Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I'm not sure why you think that. Boston basically has England's development patterns. It looks nothing like the Midwest or Southern U.S. And it is much less sprawly than almost anything west of the Mississippi River.
|
There is no urban area in England whose urbanized footprint has a 850 inh./km2 density as Boston does:
https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/agglo/
London is at 2,800 inh./km2, Birmingham 2,600 inh./km2, Manchester 2,300 inh./km2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito
The urban form of Boston still deviates widely from urban areas in England due to the 1940’s restrictions on urban sprawl. It’s why there is a far clearer separation between urban and rural area.
|
Boston is completely different from anything England did since their green belt legislations. Turn famrlands into urban areas is virtually impossible in England whereas Massachusetts is the exurban dreamland: all farms became ultra-low density exurbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22
Even if we just focus on the main downtown areas, where's Atlanta's equivalent to this? Oh yeah it doesn't have one whatsoever. Goodbye.
|
As we're not discussing urban Boston nor urban Atlanta, but exurban Boston, I don't see how your pic bombing is relevant to this discussion.