effect, be subtracting the cost of land from his building costs, and would be as though the city of portland was subsidizing the project. I don't know, I just think this needs to be in Portland. However, stroudwater place could very well be the new retail center of the region if it goes according to Mr. Snyder's plans. However, given the fact that we have now seen both downtown portland and the maine mall crumple when the economy folds, it might make more sense to approach things differently this time and make the place a lot more mixed use (and viable mixed use, too, not just a skating rink and farmer's market).
 
WESTBROOK - Work will begin next week on a new 34-unit affordable housing complex for the elderly on the Presumpscot River.
portland-press-herald_3126841.jpg

westbrookHousing201007WEB.jpg
 
Patrick said:
I think Portland, Gorham, Westbrook, Scarborough and south portland should all merge. This would enable planning efforts to be more well aligned on a regional basis. of course, if ever you mention this, though, people nod their heads and then forget about the idea.
Click to expand...

I have always thought that a merge would be a good idea also, but i have thought of including Cape and not Gorham. Anyway, this merge would bring the population up to about 150,000, making it the 4th or 5th largest city in New England (Springfield has 150,000, but is loosing people each year). With a bigger population comes more funds from the gov for public transportation.

Does anyone know if they have ever considered a project similar to Portland North, but for communities south of Portland. The Greater Portland area has a larger population to the south. And with 4 towns with a population almost equal to or greater than 20,000 (South Portland, Scarborough, Saco, and Biddeford) conveniently lined in a row from north to south with tracks already in use, you would think it would be pretty easy to run a small commuter train through these towns. The tracks even go through OOB. Hundreds of tourists in OOB would take the commuter train to Portland if they could.
 
Good point. I have no idea why they didn't think of or pursue south commuter rail first. As you said, it would make a lot more sense. But then again, that's probably why no one has thought of it yet. I wouldn't include cape, because it already seceded from South Portland (or vice versa, I forget which) and I don't think they would want to again be the same city. Also, cape is just residential, whereas Gorham has the college and more industry. But if it would work out well I wouldn't be against the idea. not for a second.
 
Springfield has actually reversed its decline in population, and can now boast of having in excess of 155,000 residents according to the Census Bureau's figures released on June 22, 2010.
 
That is excellent news. Do we know when the "finalized" census figures will be released? I'm pretty sure Portland has continued to lose population quite a bit (although the towns around it have been gaining). Anyone know?
 
Patrick, the "finalized" census figures are due in December, although there will be allowed a time for adjustments through the first quarter of 2011.

Portland, by the way, will show a loss since 2000, however, the past few years have actually shown some slight growth. Currently, Portland is the 29th largest city in New England.
 
Thanks Riffgo. Portland seems to have been emptying out for quite some time as the city attracts more and more yuppies and fewer families. I know that has happened elsewhere, too, but sine the urban area of Portland is so small the "return to the city" hasn't been nearly as great here as elsewhere.

Interesting to note about the 29th largest city...do you have a list of the other rankings?

I think I remember reading some years ago that the Portland metro area was 9th largest or somewhere around there (sandwiched right after Springfield and right before Manchester), but I can't recall where I hear or read that.
 
Patrick, due to your dedication to these threads, and the earnestness with which you contribute, I will accede to your request.

Keep in mind that this list is self-compiled and based upon figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau last month. That means that there may be omissions and errors.

Here goes:

1. Boston 645,169
2. Worcester 182,421
3. Prividence 171,909
4. Springfield 155,575
5. Bridgeport 137,298
6. Hartford 124,060
7. New Haven 123,330
8. Stamford 121,026
9. Manchester 109,395
10. Cambridge 108,780
11. Waterbury 107,143
12. Lowell 104,400
13. Brockton 93,529
14. New Bedford 91,112
15. Quincy 91,073
16. Fall River 90,885
17. Nashua 87,735
18. Lynn 87,532
19. Warwick 84,760
20. Newton 84,600
21. Norwalk 83,802
22. Cranston 80,126
23. Danbury 79,743
24. Somerville 76,460
25. Pawtucket 71,953
26. Lawrence 70,592
27. New Britain 70,548
28. Framingham 67,185
29. Portland 63,008
30. Haverhill 61,588

Close behind and catching up are Greenwich, Taunton, Waltham, and Plymouth.

How's that?
 
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. I didn't realize Boston had grown so much. I thought it was just over 600. Worcester seems to have added several thousand, too. Interesting. Thanks for posting that!
 
You're welcome. It has been my pleasure.

With a little luck, I expect Portland will show a larger increase when the final census figures are revealed. The same may be true for Haverhill, Newton, and Worcester.
 
I'm not really concerned about Portland's lack of population growth, although I think we could benefit from more people in the actual city itself as opposed to the suburban surroundings. The same goes for all cities, I guess, but that doesn't seem to be the American way anymore (although that is hopefully changing). I'm excited Boston has posted such big numbers. It used to be at 800+, and it would be great if it could get back there. In the words of JFK's grandfather, "Bigger, better, busier Boston." What a great way to think.
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The critical mass needed to maintain the urban core is essential, and the greater density we achieve, the the greater our chances for urban success.

