Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone have data for the metro area as a whole? I think that would paint a more complete picture. I found a list of the top 25 fastest growing towns in MA, and apart from Boston, Everett, and Chelsea, it seems like most of them were predominantly white towns in and on the edge of metro Boston. Metro Boston grew by about 180,000 between 2010 and 2014. While in the city of Boston itself (and likely places like Chelsea, Revere, Everett, etc.) immigration might outpace natural birth, I'd wager that it's a very different story in other fast growing places like Swampscott, Westwood, Middleton, West Newbury, etc. There's certainly a lot of foreign immigration to Boston, but it tends to be localized in specific spots and is likely offset to a significant extent by low levels of immigration and higher natural birth rates as well as a different incoming population in many surrounding towns. Many of the more affluent young adults living in Boston move to these communities outside of the city when it's time to start a family. Many affluent people moving to Boston from other American cities choose the 'burbs. Boston proper makes up only about 15% of the overall metro population. So what's happening in the city itself isn't necessarily reflective of the big picture in terms of demographics, migration, etc.
And what would this perspective be, the guy who just showed up from California to make an easy buck off Boston's real estate market? You do realize these policies have harmed a LOT of native born people right? I know you probably don't care, and you're just happy to have the steady flow of cheap labor (regardless of who it is), but...
Boston should be a place where the best and brightest from anywhere can come, compete, and create value. I disagree with the idea that Boston jobs are for Boston born people; the job should go to the most capable.
Regarding real estate, it was apparent to me that Boston metro real estate was incredibly cheap relative to underlying value. Boston is a leading innovation city, and the existing residents/policies prevent substantial increases in density or public transit. I thought the United States was the land of opportunity - don't hate.
Anyone have data for the metro area as a whole? I think that would paint a more complete picture. I found a list of the top 25 fastest growing towns in MA, and apart from Boston, Everett, and Chelsea, it seems like most of them were predominantly white towns in and on the edge of metro Boston. Metro Boston grew by about 180,000 between 2010 and 2014. While in the city of Boston itself (and likely places like Chelsea, Revere, Everett, etc.) immigration might outpace natural birth, I'd wager that it's a very different story in other fast growing places like Swampscott, Westwood, Middleton, West Newbury, etc. There's certainly a lot of foreign immigration to Boston, but it tends to be localized in specific spots and is likely offset to a significant extent by low levels of immigration and higher natural birth rates as well as a different incoming population in many surrounding towns. Many of the more affluent young adults living in Boston move to these communities outside of the city when it's time to start a family. Many affluent people moving to Boston from other American cities choose the 'burbs. Boston proper makes up only about 15% of the overall metro population. So what's happening in the city itself isn't necessarily reflective of the big picture in terms of demographics, migration, etc.
Yeah Boston city population has still yet to equal the historic high, it's the rising metro population that has led to the congestion and has overtaxed the infrastructure beyond recognition.
It would be good to see stats for those fast growing suburbs. I imagine they vary from town to town. Lot's of those cardboard apartment complexes being thrown up overnight in the affluent towns, are chock full of educated Asian/Indian immigrants, while towns like Randolph or Stoughton are popular with working class Haitians, Cape Verdeans, etc. You would have to know the specifics.
Boston should be a place where the best and brightest from anywhere can come, compete, and create value.
Totally agree.
It should also be a place that accommodates its bedrock middle-class that makes Boston "Boston". That is where it has failed to achieve the proper balance required for any metro area to be long term functional and sustainable, and will suffer dearly for it the end. Other "leading innovation cities" (Atlanta, Austin, Raleigh-Durham, Denver, Minneapolis...) do a much better job at this, but even other super expensive ones like D.C..
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowstatus
I disagree with the idea that Boston jobs are for Boston born people; the job should go to the most capable.
Not sure who said such?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowstatus
Regarding real estate, it was apparent to me that Boston metro real estate was incredibly cheap relative to underlying value. Boston is a leading innovation city, and the existing residents/policies prevent substantial increases in density or public transit. I thought the United States was the land of opportunity - don't hate.
