Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt
"These neighborhoods comprise a meager 1 percent of these metropolitan regions’ total area"...
Meanwhile, the rest of the us, the 99% live elsewhere.
Suburbs aren't dying. Suburban districts in the alpha city of a metropolitan region aren't dying either.
"Sprawl is over in Boston..."
Even with a dense core, overall the Boston MSA has one of the lowest population densities in the country and sprawls pretty far into New Hampshire. The 495 corridor is horrific sprawl, not to mention the inner 128 corridor. No sprawl there. Nope.
"LA’s suburbs are slowly urbanizing thanks to its investment in expanded rail and bus systems."
Ridership numbers have been steadily deceasing. Suburban Los Angeles has always been full of walkable urban centers in a built environment many times that of other cities' suburbs.
|
The existence of low density sprawl in Boston doesn't mean sprawl isn't over there. The question is, what are they building more of and what is gaining value?
If they're replacing 2 acre lot homes with 1/4 acre lot homes, I'd consider that a continuation of the sprawl model as well - 1/4 acre lot homes is still too low density to function as urban housing, especially if they're surrounded by low density exurban development.
If the exurbs are limiting new development to remain low density and as a result most new development is in the city and inner suburbs/old suburban town centres, then that means the Boston area is becoming more urban.