Urban Area Map Showcase

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and when we look at UA weighted density, that becomes much more evidenent.

these numbers are pretty out of date now, but it was the best source i could find for UA weighted density.


Boston UA weighted density (by tract) - 7,711 ppsm (#8 out of major UAs)

Atlanta UA weighted density (by tract) - 2,362 ppsm (#34 out of major UAs)


source: https://austinzoning.typepad.com/aus...ed-densit.html

If anyone knows the new American Factfinder UI from the Census Bureau, and can pull the census tract data for each UA (or at least by counties for MSAs), it would be straightforward in Excel to crunch the data for 2010. Some years back, I did just that to calculate weighted population densities for each state. But the new Factfinder gives me a headache.

[Steely Dan]

^ the CB only releases data for UA's every 10 years, so it'd be best to wait until the official 2020 data is released before attempting any such endeavor.

But it would be a worthy undertaking once the new numbers are released because, IMO, UA weighted density is perhaps the most meaningful density measurement we have in the US for comparison purposes.

[Spotila]

As these two seem to be the topic of discussion, this might help (or inflame?):

[Steely Dan]

^ a perfect visualization of why boston's weighted density is over 3x higher.

And also a perfect demonstration of why average density is stupid.

[dc_denizen]

Wow , you can see apartment complexes pretty clearly in that Atlanta pic

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ a perfect visualization of why boston's weighted density is over 3x higher.

And also a perfect demonstration of why average density is stupid.

It depends on the nature of discussion. If you want to talk about urban patterns inside Boston and Atlanta urban areas, weighted densities are useful.

On the other hand if we are discussing (as I was) low density sprawl eating everything on the way, the size of the urban/suburban footprint matters a lot. And in this department, Boston sprawls as spotila's maps show.

Including the contiguous Worcester UA, we are talking about 5,700 km² or 2,200 sq mi. That places Boston as one of the largest urban/suburban footprints on the planet. In fact, aside the US, only Tokyo takes a larger amount of land.

[Steely Dan]

^ you're getting lost in the numbers because you have no experience on the ground.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ you're getting lost in the numbers because you have no experience on the ground.

Sure, I can't tell the difference between urban Boston and Atlanta, despite millions of photograph evidences, street views, knowledge of history and even tons movies set in both cities... I know Boston has plenty old buildings, lots of beautiful old urban districts, that in a not very distant past it was like 10x larger than Atlanta.

The thing is I'm talking about a complete different subject. What I'm saying is very straightforward: Boston-Worcester UA takes almost 6,000 km² of land and that's way too much. Period. Whether it has a dense, old core is immaterial.

And we can take this discussion across the Atlantic, comparing very similar countries: Netherlands, with a very strict land occupation laws, where cities must stop abruptly preserving farmland around and Belgium, where things are more lax and as result the northern half of the country has turned into an endless sprawl.

[Steely Dan]

^ We're gonna have to agree to disagree because, from my perspective, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Spotila's atlanta/boston map says it all IMO. There's nothing really left for me to add.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Sure, I can't tell the difference between urban Boston and Atlanta, despite millions of photograph evidences, street views, knowledge of history and even tons movies set in both cities... I know Boston has plenty old buildings, lots of beautiful old urban districts, that in a not very distant past it was like 10x larger than Atlanta.

The thing is I'm talking about a complete different subject. What I'm saying is very straightforward: Boston-Worcester UA takes almost 6,000 km² of land and that's way too much. Period. Whether it has a dense, old core is immaterial.

And we can take this discussion across the Atlantic, comparing very similar countries: Netherlands, with a very strict land occupation laws, where cities must stop abruptly preserving farmland around and Belgium, where things are more lax and as result the northern half of the country has turned into an endless sprawl.

What everyone has been trying to tell you is that Boston is not evenly developed. Some arbitrary definition of urbanized area has been created that technically means Boston is 6,000 km^2, but that region doesn't not use land as inefficiently as Atlanta. Boston doesn't use land more inefficiently than most regions in the United States, even though many other regions rank above it based on density average due to an arbitrary definition of urbanized.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What everyone has been trying to tell you is that Boston is not evenly developed.

Iheartthed, but where I implied it was evenly developed? I can tell by myself this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3517.../data=!3m1!1e3 is different from this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3874.../data=!3m1!1e3

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Some arbitrary definition of urbanized area has been created that technically means Boston is 6,000 km^2,

Why do you call it "arbitrary"? There US Census Bureau has very reasonable reasons of urbanized areas and aside maybe a couple of tiny patches of woodlands here and there, that's all taken by either the dense areas around old urban centres and this ultra-low density sprawl, with those massive plots.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

but that region doesn't not use land as inefficiently as Atlanta. Boston doesn't use land more inefficiently than most regions in the United States, even though many other regions rank above it based on density average due to an arbitrary definition of urbanized.

