bostonbubble.com Forum Index bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SPONSORED LINKS

Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com

YOUR AD HERE

 
Go to: Boston real estate bubble fact list with references
More Boston Bubble News...
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed. As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.

boston population is not declining

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> News & Reference Suggestions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gmoogle
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:15 am GMT    Post subject: boston population is not declining Reply with quote

Hi,

Great site here - i just wanted to add a little bit of information i recently found:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/12/10/were_losers___no_wait_were_winners/

We're Losers - No, Wait, We're Winners!
Might the newly revised census numbers make us feel better but act badly?

By Tom Keane | December 10, 2006

So, new data from the US Census Bureau now suggest that Boston and the rest of the state aren't losing population after all. Holy Chicken Little – the sky isn't falling! It seems almost a shame. The alleged departure of residents for other climes had made for a great story and was a terrific opportunity for over-the-top angst. Pundits, politicians, and think tanks all cranked up their worry-o-meters, and now, thousands of anguished words later, the crisis that preoccupied their time appears to have been an illusion.

Still, while it lasted, the calamity did seem to energize us, and we certainly came up with great ideas for solving it. Now that it's over, the whole thing has the feel of a false alarm. The firefighters have shown up, and they're ready to go. Yeah, it turns out the building isn't burning. But why not hose it down anyway?

The alleged crisis had its genesis earlier this year. Boston's population, the Census Bureau estimated, had fallen by 5.1 percent – from 589,141 in 2000 to 559,034 in 2005. And as goes Boston, apparently, so goes the state: After climbing to nearly 6.42 million in 2003, the Census Bureau estimated, Massachusetts lost almost 19,000 residents in the next two years. The criticocracy went wild. People were moving out of Boston at the rate of 27 a day! (Actually, more like 16, but in moments like these, hyperbole trumps accuracy.) We heard about "Hub snubbers" and "the incredible shrinking city." Boston had "lost its groove," declared one pundit. Scholars feared for our "long-term economic vitality." Plenty of local think tanks weighed in, fretting about brain drains and the loss of talented workers to other states. Governor Mitt Romney tried to blame the weather; others blamed him. The reasons advanced for the departures were many: the cost of living, the flight of high-tech jobs to other states, our high-tax, business-inhospitable politics, and, of course, our "smug and unfriendly" culture. Indeed, the Census Bureau's numbers served as fodder for almost everyone who had something negative to say about Boston. They became the ultimate proof that something was deeply wrong, evidence that our leaders and our politics had failed us.

A few raised doubts, the most prominent of whom was Boston's mayor. Tom Menino couldn't understand why people so readily bought the demise-of-the-city story. The reports of an exodus were at odds with his day-to-day experience. The city was humming, residential construction was proceeding apace, and the streets were crowded. For his protestations, however, he was mocked as being "in denial." If the Census Bureau said it was true, it must be, right?

Wrong. This fall, the Census Bureau conceded that Menino's gut had been better than the number crunchers' computers, and the agency revised its 2005 numbers. Instead of a decline, a new estimate now puts Boston up by more than 7,000 citizens since 2000. Oops. Question, Mr. Mayor: Has anyone called to say sorry for the trash talking? "I haven't heard from any of them," Menino tells me. That's not a surprise. Critiques come easily. Apologies less so.

Apologies aside, one good thing emerged from the crisis: More of us, it seemed, began to care about the future of the Commonwealth. We started thinking about what worked and what didn't work. The crisis became a motivating force behind the gubernatorial election, with voters overwhelmingly rejecting a tired 16-year political formula. And all of the things people identified as problems – costly housing, too-long commutes, an unbalanced economy, an insider-dominated establishment – still remain real issues, though population figures now seem to be trending upward. Even the complaints about our surly disposition have merit. Who could argue against efforts to teach us to lighten up and be more polite?

Nevertheless, there is no fire burning out of control here. "The city's doing well," Menino says. "Do we have issues? Sure. But we're managing them." He's right. In Massachusetts, employment is up, incomes are high, and our kids are among the smartest in the nation. Still, we could be better. Even though the apocalypse isn't nigh, wouldn't it be nice if we could keep the enthusiasm we had when we thought it was?

Tom Keane, a Boston-based freelance writer, contributes regularly to the Globe Magazine. E-mail him at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.
Back to top
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:48 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I am aware, it is only the population of Boston Proper which has been revised upward to a positive change, and at the expense of the Greater Boston Area at that as Menino convinced the Census Bureau to redistribute the declines to the rest of Suffolk County. There are more details at http://www.bostonbubble.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=162 If you are aware of revised numbers for the state, please post them - Massachusetts was still estimated to be losing population the last I read.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Condo



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:15 pm GMT    Post subject: Population increase? Reply with quote

Now it appears MA is not losing population overall? Has everyone been in an uproar over misinformation?

