How far, how high, how big

[Mike D]

I absolutely agree. I grew up in southern NH/ Mass. and went to Brown in the 90's. One of the things that surprised me in Providence was how little there was of the pessimistic attitude (a combination of

insecurity vis-a-vis NYC, old-fashioned tribalism, and petty snobbery) which I had always associated with New England. There is a huge amount of this in Boston, I remember seeing an earnest globe headline after the Democratic convention, something to the effect of "So... are we cool yet? (or is it uncool if we need to ask?)". It is truly pathetic to see the city behaving like a 13 year-old. The flip side is that Boston tends to take out its frustrations by bashing smaller cities or suburban areas and prattling on about how much more cultured and urbane Boston is (again, I'm thinking of many articles in the globe, etc.)

I found very little of this in Providence (and also less of the view of "well our roots are up tight puritan, irish catholic, etc. and we'll never change") So something I've been wondering for a while is what New England would be like if Providence were the dominant city (granted this is purely hypothetical!) I think it is more forward looking and clear headed than Boston, and on the whole a better example for the region.

And I thought I was the only one who thought so. Your post is very insightful and stirred up feelings I have about Boston. I do agree with your post about the way Bostonians feel about NY - which bothers me a lot cause, well, I grew up in NY. It just annoys me to have to hear so many cheap shots taken at NY. The uptight/Puritan provincial attitude is another thing I can do without. But Boston is never going to change. But it looks like Providence is changing and has been for many years now. I've never lived in Providence so I don't know first-hand how the people can be. But judging from what's taken place in Providence in recent years, it looks they are looking forward to the future. If they can successfully lure more businesses to the city, that would be really great. Providence needs that. GTECH is a great start. But it should not end there. I admire Providence for not having the same pessimistic attitude that characterizes Boston. Boston needs to concentrate on improving its own lot and not obsessing over NY.

[Mike D]

What interests me is not so much development prospects but the huge difference in character between Bos and Prov and what it would be like if Providence set the tone for the region rather than Boston. I think that more than any other non-Boston part of New England, Providence has its own thing going. Boston, while still a healthy city, has more or less passed its peak of influence (unlike say nyc which will always be #1 in the country). As a result it seems people there have a lot of insecurity over a) always being smaller than new york and B) watching other cities surpass boston in growth as young people continue to leave massachusetts. in providence i think the overall mood is much more conducive to moving the city forwards and not being fixated on an ingrained mentality.

It's funny, but I never thought two NE cities just 45 miles from each other could be so different in character. But the difference is a good thing for Providence, I think. It's just good to see and hear that Providence is doing its thing to make itself a better place. I'm going to take another trip to Providence one of these days.

[CtownMikey]

has bostons population decreased in recent yrs?? just wondering.

[Recchia]

Boston's population has increased since 1980, but not until after a huge drop from 1950. In 1950 it had over 801,000 people. Now it has around 589,000. At its lowest, in 1980, it was 562,994. Here's a link to the census website giving populations for every census: http://www.census.gov/population/www/docum...n/twps0027.html

[Mike D]

Every year, the World Almanac gets estimate figures on city populations. I assume they come from the U.S. Census Bureau. I checked the 2005 edition of the World Almanac for their 2003 population estimates. They listed Boston's population at about 581,000, down from the 589,000 of the 2000 Census. As for Providence, they had it listed at about 177,000, up from 173,000 given in the 2000 Census.

More good news for Providence, gaining around 4,000 more people. But a loss of 8,000 people can't be good news for Boston which has been gaining population since 1980 (except for a small loss in population in the early 90s).

[CtownMikey]

well thats cool. But enough about Boston I keep on having Ally McBeal dreams b/c of you guys!! haha.

It'd be nice if Prov. gained its old 'max' population of over 200,000. And Given 2-3 centuries.. I definately think things could change as far as reigning cities of the United States.-- Back in HS.. (last year) all of my history teachers mentioned how even though this country has done so much in such a small amount of time, things could drastically change in even just 100 years I mean what if by the year 2305.. all of the antarctic ice melts and little providence is underwater?!!? Or there ends up being a world war 3, and even if we won.. which cities would be attacked? LA, NYC, BOSTON? WASHINGTON, ATLANTA?... leaving little guys like us alone hopefully.

OK i admit this was a crazy post.. but i JUST woke up from a crazy vampire dream.. later guys n gals!

[EPBOY]

There is something to be said for this 'inferiority complex" and something to be said against it.  I find that the majority of Rhode Islanders (especially those over 30 and not particularly invested in the future of Providence) are VERY cynical and often do not believe that good projects (like the many we've seen recently) come to fruition (and if they do, they likely fail).  .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that the supposed inferiority complex discussed here has as much to do with Rhode Islanders attitudes as much as the pervasive element of corrupt government has. Let's face it, a decade under a corrupt Governor (Diprete in the 90's), and 2 1/2 decades of a city with a corrupt mayor and administration (Cianci) has really done a number on peoples morale.

Those people over 30 have lived with this corruption a long time, so it makes sense that they would be nay-sayers. It's more about a lifetime of unfufilled promises than being not invested in the future of Providence, or feeling inferior to Boston.

