Talk:Greater Boston
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Greater Boston is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Boston; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the priority scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rhode Island, a WikiProject related to the state of Rhode Island. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Ideas for expansion:
Companies of Boston, 128, 495
Geographic features (rivers, hills...)
Recreation (parks, swimming, cycling, fishing...)
Communications (TV, radio, newspapers, Internet, antenna farm)
Research facilities (observatories, labs)
If Greater Boston indeed has 5.8 million people, it should have more than two congressman - specifically, that's about 10 congressmen - presumably the 2 NH congressmen and 8 of the 10 MA ones. john k 05:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Eighth District
Eighth district includes at least Somerville which is certainly greater Boston
[edit] Largest town
Framingham is most certainly not the "largest town in North America"; that honor probably goes to Hempstead (town), New York.
- New York is not in New England —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorazine (talk • contribs).
[edit] Population
5.8 million people? There's only 6.3m in the whole state. That's an extremely liberal definition of "Greater Boston" -- Springfield and Worcester, which are certainly outside the region, have 350,000 residents in the city cores alone. This should probably be corrected. 160.39.145.124 20:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
-5.8 million includes areas of N.H., Maine and Rhode Island. Parts of those states are included in Greater Boston (a loosely defined region).
-The US Census Bureau has more than one type of metropolitan area definition and one of them, Combined Statistical Area, is very inclusive. The Boston-Manchester-Worcester CSA does in fact have over 5.7 million people. Greater Boston, however, doesn't necessarily correspond to this or any other census definition. --DeanoNightRider 08:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- For the infobox I used 4,424,649—the 2004 estimate for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy in List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population. —David618 23:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you expect? This is Wikipedia and some editior(s) on here is clearly engaging in spreading Boston propaganda. They even claimed that it was a business and cultural hub for CT! Now I see this and it further confirms what I had already proven to these crooked editors, but they want the lies to continue because their feelings got hurt.
[edit] Boston-Worcester-Manchester CSA
In trying to update the CSA data for the Boston... CSA, I came upon two conflicting sources. This source suggests a 2000 population of 5,517,730. This source lists a 2000 population of 7,316,770, with a 2005 population of 7,427,336. This second source is much higher than I've ever heard for the Boston area. I cannot figure out the source for the discrepancies. The three principal cities are the same for both sources; the first source is in "MA-CT-NH" while the second is in "MA-RI-NH" (which would seem to suggest an even smaller area, not a larger area). With the exception of the figures for Boston, all of the other figures (e.g. Washington-Baltimore, San Franscisco, New York, Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Saint Louis, Los Angeles, etc.) seem reasonable and in agreement with other sources. I'm almost inclined to think this might be a mistake (but only for Boston) and am inclined to contact the U.S. C.B. if I don't any revealing information on their website. Anyone have any ideas??? Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Boston CSA was redefined last May. It now includes the Providence MSA because the commuter interchange has exceeded the threshold value. --Polaron | Talk 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and your first source is a NECTA which is slightly different (but probably a better representation of the true metro area). --Polaron | Talk 01:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- To echo Polaron, the larger figures probably include Providence.Kmusser 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] boundary is wrong, population totals inconsistant
This article is confusing, claiming that Manchester (NH), Worcester, and Providence (RI) are all in Greater Boston, then citing a definition with population data that uses a significantly smaller area. United States metropolitan area lists "Boston–Cambridge–Quincy" as 11th largest, and that title's link points here, but the List of United States metropolitan areas shows a separate entry for "Providence–New Bedford–Fall River," ranked 35th largest at 1.6 million people, another separate entry for "Worcester," ranked 64th at 783 thousand, and yet another entry for "Manchester–Nashua," ranked 120th at 401 thousand. The sum of these numbers would make this article's definition of Greater Boston have a population of over 7.2 million.