"Census data reveal population boomlet in Worcester County: Plymouth, Bristol also show growth" - B Globe 3/22/07

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/22/census_data_reveal_population_boomlet_in_worcester_county/


A statement within this article parallels a position I represent: "Certainly, people are being pushed by housing costs to the fringes of the Boston region," said Paul S. Grogan , president and chief executive of the nonprofit Boston Foundation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:27 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Now it appears MA is not losing population overall? Has everyone been in an uproar over misinformation?


I don't believe that the article you linked to contradicts the reports of Massachusetts' recent population losses. The article says that the Massachusetts population increased ~1% between the 2000 Census and July 1, 2006. However, reports of population loss were for the two year period between July 1, 2004 and July 1, 2006 - see http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/23/census_estimate_a_concern_for_state/ This is not inconsistent at all and just implies that the losses have been more recent than the gains.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:36 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correction: the article I linked to was from 2005 rather than 2006, and at that point there had only been 1 year of declines, I believe. I think that the declines continued for the next year as well, but I don't have a reference handy for that at the moment - feel free to post a yearly breakdown, if you have one. My point still stands, though, that the reported declines were for more recent years and get muted in the average when you start the date range back in 2000.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Condo



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:52 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The article you reference is fifteen months old (12/23/05). This new report was released today (3/22/07). Stating:

".... from 2000 to 2006 its (Worcester County) population jumped by 34,029 people, more than any other Massachusetts county in terms of both raw numbers and percentages. Just behind were two southeastern counties: Plymouth, up by 20,801, and Bristol, up by 10,701."

"Overall, the state's population increased by about 88,000 to about 6.4 million between the 2000 Census and July 1, 2006. Those three high-growth counties accounted for most of the jump, while the population of the rest of the state has been essentially steady."

"Of the 14 counties in Massachusetts, only two recorded population declines between 2000 and 2006: Berkshire, which lost 3,836 people, and Suffolk, which fell by 2,197."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:03 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was trying to emphasize the following:

"Overall, the state's population increased by about 88,000 to about 6.4 million between the 2000 Census and July 1, 2006. Those three high-growth counties accounted for most of the jump, while the population of the rest of the state has been essentially steady."

There is nothing here that indicates that the numbers from the article I referenced for July 1, 2004 - July 1, 2005 were wrong. The point being, declines have been recent relative to the start of that date range (2000).

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Condo



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:23 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Understood.

You could interpret today's report as positive for MA. That the overall populating is growing, and mass exodus is simply not occuring..unless more than 88,000 people have left MA since July, 2006.

I'm not certain what figures are accurate, not sure anyone has their arms around it, and that's a problem .....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:26 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully this will clear things up. As of March 22, 2007, direct from the US Census Bureau at:

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01.xls

  • July 1, 2005 - 6,398,743
  • July 1, 2004 - 6,407,382
  • July 1, 2003 - 6,417,565
  • July 1, 2002 - 6,411,568
  • July 1, 2001 - 6,394,750
  • July 1, 2000 - 6,362,132
  • Estimates base - 6,349,105
  • Census - 6,349,097

Based on this data, which is possibly the most up to date "official" data available given that it was linked to directly from the Census Bureau's Massachusetts QuickLinks page, the population of Massachusetts has declined for a least two years. That would be the period between July 1, 2003 and July 1, 2005. Data for 2006 does not yet appear on the given page or other readily identifiable pages.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:37 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, maybe they do have more up-to-date numbers. I just replaced "2005" with "2006" in that Census Bureau URL, and lo and behold:

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2006-01.xls

The numbers are now:

  • July 1, 2006 - 6,437,193
  • July 1, 2005 - 6,433,367
  • July 1, 2004 - 6,435,995
  • July 1, 2003 - 6,439,592
  • July 1, 2002 - 6,431,247
  • July 1, 2001 - 6,406,727
  • July 1, 2000 - 6,362,604
  • Estimates Base - 6,349,105
  • Census - 6,349,097

So, it looks like the state's population fell from July 1, 2003 - July 1, 2005 and then increased a little by July 1, 2006.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dorchester grandma
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:09 pm GMT    Post subject: Boston losing middle and working class Reply with quote

Boston's population is probably changing rather than decreasing. Could it be that would be that many less wealthy first time homebuyers are indeed leaving MA due to lack of affordable housing and buying opportunities? Boston has become a city of the rich and the very poor who live in housing projects and subsidized housing. (Then there is also Boston's immigrant population which manages to pay high rents and buy homes by pooling their resources).

Look at Brookline, an extreme case of gentrification. Brookline used to have a working class. Neighborhoods like Brookline Village were relatively affordable. Now EVERYONE is educated and affluent except those living in the projects.

Dorchester? If anything good has come from the recent rash of murders here it is that gentrification seems to be slowing down. Well to do young professionals are being scared away. Investors are giving up.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:39 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the wall board (dry Wall) hangers , and the nail bangers (framers)
getting ready to leave,
due to the slow down in new housing starts .

greater boston's population will continue to decline .

In case you don't know whom i am talking about ,
I am talking about the immigrant Brazilians .

there has to be 100,000 illegal Brazilians inside the
highway 495 belt

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> News & Reference Suggestions All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group