Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri
Boston does have old towns that are now part of its urban area but it also has modern ultra-low sprawl. I don't understand this urge to make looking Boston perfect while bashing Atlanta over the same sins. Georgia is also an old state and I'm pretty sure Atlanta sprawls also has engulfed old villages, old farms as well.
|
Not sure why you're not getting this, but they're not the same sins. Metro Atlanta's sprawl is just that- sprawl away from the core. These suburban and exurban places would not exist if not for Atlanta. They have a core city that is overall pretty low density (with some pockets of impressive density, yes), surrounded by suburbs and exurbs of even lower densities. Yes, there are some small older towns that became absorbed into the metro landscape (Marietta, Duluth, etc), but for the most part, Metro Atlanta is a modern creation, designed to be low density sprawl.
Boston has a dense, old core consisting of not just Boston, but also places like Cambridge, Somerville, etc. Surrounding that dense core are scores of little historic towns that have existed for centuries. There are also lots of land preserves and institutional holdings that keep land undeveloped and quasi rural. Yes, there is modern sprawl between many of these historic towns. You can find lots of big box retail and commercial strips that probably look similar to suburban environments across the country. But these areas are not the reason for Boston having a comparable metro density to Atlanta. Full stop.
A look at weighted density, which has already been suggested here, would dispel this notion that Boston and Atlanta suffer from the 'same sins'.