city comparisons

[pvenne]

(below based on 2000 census data, i think, i realize these figures might have changed by now)

manchester population: 109,310 people in city

portland population: 64,249 people in city

burlington population: 38,900 people in city

manchester = 2.8 burlingtons, 1.7 portlands (rounded: 3xburlington; 2 x portland)

portland = 0.6 manchesters, 1.7 burlingtons (rounded: 1/2 x manch; 2xburlington)

burlington = 0.36 manchesters, 0.6 portlands (rounded: 1/3xmanch; 1/2xPortland)

[M. Brown]

I like the math . Can you calculate Manch's density at 33 sq miles?

[pvenne]

I like the math . Can you calculate Manch's density at 33 sq miles?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

manchester = 3,312 people per sq. mile. (109,310/33)

portland = 3,059 per sq. mile. (64,250/21)

burlington = 3,670 people per sq. mile. (38,900/10.6)

just a bit of trivia: portland's density in 1950 = 3,762 people per sq. mile. (w/population of 79,000 in city).

it is funny that burlington is the most dense of the three cities cause it isnt even really a city like portland or manchester is...oh well, i guess there is a pretty dense north end, and it only has 10.5 miles to work with...

[pvenne]

lewiston = population: 39,690 (35,690 in year 2000 +4,000 somalis in years 2001 and on)

> density = 1,167. again very funny cause lewiston has a much denser feel to it than burlington....although it is three times as big in terms of land....lewiston is very urban (in a bad way).

[M. Brown]

^yeah there are a ton of somailis in manch too. They are probably counting for most of Manchester's population growth.

[M. Brown]

Try and calculate Manchester's density at 111,870 (which seems more correct imo)

[pvenne]

Try and calculate Manchester's density at 111,870 (which seems more correct imo)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

3,394 = manch density for 112,000 people. i wouldnt say that the somalis are accounting for any of manchesters population growth. they usually arent counted in census data...for some reason, they dont fill out the questionaires, or are harder to keep track of etc... and sometimes there can only be so many people living in one house that some people, not just somalis, but mostly immigrants that are struggling to find affordable housing, wont tell the real amount of people that live in a single residence. like in portland, for example, there are really closer to 70,000+ residents, i would bet anything short of my life on it. 64,000 is just the number of people that they can keep accurate track of. so manchester is probably closer to 115,000. PROBABLY, but i could be wrong.

[M. Brown]

^That'd be nice

[BigCityAttitude]

it is funny that burlington is the most dense of the three cities cause it isnt even really a city like portland or manchester is...oh well, i guess there is a pretty dense north end, and it only has 10.5 miles to work with...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You always make Burlington out as a bad place... And about it only being 10.5 miles, the suburbs are relatively dense as well. (South Burlington, Williston, Winooski, Colchester...)

[pvenne]

You always make Burlington out as a bad place... And about it only being 10.5 miles, the suburbs are relatively dense as well. (South Burlington, Williston, Winooski, Colchester...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i dont mean to offen anyone from greater burlington. my perception of it coming from portland is that it is not much of a city. just like someone from NYC might refer to boston as a "town" it is just my personal perception. add on to this that i dont like the city because of the attitudes of its residents (most of them anyway, some are very nice) and i just tend to talk about it in a negative light, thats all. if it helps, i have never heard anyone else say that they dislike burlington, usually all you hear are great things about the city. and i know the suburbs are dense, thats why i made a post about how winooski was denser than portland AND manchester. but i wouldnt say south burlington or colchester are especially dense.

[pvenne]

density of So. Burl, vermont: Population per square mile 950.19

colchester: Population per square mile 460.52.

williston: Population per square mile 252.15.

____________________________________________________

in comparison -

south portland, maine: Population per square mile 1,944.68

westbrook: Population per square mile 956.95

falmouth: Population per square mile 348.13

________________________________________________________

new hampshire -

goffstown: Population per square mile 458.85

weare: Population per square mile 132.14

hooksett: Population per square mile 323.57

allenstown: Population per square mile 235.95

[BigCityAttitude]

True that Colchester and S. Burlington aren't very dense, but take into account that most of the land in the town boundaries in undeveloped. I'm not too familiar with Williston so I was wrong about it.

[pvenne]

True that Colchester and S. Burlington aren't very dense, but take into account that most of the land in the town boundaries in undeveloped. I'm not too familiar with Williston so I was wrong about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

see what could be the case is that the "developed" part is very dense (like you said) and then there is like 10 miles of woods...just like in portland. the developed part here is extremely dense, for the most part, and then there are hundreds of little islands with no human life on them that are calculated into our land mass...not to mention wooded parks etc...i see a lot of dense developments on the way to burl though on I-89 right before or after the whale tales in the grass there on the side...they almost look like gated communities from afar. do you know what im talking about? p.s. why the heck are those whales there anyway?

