New England Growth.

[M. Brown]

Fantastic growth all around.

2010 Census numbers
Manchester, NH 109,565
Portland, ME 66,194
Burlington, VT 42,417
Boston, MA 617,594
Worcester, MA 181,045
Providence, RI 178,042
Bridgeport, CT 144,229
Stamford, CT 122,643
Hartford, CT 124,775

 

[Portlander]

Poor Providence! Though there is no contest in which of the two cities is more urban, Providence will be stuck behind Worcester by a mere 3K people for the next decade. Hartford is still the biggest disappointment on the list, sad to see how this mighty insurance giant and state capital has fallen in the last 40 years. Goes to show that you can only put so much emphasis is city populations nowadays.

 

[Patrick]

Wow....really cool...thanks for sharing. I remember in 2005 wanting to see the 2010 census figures, but then I stopped wondeirng what they would be, assuming they would have been less...but this is great news. And Burlington...wow, it whent from 38,000 (a town) to 42,000 (a small city) in my mind. Burlington is very dense to begin with, denser than Portland or Manchester actually, which is a little odd. But the figures are also skewed because the city is so small (about half the size of Portland and 1/3 that of Manchester that you don't see anything in those numbers except the inner core of the area. Really great to see New England growing though

 

[Patrick]

It looks like Manchester must have been measured on an off year for that city, because I thought the population was already up to 112,000 or was that just an estimate?

 

[M. Brown]

It looks like Manchester must have been measured on an off year for that city, because I thought the population was already up to 112,000 or was that just an estimate?

I don't remember any official census estimate at 112k. Maybe it was the chamber of commerce coming up with that number. I was hoping to break the 110k barrier though.

Poor Providence! Though there is no contest in which of the two cities is more urban, Providence will be stuck behind Worcester by a mere 3K people for the next decade. Hartford is still the biggest disappointment on the list, sad to see how this mighty insurance giant and state capital has fallen in the last 40 years. Goes to show that you can only put so much emphasis is city populations nowadays.

I think Providence and Hartford did good considering probably everyone expected them to loose population but in fact gained.


I am most impressed by Boston's and Portland's gain. I was expecting Portland to loose population and the fact that Boston is an old dense North Eastern city and still gaining population is just awesome.

 

[Patrick]

I don't remember any official census estimate at 112k. Maybe it was the chamber of commerce coming up with that number. I was hoping to break the 110k barrier though.




I think Providence and Hartford did good considering probably everyone expected them to loose population but in fact gained.


I am most impressed by Boston's and Portland's gain. I was expecting Portland to loose population and the fact that Boston is an old dense North Eastern city and still gaining population is just awesome.

I thought it was a post by you a while back that said 112,000, but I could be wrong...or I could have misinterpreted you.

I think Portland's gain is impressive, too. Really I thought the City was shrinking, and even the estimates before these official numbers were released indicated that it would be around 63,000. I think the reason for the growth in the Northeast is the recession and rising gas prices, especially a few years ago. That made demand for housing closer to cities increase, even if only by a little. It could have been the deciding factor in just enough decisions to keep the city from spreading too thin.

 

[Patrick]

Other interesting dmeographic changes include the fact that for the major cities in NNE, diversity seems to have increased (not surprisingly).

Lewiston - 81% white
Nashua - 85% white
Portland - 86% white
Manchester - 88% white
Burlington - 92% white

actually I just realized I was still using the "estimates" has this info been released yet?

 

[Lrfox]

I think the "growth" in some of these cities is, in part, attributed to better counting regarding some of the newer ethnic groups. I know people in some cities were really upset about the population numbers in 2000 as they felt newer immigrant populations were missed (many of them don't fill out forms for fear of being persecuted). This is the case in New Bedford which did end up gaining more than 1500 people and breaking the 95,000 barrier. 95,000 people in 20 sq. mi. is kind of a lot. a pop. density of over 4,500 people per square mile isn't bad at all for such a small city. Still, the mayor believes the city was still under counted. There are many who believe that there are over 110,000 people in NB including the wide array of very new immigrant groups (lots of Guatemalan and Cambodians who are unaccounted for as they choose not to participate).

I'm happy to see Manch. and Portland grow. Both cities have been revitalizing for years and have obviously improved as small urban areas. It's nice to see statistics back it up. Burlington is an odd case. I still do feel it's a "large town" too, but it is larger than that 42,000 lets on. Keep in mind, it's only 10 square miles of land area! That's 1/2 the size of NB and less than half the size of Portland in terms of land area. Not bad.

 

[Patrick]

wicked good points theyah. 4,500 per sm is good density, considering very few major cities break the 5,000 average density mark. Winooski VT is 6,000 ppl per sq. mi., but only because it has a pop of 6,000 in one mile. and given that it directly borders Burlington, the urbanized area in that city is more accurately described as 48,000 in 11 sq. mi., or 4,300 per sq. mile. Burlington is pretty dense. Boundaries, as you indicated, make a big difference. If Portland was only downtown, the density would be much higher (same with everywhere, obviously). That is essentially the case in Burlington. Not that the downtown is 10 sq. mi., but the town includes only the densest areas. Outside are farms.

