Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One
I'm not sure why people are coming for you here, you're telling the truth. Boston is a very low density metropolitan area, as is Atlanta. That's just a fact and anybody who has driven across the metro Boston region (I have) knows this. That being said they're still very different, which I don't think you ever denied.
|
I'm genuinely very surprised. I didn't understand what was the fuss about it. To me it was very obvious for everybody, specially in an urbanism forum, that Boston urban area, despite its old urban core, was very well known for its huge plots and endless ultra-low sprawl.
And I'm not even attacking the region for it, they seem to build their houses with a much higher quality than the average Sunbelt suburbia, but it doesn't change the fact that's not dense at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen
Massachusetts is also 62% forest, those wooded lots add up
|
Woodlands interrupted by suburban roads don't function as an unspoiled woodlands.
Imagine if São Paulo sprawled at Boston scale (although there are some sprawl at the edges down here as well). The urbanized area would engulf half of the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen
|
Ironically, their density is at 860 inh./km², higher than Boston-Worcester UAs.