[M. Brown]

t00 much math for me

[BigCityAttitude]

see what could be the case is that the "developed" part is very dense (like you said) and then there is like 10 miles of woods...just like in portland.

[Cotuit]

Portland is actually very suburban off of the pennisula, which drags down it's density. The penninsula and the areas around the Back Cove are nicely dense though.

[pvenne]

Portland is actually very suburban off of the pennisula, which drags down it's density. The penninsula and the areas around the Back Cove are nicely dense though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

extremely suburban. indeed. infact, the part of portland off of the peninsula is mostly just what the suburb of the town of "deering, maine" used to be before it was annexed. so portland as a city isnt that dense, but the downtown is. islands, woods, and cemeteries, and parks, and residential neighborhoods that you would find in any suburban american town make portland not too dense. but...fortunately, no one from out of town visits these off the peninsula areas unless they are visiting friends/family, or lost.

interesting fact i learned today from my dad: portland used to be practically an island at high tide. the only access into the city was brighton avenue (the old 302 portion that goes by the law school) and congress street. everything else was ocean until they added land fill and made it stable enough to build on.

[pvenne]

I didn't know Portland had any wooded areas in its city limits... Sorry about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you have nothing to be sorry about, i agree with everything you are saying....like those towns in vermont you said are dense...they are really dense if you see them, but then there is all this unused land that you cant really see that might be on the sides of the highway, or parking lots, or used for shopping plazas (which arent calculated into density) and all sorts of fields and random open spaces that you dont really notice unless youre from that town....density is sometimes a misleading indicator of a town's dense "feeling".

example: your town of bellow falls vermont looks very dense from the pictures i have seen, but im sure the official density count is pretty small since the town or village center is only part of the overall city limits.....ahh, too misleading. nice town though, i never even heard of it, but looks really nice from what ive seen.

[pvenne]

I didn't know Portland had any wooded areas in its city limits... And about the whales... I think it's a swimming school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

portland doesnt have real woods, but it has baxter park, riverton area, patches here and there, and then two quite large cemeteries with lots of trees..then there are the islands with nothing but one or two houses on them....except for peaks...

and as long as im on the topic, does anyone know if peaks population is added into portlands pop? it would be pretty lame if it is cause it is basically a separate community and that would bring portland to like 60K people....

and one last thing...good to know about those whale tales, someone told me they found a whale skeleton there from a million something years back when vermont was under water or somedamn story like that...gonna have to get to the bottom of this somehow....thanks for the info

[BigCityAttitude]

you have nothing to be sorry about, i agree with everything you are saying....like those towns in vermont you said are dense...they are really dense if you see them, but then there is all this unused land that you cant really see that might be on the sides of the highway, or parking lots, or used for shopping plazas (which arent calculated into density) and all sorts of fields and random open spaces that you dont really notice unless youre from that town....density is sometimes a misleading indicator of a town's dense "feeling".   

example: your town of bellow falls vermont looks very dense from the pictures i have seen, but im sure the official density count is pretty small since the town or village center is only part of the overall city limits.....ahh, too misleading.  nice town though, i never even heard of it, but looks really nice from what ive seen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a very good point. The town of Rockingham contains the villages of Bellows Falls and Saxtons River, which on their own are pretty dense, whereas if the whole town of Rockingham (which is basically nothing but woodlands and farms) is factored into the density, it drags the number way down. Here's the stats.

Bellows Falls village: 3,165 population

[Cotuit]

and as long as im on the topic, does anyone know if peaks population is added into portlands pop?  it would be pretty lame if it is cause it is basically a separate community and that would bring portland to like 60K people....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know Long Island seceded, but I believe Peaks Island is still part of Portland, and as such would be counted as part of it's area and population.

Portland also has a large port area, part of the Jetport, the Maine Mall, and sparsely settled areas west of the Turnpike dragging down it's density.

[pvenne]

I know Long Island seceded, but I believe Peaks Island is still part of Portland, and as such would be counted as part of it's area and population.

Portland also has a large port area, part of the Jetport, the Maine Mall, and sparsely settled areas west of the Turnpike dragging down it's density.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just in 2002 or 2003 portland acquired a bit of land from falmouth, but i believe it was on 295, an area just beyond the east end out going toward the cinema and walmart area out there , so population hasnt changed and density has gone down...

also, cotuit: i didnt think portland area covered any of the maine mall space...which area were you talking about? i know the jetport is half and half in portland/so. portland.

peaks island should succeed.

[Cotuit]

also, cotuit:  i didnt think portland area covered any of the maine mall space...which area were you talking about?  i know the jetport is half and half in portland/so. portland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mean the mall associated sprawl, I think some of leaks over the boarder around the Jetport.

[pvenne]

I mean the mall associated sprawl, I think some of leaks over the boarder around the Jetport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sprawl, sprawl, sprawl....it never sounds good no matter how many times i say it....yeah burlington coat factory, staples etc i think are in portland,....i thought you meant mall propper.....