Population & Economic Growth

Yeah. Wikipedia is a fine enough source for casual information that’s factual and relatively easy to cross reference.
 
Blackbird said:
Yeah. Wikipedia is a fine enough source for casual information that’s factual and relatively easy to cross reference.
Click to expand...

The issue is not Wikipedia nor the Census source, but how we are interpreting these and other sources. 2020 - 2022 was an unstable period of time - sure, one that likely birthed new trends - but also one where, in itself, was not a stable reference point for where things are going for the next 10-20 years. Anytime there's a big change, interpretation challenges emerge in data sources. For instance, many believe (including the mayor's office) that Boston's large transient population was undercounted (relative to how it typically had been counted) during the pandemic. BTW, interpreting population trends has just been discussed in another very recent aB thread (which is probably a better place for it than the South Station Tower thread): Population & Economic Growth
 
bigpicture7 said:
The issue is not Wikipedia nor the census source, but how we are interpreting these.
Click to expand...

Uhhh…I was indirectly replying to akmags, who DID have issue with referencing Wikipedia in general! 😅

The actual question of whether the area’s population will grow is a bit beyond me. I do think it will have a hard time if it can’t control housing prices or compel the wealthier and more rural suburbs to make room for more homes.

But this is a topic for another thread..
 
Blackbird said:
Uhhh…I was indirectly replying to akmags, who DID have issue with referencing Wikipedia in general! 😅

The actual question of whether the area’s population will grow is a bit beyond me. I do think it will have a hard time if it can’t control housing prices or compel the wealthier and more rural suburbs to make room for more homes.

But this is a topic for another thread..
Click to expand...
By all means, and my apologies, my reply to your post was just meant as a continuation of the discussion, not any sort of disagreement with what you were saying!
 
Nibbles O’Plenty said:
These are iffy projections only…and mean little. They may have some other self-serving reasons for putting these out. You can find the actual census numbers on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
So trust Wikipedia, a website that literally anyone can add information to, over actual university and government-conducted research?? Ok, great plan.
 
gac108 said:
So trust Wikipedia, a website that literally anyone can add information to, over actual university and government-conducted research?? Ok, great plan.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a derail, but yes, Wikipedia (which is strongly edited and moderated) is a more legitimate source in 2023 than a lot of academia and certainly than a lot of journalism.
 
Massachusetts Sees Largest Annual Population Growth Since 1964

On December 19, 2024, the U.S. Census Bureau released annual population estimates for U.S. States and Puerto Rico for July 1, 2024. According to the release, the Massachusetts population grew significantly from July 1, 2023, to 2024, benefiting largely from the Census Bureau’s adjustment to the immigration estimates in this year’s vintage. The state population increased by 69,603 over the year, from 7,066,568 to 7,136,171, representing a percentage increase of just under 1.0% (0.985%). This is the largest annual percentage increase that Massachusetts has experienced in over a decade, since the 2012-2013 annual increase also rounded to 1%. Numbers wise, 2023 to 2024 saw the largest population increase in Massachusetts in 60 years. The state population was estimated to have increased by 104,000 persons at the tail end of the “Baby Boom” in 1964.

[...]

The largest driver by far of the estimated population increase from 2023 to 2024 in Massachusetts is attributed to net immigration, estimated at 90,217 for the state for that year. The Vintage 2024 estimates (V2024) are significant for Massachusetts in that they show the highest levels of immigration seen since at least 1990. Prior to V2024, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated immigration primarily according to ACS survey response data on place of birth and residence one year ago. In the current series, the U.S. Census Bureau revised their method for estimating immigration to include an expanded pool of administrative records from Homeland Security and other agencies in order to capture the immigration surge documented in increasing border encounters.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone know if there has been an effort to quantify the number of potential housing units lost to Boston as well as the broader metro-area due to reductions in the size of proposals sent to planing authorities?

For example, the net loss of 50 potential units, when a proposal is cut from 150 to 100 units.
 
FPJ said:
Does anyone know if there has been an effort to quantify the number of potential housing units lost to Boston as well as the broader metro-area due to reductions in the size of proposals sent to planing authorities?

For example, the net loss of 50 potential units, when a proposal is cut from 150 to 100 units.
Click to expand...
Jeez, I wish someone had piped up with an answer to this. I also think that would be really interesting to know.

Just considering it through a bit, I think whatever number you get would be a small fraction of the number of housing units actually lost though the planning process. There would also be the units lost when a project gets help up indefinitely. There are also the projects never even proposed because of the risks of getting cut down in the planning process. Still, I'd love to see an answer for what you're asking. It would be a useful stat to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top