NE metropolitan area populations (USA Today)

P

portlandneedsnewarena

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
222
Reaction score
183
Metro Populations for New England Cities according to today's USA Today.

Portland, ME 513,667
Manchester, NH 402,789
Burlington, VT 206,007
Providence, RI 1,612,989
Hartford, CT 1,188,841
Boston, MA 4,455,217
Worcester, MA 784,992
Springfield, MA 686,174
 
portlandneedsnewarena said:
Metro Populations for New England Cities according to today's USA Today.

Portland, ME 513,667
Manchester, NH 402,789
Burlington, VT 206,007
Providence, RI 1,612,989
Hartford, CT 1,188,841
Boston, MA 4,455,217
Worcester, MA 784,992
Springfield, MA 686,174
Click to expand...

This is interesting, thanks. but it is also misleading.

Portland is often times included in a CMSA with Lewiston-Auburn, for a combined total of 622,000 people.

Boston is often times included in a CMSA with providence for close to 6,000,000.

Burlington is in a county with approx. 200,000 people and it is the only city in VT, meaning it draws on more than just its immediate surroundings.

Manchester is normally included in Boston's metro, too, and when its not, it is right next to Nashua, which IS in the boston metro, so the manch metro excludes hundreds of thousands of people in the immediate area.

Also, i believe Hartford is a larger urban area than providence, and thi smay have to do with its position along a chain or urbanness between new haven and springfield, whereas most of the other urbanness around providence gravitates toward boston.

Interesting nonetheless. 513,000 sounds about right for portland. that would be cumberland county (295,000, and most of york and some of androscoggin).
 
Boston's CSA is 5 largest in the country and is comprised of Worcester, Providence, Manchester, and Nashua for a total of 7.4 million.
 
source? I would think the boston MSA does not consist of worcester/nashua etc...those would be included in the general regional CMSA, of which boston is part. You wouldnt see boston msa: 7.4 million people. rather you would see boston-worcester-fall-river-providence-nashua, for example, as a combined metro area, or cmsa.
 
So that is the boston-worcester-manchester-providence metro...I think the metro listed above excludes the other cities. Still a very populated area.
 
Patrick said:
So that is the boston-worcester-manchester-providence metro...I think the metro listed above excludes the other cities. Still a very populated area.
Click to expand...

yeah the new Boston CMSA figures just came out a few weeks ago. I kinda feel like Boston is cheating a lil bit by picking up providence, but as I look at other cities, they do the same thing. Look at SF-San Jose-Oakland, and Washington-Baltimore.

I wonder where USA today got their info from?
 
M. Brown said:
Patrick said:
So that is the boston-worcester-manchester-providence metro...I think the metro listed above excludes the other cities. Still a very populated area.
Click to expand...

yeah the new Boston CMSA figures just came out a few weeks ago. I kinda feel like Boston is cheating a lil bit by picking up providence, but as I look at other cities, they do the same thing. Look at SF-San Jose-Oakland, and Washington-Baltimore.

I wonder where USA today got their info from?
Click to expand...

CMSA's are not the metro areas of the central city, they are urban areas that blend in to each other, so it's wrong to say the Boston metro has 7.4 million people or whatever the figure is. The Boston-Providence-Worcester (MA-NH-RI) metro has that population. Boston just happens to be the central and largest city.
 
The populations of all the big metros in the country are quoted in metro numbers. No one says new york, newark, islip for example. It's just a standardized way of comparing metro populations. We all know there are others and none are perfect.
 
tocoto said:
The populations of all the big metros in the country are quoted in metro numbers. No one says new york, newark, islip for example. It's just a standardized way of comparing metro populations. We all know there are others and none are perfect.
Click to expand...

Yes I realize that, but more people than you would think are not that familiar with the difference between a cmsa, which represents a region, and an msa, which just applies to one city and its suburbs.
 
