In 2023, the population of the Boston-Cambridge-Newton metropolitan area in the United States was about 4.92 million people. This is a slight increase when compared with last year's population, which was about 4.9 million people.

Chart and table of population level and growth rate for the Boston metro area from 1950 to 2025. United Nations population projections are also included through the year 2035.

The gross domestic product (GDP) of the Greater Boston metro area has increased significantly since 2001. In 2022, the area's GDP amounted to 504.1 billion chained 2017 U.S. dollars, compared to 284.1 billion U.S. dollars in 2001.

This statistic displays the average physician-to-population ratio in select U.S. metropolitan areas as of 2013. During this year, there was an average of 268.1 physicians per 100,000 population in Detroit. Boston has one of the overall highest average wait times for a physician appointment. The average cumulative wait time is approximately 18.5 days in 2014, which has decreased since 2004.

In 2023, the metropolitan area of New York-Newark-Jersey City had the biggest population in the United States. Based on annual estimates from the census, the metropolitan area had around 19.5 million inhabitants, which was a slight decrease from the previous year. The Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas rounded out the top three. What is a metropolitan statistical area? In general, a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is a core urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants – the smallest MSA is Carson City, with an estimated population of nearly 56,000. The urban area is made bigger by adjacent communities that are socially and economically linked to the center. MSAs are particularly helpful in tracking demographic change over time in large communities and allow officials to see where the largest pockets of inhabitants are in the country. How many MSAs are in the United States? There were 421 metropolitan statistical areas across the U.S. as of July 2021. The largest city in each MSA is designated the principal city and will be the first name in the title. An additional two cities can be added to the title, and these will be listed in population order based on the most recent census. So, in the example of New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York has the highest population, while Jersey City has the lowest. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts an official population count every ten years, and the new count is expected to be announced by the end of 2030.

Summary

The State of Early Education and Care in Boston: Supply, Demand, Affordability, and Quality, is the first in what is planned as a recurrent landscape survey of early childhood, preschool and childcare programs in every neighborhood of Boston. It focuses on potential supply, demand and gaps in child-care seats (availability, quality and affordability). This report’s estimates set a baseline understanding to help focus and track investments and policy changes for early childhood in the city.

This publication is a culmination of efforts by a diverse data committee representing providers, parents, funding agencies, policymakers, advocates, and researchers. The report includes data from several sources, such as American Community Survey, Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, Boston Public Health Commission, City of Boston, among others. For detailed information on methodology, findings and recommendations, please access the full report here

The first dataset contains all Census data used in the publication. Data is presented by neighborhoods:

• Population 0 – 5 years;
• Population 0 – 2 years;
• Population 3 – 5 years;
• Race/ethnicity for children 0 – 4 years (White, non-Hispanic; Black; Asian; Hispanic/Latinx);
• Family type (married couples, female householder, male householder);
• Poverty status;
• Family median income in the past 12 months;
• Average cost of care as a percentage of median family income (infant, preschool);
• Share of families that cannot afford care (infant, preschool)

The Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division analyzed 2013-2017 American Community Survey data to estimate numbers by ZIP-Code. The Boston Opportunity Agenda combined that data by the approximate neighborhoods and estimated cost of care and affordability.

Additional notes:

• Record Type: Each record represents a ZIP-Code defined neighborhood. See list below for detailed information on Boston ZIP-Codes used to create each one of the 15 neighborhoods.
• Data Quality: Numbers presented here came from 2013-2017 American Community Survey data. Therefore, these are ESTIMATES and have margin of errors. The smaller the geographical unit, the greater the margin of error. The Boston Planning & Development Agency analyzed the data to estimate numbers by ZIP-Code.
• Race/Ethnicity: Non-White Hispanics may be double counted due to data limitations.
• Cost of Care: The average cost of care as a percentage of median family income was computed assuming the annual average cost of infant care was $19,877 and the average cost of preschool care was $ 13,771 (Childcare Aware of America, 2019). For each neighborhood we estimated the impact of child care (infant and preschool) on its median annual family income.
• Affordability: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sets a standard regarding the affordability of child care, where the annual cost of child care should not exceed 10 percent of household annual income. Using this 10% threshold, we estimated that to afford market rate infant care, a family’s annual income would have to be at least $198,770. The census income bracket closest to this income was a family income of $150,000– 199,999. To afford preschool care, a family's annual income should be at least $137,710. Thus, the census income bracket that encompass this income is $125,000 - 149,999. For both infant and preschool care, we underestimated the number of families that can afford care.

Recent advances in quantitative tools for examining urban morphology enable the development of morphometrics that can characterize the size, shape, and placement of buildings; the relationships between them; and their association with broader patterns of development. Although these methods have the potential to provide substantial insight into the ways in which neighborhood morphology shapes the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of neighborhoods and communities, this question is largely unexplored. Using building footprints in five of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles) and the open-source R package, foot, we examine how neighborhood morphology differs across U.S. metropolitan areas and across the urban-exurban landscape. Principal components analysis, unsupervised classification (K-means), and Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis are used to develop a morphological typology of neighborhoods and to examine its association with the spatial, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of census tracts. Our findings illustrate substantial variation in the morphology of neighborhoods, both across the five metropolitan areas as well as between central cities, suburbs, and the urban fringe within each metropolitan area. We identify five different types of neighborhoods indicative of different stages of development and distributed unevenly across the urban landscape: these include low-density neighborhoods on the urban fringe; mixed use and high-density residential areas in central cities; and uniform residential neighborhoods in suburban cities. Results from regression analysis illustrate that the prevalence of each of these forms is closely associated with variation in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics such as population density, the prevalence of multifamily housing, and income, race/ethnicity, homeownership, and commuting by car. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and suggesting avenues for future research on neighborhood morphology, including ways that it might provide insight into issues such as zoning and land use, housing policy, and residential segregation.