Again that's another discussion entirely. The fact of Boston having a good chunk of good, old, dense urban area served by transit, doesn't exempt it from criticism over the ultra-low density of its exurbs.

Precisely because you are here praising the urban density of old Boston, you should agree with me that's not an example of sustainable urbanization: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1585.../data=!3m1!1e3

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

The thing is I'm talking about a complete different subject. What I'm saying is very straightforward: Boston-Worcester UA takes almost 6,000 km² of land and that's way too much. Period. Whether it has a dense, old core is immaterial.

LA metro has more people in less land than Paris metro. I completely disagree that the distribution of people within that land is immaterial to the discussion.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Precisely because you are here praising the urban density of old Boston, you should agree with me that's not an example of sustainable urbanization: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1585.../data=!3m1!1e3

Ultra-low density tracts on the Boston metro fringe are almost certainly on well/septic systems, so there aren't really sustainability issues. The natural environment is generally maintained, given the rocky soil and desire for wooded lots.

Of course packing people into giant highrises is generally more efficient than homes in the woods, but 95% of Americans don't live in either extreme and the environmental impact of a home in the woods doesn't appear to be more harmful than a typical American sprawl denser tract home in a clear-cut subdivision with city water/sewer.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA metro has more people in less land than Paris metro. I completely disagree that the distribution of people within that land is immaterial to the discussion.

As I said, depends of the discussion we're having. If we are talking about commute patterns, transit in both Los Angeles and Paris, again, that's very relevant.

On the other hand, if we intend to discuss the impact of land use has on nature (as I was doing from the very beginning), we can certainly agree Paris suburbs could do better, taking less land while we could praise Los Angeles and its small plots.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ultra-low density tracts on the Boston metro fringe are almost certainly on well/septic systems, so there aren't really sustainability issues. The natural environment is generally maintained, given the rocky soil and desire for wooded lots.

Any environmentalist would explain us that's not nice for wildlife being disturbed by suburban roads, dividing them into very small pockets surrounded by human activity.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Of course packing people into giant highrises is generally more efficient than homes in the woods, but 95% of Americans don't live in either extreme and the environmental impact of a home in the woods doesn't appear to be more harmful than a typical American sprawl denser tract home in a clear-cut subdivision with city water/sewer.

For one thing "home in the woods" type of development takes more land than the typical American suburb, so I would guess the overall impact is bigger.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Why do you call it "arbitrary"? There US Census Bureau has very reasonable reasons of urbanized areas and aside maybe a couple of tiny patches of woodlands here and there, that's all taken by either the dense areas around old urban centres and this ultra-low density sprawl, with those massive plots.

It is an arbitrary number/criteria that the US Census Bureau decided on to draw the line between urbanized and not urbanized.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It is an arbitrary number/criteria that the US Census Bureau decided on to draw the line between urbanized and not urbanized.

Calling those shots I posted from Boston suburbia "rural" or "unspoiled nature", won't change reality: they are there, taking lots of land around Boston urban core.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Calling those shots I posted from Boston suburbia "rural" or "unspoiled nature", won't change reality: they are there, taking lots of land around Boston urban core.

Huh?? I thought we were talking about suburban sprawl? If unspoiled nature shouldn't be 'taking lots of land' around an urban core, then what should? An empty black void free from the constraints of the laws of space and time? I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Who cares whether that land is technically within the boundaries of an MSA? What matters in the context of this discussion, at least, so I thought, is whether the use of that land with respect to human development patterns is wasteful/inefficient, or not. Spotila's maps illustrate the difference between Boston and Atlanta perfectly. Look at all the 'white space' in the Boston map. I don't even understand how this is up for debate.

^ yuri is just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Calling those shots I posted from Boston suburbia "rural" or "unspoiled nature", won't change reality: they are there, taking lots of land around Boston urban core.

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.

[JManc]

That Boston map also shows Providence, Worcester, Manchester, Portsmouth and Fall River/ New Bedford areas which are outside the Boston MSA...where as Atlanta is Atlanta. Boston is very dense and very nodal around the towns and cities in the vicinity. There is a lot more green outside the main urban areas than most Sun Belt sprawlers.