I have lived and worked in Greater Boston for my whole life ... I've never heard of Manchester being included in Greater Boston, and Worcester is considered all-but in Greater Boston. The definition I've always lived by is that of I-495, with the real action happening inside MA-128. This seems to fit with the census data above, with the exception of "Rockingham County–Strafford County," which is outside I-495 (and I do not personally consider to be within Greater Boston). -- Adam Katz 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, and then the info-box only lists MA/NH being in the region, while the graphic shows Rhode Island completely included. Which is it? CSZero 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think this stems from Manchester being included in the BosWash megalopolis and Boston being the dominant large city in the New England region. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The larger definition (The 7.x million people one) is a commuter-range definition. People from Manchester definitely commute into the more restrictive Boston Metro (The 4.x million people one). People from Providence do as well. I think extreme Southern New Hampshire (Nashua, Windham) are even more likely to do so and they do fall into the more narrow Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA, definition of Boston (as far as the US Gov't is concerned). I guess my question is which is the article about. CSZero 19:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Since I did the map - I was trying to show both, the red boundary is what I think most people think of as Greater Boston. The yellow area is the Census Bureau's definition of the Boston CSA, which includes the Boston, Nashua, Providence, and Worcester MSAs. That distinction is on the image description, but maybe it should be included in the article somewhere as well. Kmusser 19:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think that's a good idea. Maybe the map could be slightly modified so that the red area exactly matches the MSA and the yellow the CSA, and the image description could be updated accordingly. I'd do it myself but I don't know how to edit the image. CSZero 16:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Already working on it :-) Kmusser 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] CSA vs NECTA vs CNECTA
The Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas in whole county units, which is how the Boston-Worchester-Manchester CSA is made. But for New England, where towns function more like counties do elsewhere, the Census Bureau also defines metropolitan areas based on cities and towns (NECTA = "New England City and Town Area"), which is how the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MA-NH Metropolitan NECTA is made. Then there is a "combined" NECTA, the Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-CT CNETA. So there are three different definitions of "metro Boston" provided by the Census Bureau. Since the CSA form is common for the whole USA, it is perhaps the obvious one to use for Boston, but as User:Kmusser pointed out, it probably makes more sense to use the NECTA or CNECTA. They were specifically created to better define New England metro areas after all.
Not being that familiar with Greater Boston, I'm not sure which definition should be used on this page, although perhaps the differences between the three ought to be described in the text somewhere. For the infobox, perhaps the NECTA (which reaches slightly into NH but not as far as Manchester) should be used, rather than the CNECTA (which incluedes Manchester and parts of CT). In any case, here are some links and population figures from the 2000 Census:
CSA: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH. Population (2000): 5,715,698 [1][2]
NECTA: Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan NECTA. Population (2000): 4,540,941 [3][4]
CNECTA: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-CT Combined New England City and Town Area. Population (2000): 5,517,730 [5][6]
There are probably more recent population estimates somewhere on the Census website, but I'm not sure where. Also, one more twist, the "Metropolitan NECTA" is subdivided into "NECTA Divisions". There are 9 divisions for the "Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan NECTA". The largest by far is "Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division", population (2000) 2,773,832. The other 8 divisions all have populations below 300,000 and include places like Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, Framingham, Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, Lawrence-Methuen-Salem, Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, Lynn-Peabody-Salem, and Taunton-Norton-Raynham. I think these are all considered "Greater Boston".
More info on the various metro area definitions here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html Pfly 19:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- PS. A full list of the towns and cities included in the NECTA definitions can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/msa_def.htm#71650 Pfly 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would recommend against using the CSA definition. The Census Bureau no longer considers the CSA definition as being a metropolitan area; the MSA is essentially closer to a metropolitan area definition. One more note on the CSA, though. Betweem 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau changed their definition of the Boston CSA to now include the Providence-Fall River-Bedford, RI-MA MSA. This is why the total for the CSA is now 7,427,336. (Past years 2000-2004 are given for comparison using the new definition which was not in effect back then.) So, if maybe there could be a minor mention of the CSA, but with reduced emphasis.
-
- Next, I would also say that for the sake of consistency, the MSA definitions using counties would be of more benefit. On another article, we found that there was a slight overlap between the Hartford NECTA definition and the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA definition (which uses only a county definition and no definition based on town areas). For this reason, I used the definition by counties so that parts of counties weren't being double-counted by the NYC... CSA and Hartford NECTA definition. Since MSA definitions (using counties) are available in New England, I would probably use those for consistency. I will try to get another opinion on this as well. Ufwuct 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with Ufwuct. The MSA definition is the current standard used by the US Govt to define metropolitan areas nationwide and should be the main focus of the article. While it is true that the NECTA definition is more accurate because of its use of towns as building blocks, for statistical comparability with the rest of the country's metro areas, the MSA is probably better. We should definitely mention the CSA in the article as well but emphasizing that it is composed of multiple metropolitan areas of which Greater Boston is the central one. It would also be useful to highlight the slight differences between the NECTA and the MSA. --Polaron | Talk 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Worcester
It is listed under Cities of Grater Boston, but not shown on map. Worcester is not in greater Boston. Only Cities and towns inside the 495 beltway are considered to be part of greater boson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorazine (talk • contribs).