What's amazing is how quickly Providence has been able to recover from that corruption to see this explosion of pent up demand for construction. A lot has changed in only 2 1/2 years! And as long as citizens continue to demand better government (instead of settling for the status quo) I think Providences potential is limitless.

As Providences accomplishments continued to pile up, peoples confidence and pride in the city will also swell!

[CtownMikey]

yes.. that is a very good point, and seems very realistic at this point

[kurtosis]

More good news for Providence, gaining around 4,000 more people. But a loss of 8,000 people can't be good news for Boston which has been gaining population since 1980 (except for a small loss in population in the early 90s).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be nice if Boston and/or Providence set a goal to get back to their peak population. i think there is a resistance to development because people see it as trying to turn the city into something it's not. it might work better to look at it as trying to

make up for moving backwards the last 50 years.

[Garris]

Boston's population has increased since 1980, but not until after a huge drop from 1950.  In 1950 it had over 801,000 people.  Now it has around 589,000.  At its lowest, in 1980, it was 562,994.  Here's a link to the census website giving populations for every census: http://www.census.gov/population/www/docum...n/twps0027.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't get numbers like this... Parts of the city should be a ghost town if this were true... Is some of this a difference in what was considered "Boston" then vs now? Is there a methodology difference?

- Garris

[AriPVD]

A note about that: up until the 1950s, many innercity neighborhoods in places like Boston and Providence experienced severe overcrowding. The number of buildings was roughly the same, but there were many more people living in each dwelling unit, hence the higher population figures. As society became wealthier and many people suburbanized, the slums thinned out, resulting in drastically lower population figures. Even in the worst of today's slums, there is hardly any density that can be compared to pre 1950.

[EPBOY]

I'm really jazzed about all these new projects, and it's exciting to think about how the city is growing and about to change before our very eyes! But, I was reading some different opionions over at the ProJo. One in particular brought up a very valid point. As excited as I am, I hope someone is thinking about expanding the infrastruture to accomadate all this growth!

This person did not leave a name or email on thier posting, but I will quote it below:

"...The increased usage of utilities in the East Side/Downtown/Federal Hill area will be enormous. Although most of the proposed living spaces are "efficient," this only goes so far when you are talking about hundreds more toilets being flushed and lights left on, and cars running around in and out of our very small city. The potential for increased wastewater entering our system should be a chief concern to not only city planners, but also to the Bay Commision, and other agencies responsible for lessening the flow of wastewater into the bay..."

[kurtosis]

As society became wealthier and many people suburbanized, the slums thinned out, resulting in drastically lower population figures.  Even in the worst of today's slums, there is hardly any density that can be compared to pre 1950.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's more or less true. although "slum" is a pretty relative term. i think a lot of

the people living in those areas back in the old days saw them as stable neighborhoods, so I don't think the association of density and poverty is carved in stone. Another point to consider is that New York has experienced a lot of the same pressures but maintained a fairly steady population, which even reached an all-time high recently. I think other east coast cities could reasonably aim to go back to their previous population highs, instead of seeing those numbers as just a historical anomaly.

[AriPVD]

I agree, but don't forget from 1950 to the present day was the first real decline in city population, especially relative to the amazing growth of suburban population. Even as cities begin to grow again, the average suburb grows at 9 times the rate.

[eltron]

That's more or less true. although "slum" is a pretty relative term. i think a lot of

the people living in those areas back in the old days saw them as stable neighborhoods, so I don't think the association of density and poverty is carved in stone. Another point to consider is that New York has experienced a lot of the same pressures but maintained a fairly steady population, which even reached an all-time high recently. I think other east coast cities could reasonably aim to go back to their previous population highs, instead of seeing those numbers as just a historical anomaly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would agree with this, I think we could certainly begin to approach past population numbers, without necessarily overcrowding.

Really, the drop in population was commensurate with a drop in housing units...the fifties saw massive "slum" clearance with the bulk of urban renewal programs at their height. This demolished entire neighborhoods. In Boston, you have the West End, Scollay Square, large sections of Roxbury, JP, etc., all of the area under the Central Artery. On and on. Large parts of Boston, really WERE ghosttowns...

[Mike D]

I'm really jazzed about all these new projects, and it's exciting to think about how the city is growing and about to change before our very eyes!  But, I was reading some different opionions over at the ProJo.  One in particular brought up a very valid point.  As excited as I am, I hope someone is thinking about expanding the infrastruture to accomadate all this growth! 

This person did not leave a name or email on thier posting, but I will quote it below:

"...The increased usage of utilities in the East Side/Downtown/Federal Hill area will be enormous. Although most of the proposed living spaces are "efficient," this only goes so far when you are talking about hundreds more toilets being flushed and lights left on, and cars running around in and out of our very small city. The potential for increased wastewater entering our system should be a chief concern to not only city planners, but also to the Bay Commision, and other agencies responsible for lessening the flow of wastewater into the bay..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm excited to hear about the new projects too. Really shows that Providence is firmly on the comeback trail - and far ahead of the other similarly-sized southern New England cities. I've been interested in Providence for years and I'm glad things are continuing to look good there. You do make a valid point about infrastructure - it will need to be expanded, but as long as it doesn't involve significantly widening I-95 or I-195.