Manchester and Portland are losing population while Boston gains.
- Thread starter M. Brown
- Start date
Hmmm.... where did you find this? I'm surprised, quite frankly. Especially with Manchester. I assumed that Boston would still be losing population to the 'burbs while Portland and Manch would continue growing given their lower costs of living.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the Bay State's campaign to count everyone?
I wonder if this has anything to do with the Bay State's campaign to count everyone?
M. Brown
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 0
P
Patrick
Guest
Portland has been losing population since the 1950s when it had 80,000
But portland as a metro area is growing, as are most cities
But portland as a metro area is growing, as are most cities
P
Patrick
Guest
also, compared to the areas portland would gain population from in its metro, it has a higher cost of living on average, and boston has a lower cost of living. compare portland to westbrook, for instance, and portland costs more. but compare Boston to Lincoln and areas like it, and Boston costs less. I think it is that Boston's suburbs are more pricey than portlands, so you see a corresponding shift in population to the city and vice versa in portland
I don't think I'd say the cost of living is higher in Boston's suburbs than it is in the city. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but as a whole, It's cheaper to live in the Boston area suburbs and many people do so because their dollar goes further. For instance, 600k will buy a 3 bedroom condo in S. Boston (that's even a stretch) while it will buy a 4 bedroom house in Stoughton and they can commute into the city.
I would also argue that Portland is probably fairly comparable in terms of cost of living with the suburbs in the area. In fact, the average household income in In Metro Portland is on par with the national average (about $42,000) ranging from about $35,000(Portland) - $56,000(Scarborough) (Westbrook is at $37,000 btw). That (like most cities), while not much of a variation, would show that higher incomes tend to live outside the city of Portland. Also, rents and mortgage costs are higher in the immediate suburbs of Portland than in the city itself.
In Boston, while there's an even larger gap in average household incomes ($39,000 in Boston- over $110,000 in many suburban towns topping out at $154,000 in Weston), rents and mortgages are higher in Boston proper (and again, you get a lot more for the money outside the city) than they are in the suburbs. Essentially, the numbers show that the reverse of what you stated appears to be true.
Both cities' metropolitan areas ARE growing (as are most cities in the US, like you said), but I don't think you can attribute Portland Proper's population loss to the cost of living in the area. I think it can be attributed to the sprawl in the area and ease of commute to the city. People can live in a larger home, more secluded area and commute easily into Portland to work. The city itself hasn't yet found a way to attract more residents in to replace the people moving to the suburbs.
I am surprised that more people don't move into Portland City Limits, just outside Downtown. Much, if not most of Portland is suburban and quiet. This is especially true off of the peninsula, and I would figure it would be an attractive area for suburbanites and the population would increase as a result.
This is not to say that you are wrong, Patrick; I just believe that your reasoning for the decrease in Portland's population as opposed to the increase in Boston's isn't 100% on the mark. I think Portland's metro area is growing and will continue to grow. In fact, I think it's one of a small handful of New England cities that is in great shape in terms of growth and development at the moment.
*edit* All stats on household income, rent, mortgage costs, etc were found on www.epodunk.com but searching the individual cities mentioned.
I would also argue that Portland is probably fairly comparable in terms of cost of living with the suburbs in the area. In fact, the average household income in In Metro Portland is on par with the national average (about $42,000) ranging from about $35,000(Portland) - $56,000(Scarborough) (Westbrook is at $37,000 btw). That (like most cities), while not much of a variation, would show that higher incomes tend to live outside the city of Portland. Also, rents and mortgage costs are higher in the immediate suburbs of Portland than in the city itself.
In Boston, while there's an even larger gap in average household incomes ($39,000 in Boston- over $110,000 in many suburban towns topping out at $154,000 in Weston), rents and mortgages are higher in Boston proper (and again, you get a lot more for the money outside the city) than they are in the suburbs. Essentially, the numbers show that the reverse of what you stated appears to be true.
Both cities' metropolitan areas ARE growing (as are most cities in the US, like you said), but I don't think you can attribute Portland Proper's population loss to the cost of living in the area. I think it can be attributed to the sprawl in the area and ease of commute to the city. People can live in a larger home, more secluded area and commute easily into Portland to work. The city itself hasn't yet found a way to attract more residents in to replace the people moving to the suburbs.
I am surprised that more people don't move into Portland City Limits, just outside Downtown. Much, if not most of Portland is suburban and quiet. This is especially true off of the peninsula, and I would figure it would be an attractive area for suburbanites and the population would increase as a result.
This is not to say that you are wrong, Patrick; I just believe that your reasoning for the decrease in Portland's population as opposed to the increase in Boston's isn't 100% on the mark. I think Portland's metro area is growing and will continue to grow. In fact, I think it's one of a small handful of New England cities that is in great shape in terms of growth and development at the moment.
*edit* All stats on household income, rent, mortgage costs, etc were found on www.epodunk.com but searching the individual cities mentioned.
P
Patrick
Guest
In Portland, you get less for your money. So while the stats may be right about rents, and mortgages, you get a much bigger house in the suburbs than you would in portland, which is the same as saying the cost of living is higher in portland. a nice house in most suburbs of portland costs half what it would in portland.
and the biggest neighborhood in Boston, DOT, is ,mostly cheap housing, compared to the pricey suburban market in greater boston (which is one of the most expensive in the country). That was the basis of my rationale for believing Boston COL is cheaper than the suburbs. I assume most of Boston's population gain is in the working class neighborhoods, which have lower COL than the suburbs.
and the biggest neighborhood in Boston, DOT, is ,mostly cheap housing, compared to the pricey suburban market in greater boston (which is one of the most expensive in the country). That was the basis of my rationale for believing Boston COL is cheaper than the suburbs. I assume most of Boston's population gain is in the working class neighborhoods, which have lower COL than the suburbs.