View Single Post
Old Posted May 14, 2022, 8:02 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,291
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Boston's isn't... real "sprawl". The towns were already there. They were settled 100s of years ago. Atlanta's suburbs didn't exist 70 years ago.

We need better language to differentiate what Boston is from what Atlanta is.
All the towns around Atlanta were there before the sprawl really got turned up as well. Atlanta is not as old as Boston, but it's pretty established with the other small cities and towns around it. Like someone mentioned before, Georgia was one of the 13 original colonies as well as Massachusetts.

The Southeast is more rural and has more of its urban areas being newer low density sprawl than the Northeast, nobody is arguing against that. But it does appear that even the areas outside of the small old towns in Boston's metro are as low density as those around Atlanta. Urban sprawl is still urban sprawl, whether it existed 400 years ago or was built within the last 70 years.

Either way, instead of arguing over BS semantics, this would be a good opportunity to talk about how Boston and other NE cities can continue to grow through building in the major cities as well as small towns in the periphery, rather than entertaining any form of large scale urban sprawl. Atlanta and the rest of the Sunbelt would benefit from following this as well.
Entering the Age of Aquarius
Reply With Quote