Patrick said:
tocoto said:
The populations of all the big metros in the country are quoted in metro numbers. No one says new york, newark, islip for example. It's just a standardized way of comparing metro populations. We all know there are others and none are perfect.
Click to expand...

Yes I realize that, but more people than you would think are not that familiar with the difference between a cmsa, which represents a region, and an msa, which just applies to one city and its suburbs.
Click to expand...

And that's the reason we keep hearing that places like Houston and Atlanta are bigger metros than Boston. If you think they are, please go visit for yourself.
 
exactly....isn't boston the fourth densest metro area? Im thinking after NY, Chicago, and SF.....?
 
density

The city of Boston is dense, with around 12000 per square mile. New York, SF and Chicago are all denser, and several smaller municipalities are too, including somerville, but mostly ones in New Jersey and southern California.
The densest metropolitan area is Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, by far.
 
Do you have a source, because I have doubts that area would be denser than NYC, which was settled far earlier, and remains the country's principal city. When i was in socal it all seemed spread out and sprawled.
 
http://demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm

but they are being tricky. if you go by CMSA (which includes all of san bernadino and riverside counties, an area probably as large as maine, and largely desert or agricultural), of course LA's density falls alot. However, if you include only incorporated areas, LA is by far the densest. I think that's what demographia is using here. LA metro is consistently dense. There may be 6000 people per sq/mi in any direction two miles from downtown, and you will find the same density 20 miles from downtown in any direction (except north, then you're in the mountains). Hence the lack of centrality. Or maybe everywhere is the center here. It has to do with water, it has to do with geographical barriers, history, and it has to do with the amount of immigration and overcrowding of housing units. No two-acre lot zoning in southern california.
 
southern cali has 20 times as many people especially if you include an area as big as manchester, to worcester, to p funk... im a little sick of people saying they are from boston when they live in NH. thats not boston, i hate to tell ya, nobody down here will recognize your from boston.
 
I know what you mean....Even people in Portland at times act as if they are from Boston. But I think the city should take it as a compliment.
 
Los Angeles is actually one of the least dense metros of the top 5, it's spans over 33,000 square miles, the second largest is Dallas at 12,360, then New york at 11,842. Boston is 7,227 one of the densest.
 
12345,
33,000 square miles ... of mostly nothing. numbers like these continue to lend to a great misunderstanding of the country's second biggest city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area
sure it's very low density, if you include vast areas of literally nothing.
the area that has been watered (thankyou colorado river, which doesn't even make it to the pacific most of the year), is "so thoroughly cultivated so as to result in an urbanized area with a relatively high density of 7,070 people per square mile (2,730/km?) according to the 2000 census. However, the L.A. sprawl reached its geographic limits around 2000, and future expansion of the sprawl will involve leapfrogging across whole mountain ranges." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area)
Hopping over more mountain ranges (as happened when the san fernando velly, "the valley", was built up in the 50s and 60s) is unlikely to happen, because as you know from the news, the west is going dry. No more rivers to drain with huge aqueducts. It will be interesting to see what happens to the places that are still growing quickly, including parts of San Bernadino/Riverside, Phoenix, and Vegas, especially as we start to get even less rain and snow in the region as forecasted by scientists.
The problems with being the densest metro in the country but with few large nodes of high density? Too many people for everyone to have cars (worst congestion) but with the worst imaginable form (such even distribution of population) for effective public transit. Everytime I visit Boston I marvel at how quickly you can get around. New Englanders need to stop being so cynical, they have it pretty good. Minus the weather.
 
Yes Los Angeles includes vast amounts of nothing but in between these nothings is some forms of housing which is included in the metro statistics, many cities have huge areas of forests or lakes, etc which also cuts down on their population densities, If the global warming is not stopped it will be hard for people to live in interior sections of the southwest because most of the water will go to California, even if some sections get enough water it will be like living in an oven when temperatures frequently pass 120 and you have to go outside for longer than 10 minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top