As an aside, Portland's projected 1995 population was 84,000 based on 1988 construction activity...interesting.

 

[MonopolyBag]

You say fantastic, but not all growth is good. Its gotta be well planned developments that then attract people. We can't have NH, ME, and VT become more Massachusetts. I hope they do stay ruralish. However I doubt this is going to happen.

But city growth I guess is good because many of those people are coming from suburbs, however I bet if we look at the numbers of suburbs as well we would see increases too.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

And Burlington...wow, it whent from 38,000 (a town) to 42,000 (a small city) in my mind. Burlington is very dense to begin with, denser than Portland or Manchester actually, which is a little odd. But the figures are also skewed because the city is so small (about half the size of Portland and 1/3 that of Manchester that you don't see anything in those numbers except the inner core of the area. Really great to see New England growing though

Boundaries, as you indicated, make a big difference. If Portland was only downtown, the density would be much higher (same with everywhere, obviously). That is essentially the case in Burlington. Not that the downtown is 10 sq. mi., but the town includes only the densest areas. Outside are farms.

I think the comparison in terms of density of Manchester, Burlington and Portland is hard to do. As you point out, boundaries matter. Burlington is very tiny in land area, so there's really no outlying areas to impact the density. Especially Manchester, but even Portland have considerably large areas of land of relatively low density, and in Manchester's case hundreds of acres of undeveloped land on the outskirts. Suburbs like South Burlington are part of the same municipality in Manchester and Portland. From walking around Burlington, I don't think you get the same sort of density almost anywhere as you do in Rimmon Heights in Manchester, for instance. That said, there seem to be more people living downtown in Burlington (and Portland) than in Manchester. Also, Burlington--despite being a big town population-wise and having a somewhat artificially inflated density--feels bigger due to its relative isolation and the huge number of students.

Anyway, all around it's great to see growth in the cities of New England. It seems like the suburbs are still growing at a faster rate than the cities, but that the rate in cities is increasing while it's decreasing in the suburbs.

 

[apa99]

Poor Providence! Though there is no contest in which of the two cities is more urban, Providence will be stuck behind Worcester by a mere 3K people for the next decade. Hartford is still the biggest disappointment on the list, sad to see how this mighty insurance giant and state capital has fallen in the last 40 years. Goes to show that you can only put so much emphasis is city populations nowadays.

---

PVD is more "urban?" Huh?

If you're saying PVD is a superior city to Worcester based on the fact that the mafia helped pave over the Blackstone River, that's a real shallow evaluation.

 

[Portlander]

Never claimed Providence superior to Worcester, but I'm not sure if anyone would disagree with my assessment that Providence is more urban than Worcester. Actually, much more urban.

 

[M. Brown]

I thought it was a post by you a while back that said 112,000, but I could be wrong...or I could have misinterpreted you.

I think Portland's gain is impressive, too. Really I thought the City was shrinking, and even the estimates before these official numbers were released indicated that it would be around 63,000. I think the reason for the growth in the Northeast is the recession and rising gas prices, especially a few years ago. That made demand for housing closer to cities increase, even if only by a little. It could have been the deciding factor in just enough decisions to keep the city from spreading too thin.

I probably posted something after reading this.

http://www.yourmanchesternh.com/quick-facts.aspx

 

[Lrfox]

---

PVD is more "urban?" Huh?

If you're saying PVD is a superior city to Worcester based on the fact that the mafia helped pave over the Blackstone River, that's a real shallow evaluation.

Well, Providence IS more urban. It's fairly obvious.

If you're a stats guy, here you go...

Urban Area (NOT MSA or CSA which say nothing about how urban an area is):

PVD: 1.2 Million people
Worcester: 430,000 people.

'Nuff said.

Worcester covers more than double the land area that Providence does and has a mere 3,000 more people. It's like saying Jacksonville is larger than Boston. In addition, Providence's neighboring cities are very much extensions of its urban core while Worcester's, for the most part, aren't. It's tough to tell when one has left PVD and entered Cranston, Pawtucket, Warwick, etc. In fact, Warwick, Cranston and Pawtucket all have over 70,000 people living in them. Providence is far and away more urban than Worcester. It's why you can't take much at all from city proper populations.

Also, what does the river have to do with anything? There aren't many people who would turn their nose up at the Riverwalk in PVD. And none of it's paved over (it flows freely under the mall...not even diverted). Only a small stretch of downtown has the walk. Outside of that it's fairly natural. It's hard to fault the mayor, not matter how corrupt he may have been, for getting that project done.

Never claimed Providence superior to Worcester, but I'm not sure if anyone would disagree with my assessment that Providence is more urban than Worcester. Actually, much more urban.

Right on.

 

[Portlander]

Thank you Lrfox. Your Boston and Jacksonville analogy was a beautiful thing!

 

[Patrick]

Nowhere is more urban than North Deering.