- And your source is?
- Atlant 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia article. It states those 2 ways of dividing it up ways. Besides Worcester is the seat of its own county, and it has a population of over 170 thousand people. Dose that not make it its own metropolitan area?
- I think Atlant was asking your source that inside the I-495 is the only definition of Greater Boston. That seems unlikely as the article already talks about varying definitions which are sourced. The smaller definition may be more common, but it's not the only one. Kmusser 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Kmusser, yes, thank you, that was what I was asking.
-
- Atlant 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why Massachusetts would not be stronger if the Boston-Worcester corridor were not treated as a single unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Principal Cities and Towns
Wanted to move this discussion here and look for more input:
- Hello, could you point me to a place where I can find the data for the principal cities list in Greater Boston? I watch that article, and I notice that cities get added and reverted from there all the time. The list can't be based on cities that have more jobs than residents, because, for example, Lowell (so I read somewhere) has a daytime population of 60,000, even though it has 100,000+ residents. However, as the 4th largest city in the state, and the second largest in Greater Boston, I think it belongs on this list. Lawrence is probably even worse for that, and Lynn, which isn't on the list, isn't much smaller than deeply depressed Lawrence. I think an official, directly cited source would reduce the constant edit/revert situation. Thanks, CSZero 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I checked the list and you're right. A couple of the cities are just the largest cities of the NECTA division they're in but not listed as principal cities. The list of principal cities is here. I'll go ahead and delete the non-principal cities. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- one more thing though. This list is obviously very factual, being census data and all, but as a resident of the state, it doesn't sit well with me because some of these places are pretty small, since what they really are are highway suburbs. Looking at, say, an areal map of the area, there are a lot of clearly visible, larger (but poorer,old, and economically depressed...), population centers that seem omitted. I'd almost like to make an asterick for the principal cities and towns list explaining where its from and why, and then have a second list of 'other population centers' with cities like Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill in the North, and Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford to the South. In the Boston core, there's Lynn at least and maybe Somerville. Many of these cities have 80,000+ residents, and I think that makes them mentionable. What do you think? CSZero 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you want the list to be based on population, I think that is fine. That might even be closer to what most people think as major cities. My only concern is that people will start adding more and more to the list of towns. But I guess as long as we state the criteria, it should be ok.
- one more thing though. This list is obviously very factual, being census data and all, but as a resident of the state, it doesn't sit well with me because some of these places are pretty small, since what they really are are highway suburbs. Looking at, say, an areal map of the area, there are a lot of clearly visible, larger (but poorer,old, and economically depressed...), population centers that seem omitted. I'd almost like to make an asterick for the principal cities and towns list explaining where its from and why, and then have a second list of 'other population centers' with cities like Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill in the North, and Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford to the South. In the Boston core, there's Lynn at least and maybe Somerville. Many of these cities have 80,000+ residents, and I think that makes them mentionable. What do you think? CSZero 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I checked the list and you're right. A couple of the cities are just the largest cities of the NECTA division they're in but not listed as principal cities. The list of principal cities is here. I'll go ahead and delete the non-principal cities. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Any objections/ideas? CSZero 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, how's that look? CSZero 02:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Providence
The expansion of the Greater Boston CSA engulfed the remainder of Rhode Island without adding Providence to the name. A city of that size, much larger than Worcester or Manchester to boot, without a doubt needs to be included in the name. After all, without it, San Francisco and Philadelphia would still have larger CSA populations than Greater Boston. Heff01 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- To be fair, Providence and Worcester, proper, both have populations around 175,000. Manchester is smaller at around 110,000. CSZero 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- CSA names are given by the Census Bureau, I don't think it's up to us to rename them. Kmusser 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Population density map request
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Massachusetts may be able to help! |