Incidently, Boston has moved up to the number three spot in terms of population density for large cities in America.....right after New York and San Francisco.....and displacing Chicago.

Do you have some idea of Portland's density per square mile?
 
riffgo said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The critical mass needed to maintain the urban core is essential, and the greater density we achieve, the the greater our chances for urban success.

Incidently, Boston has moved up to the number three spot in terms of population density for large cities in America.....right after New York and San Francisco.....and displacing Chicago.

Do you have some idea of Portland's density per square mile?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Critical mass is...well, critical. That is interesting that Boston has displaced Chicago. I knew it was "up there" but didn't realize how dense it was. Fascinating. For some reason I really enjoy knowing these statistics, tidbits, and pieces of cocktail party trivia (now if only I had a cocktail party to share them at!).

Unfortunately, I do have a rough idea of Portland's overall density. It is rather low. On the whole, Portland has about 3,000 (a little over) people per square mile. But, that said, there is wide variation (as in most places). Some of Portland is as dense as a major city, yet other portions are as sparsely populated as a distant suburb or rural town. Burlington, Vermont has higher density, as does Manchester, NH I believe. And speaking of Burlington, a town just outside of it, Winooski, is sort of like Somerville in that it is a much smaller town but has a much higher density than the city proper. (Winooski has a population of roughly 7,000 but it is only 1 square mile in size).

When I have the time, I really enjoy comparing and contrasting city statistics on population density. One part of Portland has almost 24,000 people per square mile, but its only an area about 1/2 square mile in size.

The majority of in-town Portland is about 11,000 people psm, whereas the so called street car suburbs are 8,000 people psm, and then things drop off rapidly for the remainder (the vast majority) of the city. Out of curiosity, what is Boston at now? If I'm not mistaken last I heard Somerville was at 12,000 people psm (average) and Boston was somewhere in the 5-10 range (correct me if I am wrong). I do recall hearing that Boston was one of the only major U.S. cities with a density of over 5,000 people psm (average). Just goes to show how things were done when people couldn't travel as efficiently. Getting rid of easy pass and hiking up gas sales tax would do wonders for land development patterns.
 
Patrick said:
One part of Portland has almost 24,000 people per square mile, but its only an area about 1/2 square mile in size.
Click to expand...

That must be referring to Parkside? I have heard before that it's the densest neighborhood in the State. Although Munjoy Hill is probably not far behind.

Portland has 21.2 square miles of land area so that may help boost our overall density. If it was expanded a couple of miles then the density level would surely drop. Boston is only 48.43 square miles of land (from wikipedia) so perhaps that helps with the density factor there also (of course it is a beautifully dense urban area regardless of land size).


Anywho, as far as gigantic plans for Westbrook. I haven't heard anything recently.
 
Corey:

As you know, Portland is 50 square miles, but you are right that only approximately 20 of those miles are land. At first I was thinking the same thing as you, but then I realized that divided into our population, it comes out to appear as though the density figures (3,000 psm) take that distinction into consideration.

Also, the densest neighborhood isn't parkside, although it looks like it is. Perhaps the residential structures are densest there, but not the residents. According to the census bureau, it is in the heart of the west end (which sort of bleeds over into parkside anyway), so actually now that I think about it there could definitely be some overlap.

Munjoy is actually about 11,000 -12,000 people psm on average, like the west end is as a whole. However, I imagine that back in the day when it was completely working class neighborhood, the density would have been a LOT more. Portland high's graduating class size has shrunk by hundreds of grads as the city emptied out. Peak population was around 80,000, with many living in munjoy and bayside/east bayside.

ALSO, as for westbrook, there was an article the other day in the paper that said the NY developer who is reconstructing the WTC site in NYC just joined Jason Snyder as a collaborator on the project. Big money = big chance of construction.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/A-N...rook-developer-in-his-proposal-to-build-.html (you'll notice the AB community is represented in the comments section)
 
Actually, Patrick, Somerville is at a density of 18,000 per square mile. Nearby Cambridge is nudging 16,000, while Chelsea is close to 19,000 psm.

Boston neighborhoods vary. West Roxbury has a density of only 5,274, while Allston and Brighton are both at about 16,000. Contrast this with the West End (26,608), Back Bay (29,900) and the North End (61,417). East Boston is listed at a mere 8,000, but consider that half of that neighbohood is the airport, and you come up with a density in the residential areas of about 16,000.

I, too, find this sort of information fascinating; and perhaps we could use this as a subject for a new thread.
 
By the way, Boston as a whole city currently sports a density of 13,313 per square mile.

Population-wise, Boston has gone from the position of number one in the country to number 25, and is back up to number 20. As a CSA, Boston ranks number 5, adding close to 100,00 more people in the past year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top