So this is some true nerd number running right here and this post comes as a companion to my last post.
After a recent trip to Austin and some research I did upon my return it occurred to me that most large American cities are much bigger land wise than the large cities we have here in the Northeast. Due to this people who have spent most of their lives living in the Northeast may have a distorted view of what makes a large city. I contend that because of the city and town system of New England, even though the towns surrounding a large city are autonomous, independent and have their own municipal governments the group of towns and cities themselves are what dictate the culture of the metropolitan area that gives the core city it's reputation. So I present to you the stats for Worcester, Boston, Providence, Lowell, Hartford, and Springfield. 1st column is the population, second column is the land area in sq miles, third column is the density people per square mile. On the bottom you will find the totals. Since Austin was the inspiration for this I tried to get as close to 300 sq miles as I could. This is by no means scientific but I do think it illustrates my point, which is to stop thinking of Worcester as the second biggest city and trying to get it to live up to all the expectations that entails.
So to start off with Worcester:
| Worcester | 182,596 | 37.60 | 4,678.10 |
| Shrewsbury | 31,640 | 20.70 | 1,526.30 |
| Westborough | 17,997 | 20.50 | 876.90 |
| Auburn | 16,259 | 15.40 | 1,035.30 |
| Holden | 15,621 | 35.00 | 446.40 |
| Grafton | 14,894 | 22.70 | 655.00 |
| Northborough | 14,013 | 18.50 | 756.10 |
| Clinton | 13,435 | 5.70 | 2,355.70 |
| Oxford | 13,352 | 26.60 | 501.50 |
| Northbridge | 13,182 | 17.20 | 767.20 |
| Millbury | 12,784 | 15.70 | 812.50 |
| Spencer | 11,691 | 32.90 | 355.90 |
| Charlton | 11,263 | 42.50 | 264.80 |
| Leicester | 10,471 | 23.40 | 448.30 |
| West Boylston | 7,481 | 12.90 | 580.00 |
| Paxton | 4,386 | 14.70 | 297.70 |
| Boylston | 4,008 | 16.00 | 250.00 |
| 372,547 | 293.00 | 1,271.49 |
Boston:
| Boston | 620,535 | 48.43 | 12,813.00 |
| Cambridge | 105,594 | 6.43 | 15,767.96 |
| Quincy | 92,339 | 16.80 | 5,496.40 |
| Lynn | 87,122 | 10.80 | 8,066.90 |
| Newton | 83,271 | 18.10 | 4,600.60 |
| Somerville | 74,405 | 4.10 | 18,147.60 |
| Waltham | 59,758 | 12.70 | 4,705.40 |
| Malden | 55,712 | 5.10 | 10,923.90 |
| Medford | 55,565 | 8.10 | 6,859.90 |
| Revere | 55,341 | 5.90 | 9,379.80 |
| Weymouth | 53,272 | 17.00 | 3,133.60 |
| Arlington | 41,144 | 5.20 | 7,912.30 |
| Chelsea | 38,203 | 2.20 | 17,365.00 |
| Everett | 37,269 | 3.40 | 10,961.50 |
| Braintree | 34,422 | 13.90 | 2,476.40 |
| Watertown | 32,521 | 4.10 | 7,932.00 |
| Randolph | 30,168 | 10.10 | 2,987.00 |
| Needham | 28,263 | 12.60 | 2,243.10 |
| Melrose | 26,708 | 4.70 | 5,698.30 |
| Wellesley | 26,613 | 10.18 | 2,614.10 |
| Saugus | 26,078 | 11.00 | 2,373.70 |
| Milton | 25,961 | 13.00 | 1,976.00 |
| Dedham | 24,132 | 10.50 | 2,298.30 |
| Belmont | 23,356 | 4.70 | 4,969.40 |
| Canton | 21,916 | 18.90 | 1,159.60 |
| Winthrop | 20,154 | 2.00 | 10,077.00 |
| Hull | 11,050 | 3.00 | 3,648.90 |
| Nahant | 3,632 | 1.20 | 2,918.70 |
| 1,794,504 | 284.14 | 6,315.56 |
Providence:
| Providence | 171,557 | 18.50 | 9,473.00 |
| Warwick | 85,808 | 35.50 | 2,457.00 |
| Cranston | 79,269 | 28.60 | 2,774.70 |
| Pawtucket | 71,765 | 8.70 | 8,437.00 |
| East Providence | 49,515 | 13.40 | 3,692.00 |
| North Providence | 32,411 | 5.70 | 5,720.20 |
| West Warwick | 29,581 | 7.90 | 3,728.70 |
| Johnston | 28,195 | 23.70 | 1,191.40 |
| Lincoln | 20,898 | 18.20 | 1,146.60 |
| Smithfield | 20,613 | 26.60 | 775.30 |
| Central Falls | 18,683 | 1.20 | 18,683.00 |
| Barrington | 16,812 | 8.40 | 1,997.90 |
| Scituate | 10,324 | 48.70 | 212.10 |
| 635,431 | 245.10 | 2,592.54 |
Hartford:
| Hartford | 124,512 | 17.30 | 7,025.50 |
| New Britain | 71,254 | 13.30 | 5,358.70 |
| West Hartford | 61,173 | 22.00 | 2,781.00 |
| Manchester | 55,572 | 27.30 | 2,036.00 |
| East Hartford | 49,173 | 18.00 | 2,732.00 |
| Newington | 29,676 | 13.20 | 2,248.00 |
| Vernon | 29,491 | 17.70 | 1,666.00 |
| Windsor | 28,778 | 29.60 | 972.00 |
| Wethersfield | 26,220 | 12.40 | 2,115.00 |
| South Windsor | 25,985 | 28.00 | 928.00 |
| Farmington | 24,941 | 28.10 | 888.00 |
| Bloomfield | 20,581 | 26.00 | 792.00 |
| Berlin | 19,590 | 26.50 | 739.00 |
| Rocky Hill | 18,760 | 13.50 | 1,390.00 |
| Windsor Locks | 12,411 | 9.00 | 1,379.00 |
| 573,176 | 273.90 | 2,092.65 |
Springfield:
| Springfield | 150,640 | 32.10 | 4,692.80 |
| Chicopee | 54,563 | 22.90 | 2,389.70 |
| Westfield | 40,072 | 46.60 | 860.30 |
| Holyoke | 39,958 | 21.30 | 1,871.40 |
| Agawam | 28,144 | 23.20 | 1,210.90 |
| West Springfield | 27,899 | 16.80 | 1,665.70 |
| Ludlow | 21,209 | 27.20 | 752.10 |
| South Hadley | 17,196 | 17.70 | 971.00 |
| Longmeadow | 15,633 | 9.00 | 1,732.50 |
