Talk:Greater Boston

Untitled

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 August 2004 (UTC)

Population

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)

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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.64.147 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.37.6 (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Worcester is certainly outside the Greater Boston area? I question this assertion. Many people in the Worcester area work in Boston, and many people who live in Boston work in Worcester. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Pepkoka

According to data produced by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, the population of the cities and towns within the area they oversee, generally the area within Route 495, is 5,414,140 as of the 2010 Census. You can find this data here.Dombett (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Eighth District

Eighth district includes at least Somerville which is certainly greater Boston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.251.201 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

Largest town

Framingham is most certainly not the "largest town in North America"; that honor probably goes to Hempstead (town), New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121a0012 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox data

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.93.139 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

sorry did not mean to post without signing. am not anonymous. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few people from Worcester sit comfortably on the Greater Boston page. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

Any objections/ideas? CSZero 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, how's that look? CSZero 02:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Providence metropolian area has a population of 1.6 million. Worcester's would probably be around a half million if you could extricate it from Boston. Manchester's metro is 177,000. Still, the US Census Bureau hasn't renamed it so we can't just make up a new name out of some sense of justice.--Loodog (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The source for the list of towns is here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metro_general/2006/List8.txt but it is no longer a valid link... CSZero (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Objections explained

Here is this section I am questioning, and I will provide several reasons below:

This list has been provided by the Census based on commuter populations, and is generally not what a resident of the area would consider the principal cities of the region.

• Boston
• Cambridge
• Framingham
• Nashua
• Newton
• Peabody
• Quincy
• Waltham

Comments:

The entire introductory sentence as written violates the following guidelines:

WP:Citing sources The sentence is likely to be challenged because the list names some locations but not others without providing a source. If the source is dead, another needs to be found. The original source from 2006 is possibly somewhere within the archives at http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html, but the latest figures for 2008 should be used if the same list exists there.

WP:Verifiability The sentence is not verifiable because of the lack of a source, and similarly the list itself is not verifiable because it isn't clear which data set is being used. Are these all from the CSA, MSA, the NECTA or some other list the census has published? The criteria for this list needs to be explicitly stated.

WP:Avoid weasel words The second part of the sentence, "and is generally not what a resident of the area would consider the principal cities of the region" is ambiguous in that the area is not defined and generally together with consider implies opinions which are not within the scope of census data and can not be proven with reliable sources. That part of the introductory sentence for the list is simply not allowed under multiple guidelines.

I have no problem with having this list included in the article as long as it is clear what the criteria for inclusion (population of city/town >50K? commuter population>some number?) and what the area is but a source that provides the exact list needs to be added; if towns or cities are left out or added by criteria established after the fact here on Wikipedia, that constitutes a violation of the policy against original research. However, the second half of the sentence needs to be left out entirely because it states an unprovable opinion. For now, I removed that part of the sentence and unless a source is found for the list and given in the text explaining what the "area" is, it should be removed as well. Sswonk (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Source for 2008 is here (NECTA) and here (MSA). The definition of a principal city is here (Part D, Section 5). The concept of principal city is indeed somewhat non-intuitive but basically is a place that attracts commuters from its surroundings. --Polaron | Talk 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So, how about a reword like this: The Census Bureau defines the following as principal cities in the Boston NECTA[7] using criteria developed for what the Office of Management and Budget calls a Core Based Statistical Area.[8] Sswonk (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that if you want to put it. If you don't soon and I get no objections, I will. CSZero (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please use proper citations and not bare links. 121a0012 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course; I used bare links as a form of shorthand here on the talk page for convenience, they will be cited properly. Since there are no objections, I will make the change to the page. Sswonk (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: The Boston city population was revised by the US Census, July 2008 to 620,535 as corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.252.242 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Metro vs. Greater Boston

Currently the lead says "...Metro Boston is usually reserved to signify the "inner core" surrounding the City of Boston, while Greater Boston usually at least overlaps the North and South Shores, as well as MetroWest and the Merrimack Valley." There's a "citation needed" on the first phrase about Metro Boston. Some quick searching seems to show that the terms Metro and Greater Boston are very often used interchangeably, and with varying definitions/delineations. This MetroBoston website defines "Metro Boston" as a fairly large area, and on various pages uses the term "Greater Boston" for the same region. Its planning region includes "most of the communities inside the I-495 corridor". This website, Greater Boston Employment Collaborative uses the terms Metro and Greater interchangeably, and defines it as "within Route 128". Confusingly, the site also defines a "Metro West", beyond "Greater Boston". Anyway, my brief search for clarity on these terms only made me more confused. Either better, clearer sources should be found or our page should explain how neither term is particularly well defined. Pfly (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Population and statistical areas need updating

The descriptions of the various statistical areas need to be checked against the current definitions (as used in the 2010 census) and the populations should show the 2010 numbers and not 2005 estimates. I added {{update section}} to the CSA section without realizing that all three of the OMB/Census-based sections need the same kind of updates. 121a0012 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Greater Boston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829235936/http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/1_transportation_plan/plan.html to http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/1_transportation_plan/plan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522112709/http://www.boston.com:80/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/mass_based_employers/ to http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/mass_based_employers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310130608/http://ucso.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/Students/CareerResources/CityScapes/Boston.pdf to http://ucso.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/Students/CareerResources/CityScapes/Boston.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010004102/http://www.boston.com:80/business/globe/globe100/ to http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Boston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018182241/http://news.vistaprint.com/facility/us-operations-and-north-american-business-unit-head-office to http://news.vistaprint.com/facility/us-operations-and-north-american-business-unit-head-office

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Springfield and Northampton, MA are NOT part of the Boston CSA nor are they part of the "Boston area".

Following sentences were removed from the article:

In 1777, General Henry Knox founded the Springfield Armory, which during the Industrial Revolution catalyzed numerous important technological advances, including interchangeable parts. In 1786, Shays' Rebellion, a populist revolt led by disaffected Revolutionary War veterans, influenced the United States Constitutional Convention. In the 18th century, the Protestant First Great Awakening, which swept the Atlantic world, originated from the pulpit of Northampton preacher Jonathan Edwards. Mikeanthony1965 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Yes, they belong in different articles covering central Massachusetts, if anywhere. Reify-tech (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for "principal cities and towns"

By what criteria are the "principal cities and towns" determined? I assumed it would be proximity (i.e. following the light-blue towns highlighted on the map), however the bulleted list includes several municipalities that are quite a distance away, many of which wouldn't normally be considered part of Greater Boston (e.g. New Bedford, Barnstable, Provincetown, Edgartown, West Tisbury), while omitting many municipalities that are more often considered "Greater Boston", and many of which are even highlighted on the map (e.g. Rochester, Middleborough, Lakeville, Plympton, Carver). This seems like something that should be re-evaluated, especially since that particular section offers no references or sources and seems rather arbitrary. VSatire (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how it is determined. Different people have different opinions on what is included in Greater Boston, so no clear boundary is known. However, a good starting point would be the MAPC list. Livinlife133 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)