WRONG. Boston is notoriously overvalued. And it's not the city that is doing those things, Boston itself is plenty dense enough. It's the local government control and NIMBY policies that prevent more density in the suburbs (and you are correct, existing residents are mostly to credit for that). There is only so much Boston can do, the suburbs have to be part of the solution as well. Transit is state function. Sure the city has influence, but that is a failure of our state government.
From overseas yes. From the western hemisphere, not so much. Especially countries in close proximity, it's the reverse. The unskilled laborers are the ones who come.
I agree with you all on this. But realistically even if the businesses are marginal immigrant from DR Haiti Brazil Jamaica and th elike have truly kept many urban areas in MA economically viable, and kept buildings occupied whereas similar cities in the Midwest have died out because they dont have immigration. Imagine how terrible Lowell Chelsea Worcester, Lynn etc. could have gotten if they continued the path they were on in the 1970s and 1980s? They'd be shells like Youngstown, Flint, Trenton, Dayton, Harrisburg etc.
How ugly would Dorchester and Roxbury be if they never received an influx of foreign born folks??
CT and RI receive fewer immigrants and their cities suffer more as a result.
It should also be a place that accommodates its bedrock middle-class that makes Boston "Boston". That is where it has failed to achieve the proper balance required for any metro area to be long term functional and sustainable, and will suffer dearly for it the end. Other "leading innovation cities" (Atlanta, Austin, Raleigh-Durham, Denver, Minneapolis...) do a much better job at this, but even other super expensive ones like D.C..
Not sure who said such?
WRONG. Boston is notoriously overvalued. And it's not the city that is doing those things, Boston itself is plenty dense enough. It's the local government control and NIMBY policies that prevent more density in the suburbs (and you are correct, existing residents are mostly to credit for that). There is only so much Boston can do, the suburbs have to be part of the solution as well. Transit is state function. Sure the city has influence, but that is a failure of our state government.
Boston has never really valued its native citizens in the modern context. I think since the 1970s the ruling class has been actively working against the middle and working class in Boston. They've really wanted to replace them-problem being not enough people are willing to pay exorbitant prices for a Boston lifestyle which doesn't offer some of the amazing 'oohs and aaahs' of similar sized and similarly pried cities. Transit isnt radial, commuter rail is for recreation, lack of rooftop pools, where are the dispensaries?, no stirp clubs (as much as C-D posters hate this and snub their noses, its the norm in big cities to have a good number and people wait in long LINES), limited diversity in public spaces, no happy hour, 2am last call (the casino wont even let you drink 24/7), beaches are dull and small-no jersey shore feel anywhere. You can get all that plus what Boston offers for much less in Queens or the Bronx or Philly or DC-and you're more centrally located. And that just rivals on the east coast...it leaves Boston feeling like an assortment of congested town rather than a cohesive and cosmopolitan major city.
Bostons puritanism and local control legitimately make the city less attractive to rich folks-rich folks like to have fun and Boston is still anti-fun.
The city is cleaner and safer and more functional than ever before but that the case with a ton of cities in the country. Boston leadership is currently preoccupied with feeding unions and increasing city coffers. Its not really a practical place to live for 80-85% of the population,
so 'regular' people leave
the rich come, get bored and move to Manhattan (the number one destination for ex-bostonians)
the poor are hunkered into projects because towns wont take them and we get some federal monies
the immigrants come and toil so they can get educated and work the service sector.
the immigrants then depart for cheaper pastures in Lynn Everett Peabody(in that order) Brockton Randolph Holbrook (in that order) etc.
I agree with you all on this. But realistically even if the businesses are marginal immigrant from DR Haiti Brazil Jamaica and th elike have truly kept many urban areas in MA economically viable, and kept buildings occupied whereas similar cities in the Midwest have died out because they dont have immigration. Imagine how terrible Lowell Chelsea Worcester, Lynn etc. could have gotten if they continued the path they were on in the 1970s and 1980s? They'd be shells like Youngstown, Flint, Trenton, Dayton, Harrisburg etc.
How ugly would Dorchester and Roxbury be if they never received an influx of foreign born folks??
CT and RI receive fewer immigrants and their cities suffer more as a result.