| East Longmeadow | 14,100 | 13.00 | 1,087.10 |
| Wilbraham | 13,473 | 22.20 | 606.30 |
| Belchertown | 12,968 | 52.70 | 245.90 |
| Palmer | 12,497 | 31.50 | 396.30 |
| Southwick | 8,835 | 31.00 | 285.40 |
| Hampden | 5,171 | 19.60 | 263.30 |
| 436,422 | 281.40 | 1,550.90 |
Lowell:
| Lowell | 103,512 | 13.80 | 7,500.90 |
| Methuen | 43,979 | 22.40 | 1,963.30 |
| Billerica | 42,038 | 25.90 | 1,623.00 |
| Chelmsford | 34,128 | 22.70 | 1,503.40 |
| Andover | 31,247 | 31.00 | 1,007.80 |
| Tewksbury | 29,607 | 20.70 | 1,430.30 |
| Dracut | 29,498 | 20.90 | 1,411.40 |
| Burlington | 25,034 | 11.80 | 2,121.50 |
| Westford | 22,066 | 30.60 | 712.10 |
| Wilmington | 21,679 | 17.10 | 1,267.80 |
| Bedford | 13,146 | 13.70 | 959.60 |
| Tyngsborough | 11,860 | 16.90 | 701.80 |
| Groton | 10,641 | 32.80 | 324.40 |
| 418,435 | 280.30 | 1,492.81 |
So there it is. Again, I wrote my last entry on the fly without looking back at these numbers so the numbers I quoted were exagerated, however, these numbers here, all taken from 2000 census numbers do illustrate my point. If all cities in New England were southern city size, Worcester would be number 6 of the bunch (maybe further down as I haven't run the numbers for New Haven or Bridgeport, which by the rules I set would probably just be one gigantic city).
The city (government and it's citizens) need to stop referring to the city as the second largest in New England because it simply is not and it leads to expectations that simply cannot and will not be met.
5 comments:
These are great stats to have on hand, Gabe. Thanks for compiling. Just to follow up with what I was saying in the last post, I'm looking at the County as a whole not just adjacent towns. If Worcester was the Co seat, we should have been drawing in population from all the failed post industrial towns/cities for the sake of practicality, not just the adjacent ones.
I think we're saying essentially the same thing.
Gabe,
You are correct that most cities in other areas of the country are much bigger land wise than those in the Northeast. However just because they are much bigger in area doesn’t mean they are more urban. I’ve never been to Austin but I can probably guess that a lot of the 300 sq. miles is quite suburban in nature. In fact, you would be hard pressed to determine you were even in the city proper.
BTW, I’m somewhat of a nerd too when it comes to numbers so here are some of my own. These are the top 10 Metropolitan areas in New England and the corresponding rank for the U.S. as a whole.
This data is from the official listing of the 366 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) as defined by the U.S. Government. The MSA rank is by population as of July 1, 2009, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau.
The first column is the New England ranking followed by the city, its MSA population 2009 estimate, and the U.S. ranking
1) Boston 4,588,680 (10)
2) Providence 1,600,642 (37)
3) Hartford 1,195,998 (45)
4) Bridgeport 901,208 (56)
5) New Haven 848,006 (60)
6) Worcester 803,701 (64)
7) Springfield 698,903 (74)
8) Portland 516,826 (99)
9) Manchester 405,906 (127)
10) Norwich, Ct.266,830 (169)
David, your first paragraph illustrates my point perfectly. Worcester is more like a typical southern city than a northeastern city. Northeastern cities typically are dense within city limits and surrounded by large cityburbs. Worcester is dense in the middle, not dense on the outskirts and surrounded by small towns, just like a southern city.
Point taken Gabe.
BTW, Austin ranks at 35 nationally just ahead of Providence with a Metropolitan population (2009 estimate) of 1,705,075.
City, urban and sprawl are three words that come to mind. Densely populated cities are referred to as urban environments. Places such as New York, Tokyo, London and Chicago are examples of extremely urban environments. Places where the population spreads densely over large tracks of lands are known as a sprawl. Examples include Austin, Dc, and LA. Each scenario has advantages and disadvantages. Often sprawl lead to traffic problems, poorly distributed public facilities/resources, excessive commuting. Urban on the other hand often falls into inner city failure, pollution and crime. SO the question is can Worester live up to it's reputation as NE's second largest city? Austin right now faces a crisis trying to support it's whole population's growing sprawl and poor traffic situation. Dense city's onj the other hand are spared many expenses more spread city's face by concerntrating their resources. I would argue that Worcester is well prepared. They were just voted one of the most recession proof cities in the US. They house a world class Art museum, Support a thriving music scene, and sponsors hundred of cultural events yearly.
Sprawl, you can keep it. I like a nice short commute and small friendly suburbs.
Post a Comment