Are MA's top 3 cities set in stone? (Boston, Worcester: live in, to move)

[btownboss4]

I really can not see any city passing Boston, Worcester, or Springfield, barring Massive annexation by a city like Lowell or Something.

Lowell and Cambridge are sort of catching Springfield but both at least 45,000 back and aré much smsllr physically.
Annexation will never ever in a million years happen. So is 150,000 unreachable for any other Mass. city?

[Amontillado]

I think there would have to be immigration on a large scale, or some reason for lots of people to move, in order to raise the population of a city, and it's hard to see how that would happen. Some very large source of jobs, like a new industry? But those days were a long time ago, and if something labor-intensive were invented now, they'd set it up where the workers are cheap.

As for annexing suburbs, most people live in suburbs in order to stay out of the cities. In the past Boston had something to offer independent towns like Roxbury or Charlestown, but now there isn't much a city could do to persuade any town to join it. Generally the cities are where the problems are.

[MikePRU]

That's a lot of additional housing units to create as well. In a place like Cambridge, where would you put them?

[rranger]

Are MA's top 3 cities set in stone?

I'd say more brick and wood frame (particularly Worcester and Boston for the latter). Hope this gives you the answer you're looking for.

[btownboss4]

I also can not see Springfield catching Worcester, seeing that Springfield is basically stable and Worcester is growing slowly.

[massnative71]

It would be tough for Lowell or Cambridge to add another 45,000, but I can see Springfield continuing to shrink in population. While it may have stabilized in recent years, the city is one big basket case with far more against it that any of its strongpoints can compensate for. Meanwhile, places like Cambridge and Boston despite their already high densities continue to add population at a respectable rate. I wouldn't bet on this, but I can see Cambridge adding another 20,ooo and Springfield bleeding 25,000 over a few decades.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by massnative71

It would be tough for Lowell or Cambridge to add another 45,000, but I can see Springfield continuing to shrink in population. While it may have stabilized in recent years, the city is one big basket case with far more against it that any of its strongpoints can compensate for. Meanwhile, places like Cambridge and Boston despite their already high densities continue to add population at a respectable rate. I wouldn't bet on this, but I can see Cambridge adding another 20,ooo and Springfield bleeding 25,000 over a few decades.

Lowell continues to build its lead over Cambridge, Lowells growing by 1,250 a year while Cambridge is growing by about 700 a year.

[miu]

So you are defining the worth of a city solely by its population numbers?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

Lowell continues to build its lead over Cambridge, Lowells growing by 1,250 a year while Cambridge is growing by about 700 a year.

Lowell continues to grow slowly. It is less dense than Cambridge and there is a small amount of available land left. Much of the city is fairly suburban however, and not conductive to any large scale projects (meaning multiple high rise apts.) that would be required for the kind of growth we're speaking of. Cambridge has rapid transit and the trend there (like Boston) is toward higher density. Not that it is likely in either city, the chances are better of Springfield declining so greatly that it knocks itself out of 3rd.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by miu

So you are defining the worth of a city solely by its population numbers?

I don't think anybody is?