You see I can't picture the satellite cities of MA in commuting range of Boston, ever becoming one of those "shells". The economy is just too strong, too much housing demand. If anything, without that immigration they would just remain more affordable and fewer native born people would have been displaced. Crime might be a bit higher in some areas, others might have gentrified more, etc. But I don't think there would be an abundance of empty buildings for long.
As for RI cities, maybe immigration isn't as high as Mass. (IDK, it is still very high especially from DR, Guatemala, Laos, etc.)? RI has suffered from a weak economy similar to those rust belt cities. That's an example of where I guess I can see places like Pawtucket and Woonsocket hollowing out more, but that could always be a blessing in disguise.
Boston has never really valued its native citizens in the modern context. I think since the 1970s the ruling class has been actively working against the middle and working class in Boston. They've really wanted to replace them-problem being not enough people are willing to pay exorbitant prices for a Boston lifestyle which doesn't offer some of the amazing 'oohs and aaahs' of similar sized and similarly pried cities. Transit isnt radial, commuter rail is for recreation, lack of rooftop pools, where are the dispensaries?, no stirp clubs (as much as C-D posters hate this and snub their noses, its the norm in big cities to have a good number and people wait in long LINES), limited diversity in public spaces, no happy hour, 2am last call (the casino wont even let you drink 24/7), beaches are dull and small-no jersey shore feel anywhere. You can get all that plus what Boston offers for much less in Queens or the Bronx or Philly or DC-and you're more centrally located. And that just rivals on the east coast...it leaves Boston feeling like an assortment of congested town rather than a cohesive and cosmopolitan major city.
Bostons puritanism and local control legitimately make the city less attractive to rich folks-rich folks like to have fun and Boston is still anti-fun.
The city is cleaner and safer and more functional than ever before but that the case with a ton of cities in the country. Boston leadership is currently preoccupied with feeding unions and increasing city coffers. Its not really a practical place to live for 80-85% of the population,
so 'regular' people leave
the rich come, get bored and move to Manhattan (the number one destination for ex-bostonians)
the poor are hunkered into projects because towns wont take them and we get some federal monies
the immigrants come and toil so they can get educated and work the service sector.
the immigrants then depart for cheaper pastures in Lynn Everett Peabody(in that order) Brockton Randolph Holbrook (in that order) etc.
Wash rinse repeat
No it definitely didn't happen overnight, it just happened to have gained more traction due to the city now being "discovered". Certain tax policies haven't helped either, those that make it uncompetitive for Americans to compete with newly arrived foreigners in many mom and pop businesses. These "anchor" businesses in many neighborhoods that had in the past provide an incentive for locals to stick around, are often no longer.
As an African-American, I'm ambivalent towards immigration. In the grand scheme of things, it seems like a good and helpful thing overall. I enjoy the diversity of culture and food thoroughly though. I think in the larger African-American community there is a tinge of resentment but I've never heard anything outwardly negative really...
that resentment is going to grow as more illegals enter the country entitled to benefits (healthcare for one) that it's own citizens aren't offered.
You see I can't picture the satellite cities of MA in commuting range of Boston, ever becoming one of those "shells". The economy is just too strong, too much housing demand. If anything, without that immigration they would just remain more affordable and fewer native born people would have been displaced. Crime might be a bit higher in some areas, others might have gentrified more, etc. But I don't think there would be an abundance of empty buildings for long.
As for RI cities, maybe immigration isn't as high as Mass. (IDK, it is still very high especially from DR, Guatemala, Laos, etc.)? RI has suffered from a weak economy similar to those rust belt cities. That's an example of where I guess I can see places like Pawtucket and Woonsocket hollowing out more, but that could always be a blessing in disguise.
I dont think the economy was soo strong until after the great recession that they wouldn't have become shells. Immigrants kept them afloat throughout the up and downs 1990s and 2000s.
Chelsea Lynn Lowell and Lawrence were in very very bad shape throughout the last three decade so the 20th century. I think we forget a bit too quickly how cheap housing was in the 1990s and from 08-12.
Also Pawtucket, Central Falls, Providence and Woonsocket have grown some (very little) since 2010. The immigration is high but not quite as high as MA. And thats because of the weak economy most likely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
