Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^Incredibly.
Don't let Massachusetts become Jersey.
I'm not sure if NJ is the best example here. NJ as a state has a higher population density than Mass. No doubt it has its Mcmansion areas with lots of suburban sprawl, I'd say overall they do a better job at putting mid to high density homes closer to public transit than Mass does.
I think you're making everyone's point, while also making your point. If you take the cities that surround Boston, you have considerable density. These cities, if they had existed in many other regions, would be part of Boston city proper, but in Mass they're not.
If you go due north along the North Shore, you have a fair amount of density, but that doesn't apply for other regions. Outside of 128/95, the density drops in towns like Billerica, Tewksbury or Wilmington, only for the density to pick up again in some of the gateway cities like Lowell, Lawrence and Haverhill.
That exists on the South shore as well as density drops outside of Boston city limits, but then goes up again in Brockton.
I've always wondered why places like Lowell, Brockton and Lawrence don't have their own MSAs, because they often seem so disconnected from Boston. But remember, Boston's MSA extends pretty far and it's CSA is almost ridiculous. That contributes to the lower density of the region as a whole.
Whether they are towns, villages, or cities, those areas are not Boston. With the exception of Cambridge and Somerville, the rest operate as suburbs by the very definition of a suburb. They are very much residential, with downtown/walkable nodes in the center. Their urbanity makes you say that they should have been annexed. I’d argue that’s just the built form of the inner MSA.
People have done exercises manually to show pop densities within certain radius’, but I’m not sure I have it in me. But here are the inside-95 locales by population and population density:
That’s ~1.4M in MSA population, all within a 15 mile radius (avg. across north south and west) to downtown Boston. The weighted density across that 1.4M, is remarkably high. Probably, what, 7.5 - 8k ppsqm. Including Boston, that’s 2.1M with a likely population density at maybe 10k ppsqm?
Idk about you guys, but I’m not prepared to say that Boston is the second least dense major metro. Again, MSA density figures will show that’s not true, and that it is in fact the 6th most dense metro.
The eye test will also very quickly back this up. If you’ve spent enough time in place like ATL, Seattle, Portland, Denver, I think you quickly understand how dense Greater Boston is relative to other cities of its size.
Yes, absolutely, NIMBYism prevents Greater Boston high density suburbs expanding beyond 95. We all agree that there is a steep decline. So as it relates to this thread, Greater Boston is a premier candidate for zoning and building restrictions.
^^It's easy:
Boston
+Cambridge
+Somerville
+Everett
+Chelsea
+Malden = 15,000/sq mi out to 1M people (i might have left out 1)
not big, not small, third densest in USA, a bit smaller than SF,
a bit less dense.
w/ an iconic, unbelievably snotty suburbia,
w/ people of all colors sizes and shapes from Roxbury to Beacon Hill, Westford to Duxbury, and Newburyport to Sturbridge making damn sure it all stays that way.
^^It's easy:
Boston
+Cambridge
+Somerville
+Everett
+Chelsea
+Malden = 15,000/sq mi out to 1M people (i might have left out 1)
not big, not small, third densest in USA, a bit smaller than SF,
a bit less dense.
w/ an iconic, unbelievably snotty suburbia,
w/ people of all colors sizes and shapes from Roxbury to Beacon Hill, Westford to Duxbury, and Newburyport to Sturbridge making damn sure it all stays that way.
As it relates to this back and forth about the density of the inner ring, including Boston doesn’t make sense.
Instead, I’d add up Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Malden, Everett, Chelsea, Quincy, Malden, Medford, Arlington, Watertown, Waltham, Lynn. Those are really the standout, high density areas outside of the city.
I'm not sure if NJ is the best example here. NJ as a state has a higher population density than Mass. No doubt it has its Mcmansion areas with lots of suburban sprawl, I'd say overall they do a better job at putting mid to high density homes closer to public transit than Mass does.
Yeah I agree, is NJ considered the epitome of sprawl? If so, not really an accurate description. NJ has sprawl but also lots of density, public transportation options and walkable small towns.
Yeah I agree, is NJ considered the epitome of sprawl? If so, not really an accurate description. NJ has sprawl but also lots of density, public transportation options and walkable small towns.
I’d say that’s definitely true, as NJ scaled earlier and far more ferociously than MA ever did post WWII.
MA has stayed uniquely true to its grand plan. For better, and for worse.
Yeah I agree, is NJ considered the epitome of sprawl? If so, not really an accurate description. NJ has sprawl but also lots of density, public transportation options and walkable small towns.
NJ Has a 50s sprawl vibe, over modern day sprawl feel like FL or TX.
Its dense with grid-ish roads in spots, places of hyperdensity.. but the lot of it is single use zoning, single family homes, malls, etc. Its very cluttered and lots of highways. Outside of Hoboken/JC a lot of it is not walkable.. but there usually is a short drive to a train stop into Manhattan or PHL. Its different, not bad.. just very different.
^^to the above posts, for sure, the towns along the New Jersey Transit Coast Line,
are magnificent. The Shore is great, food, parties, music scene, bars.
I attended a fine outdoor music event at the All New McCann's in Brick Township,
or whatever that less thickly settled village is called where the new venue is located--a couple of weekends ago.
Make sure you all get out and see/support this place!!
NJ Has a 50s sprawl vibe, over modern day sprawl feel like FL or TX.
Its dense with grid-ish roads in spots, places of hyperdensity.. but the lot of it is single use zoning, single family homes, malls, etc. Its very cluttered and lots of highways. Outside of Hoboken/JC a lot of it is not walkable.. but there usually is a short drive to a train stop into Manhattan or PHL. Its different, not bad.. just very different.
NJ I like to think of as Mature Urban Sprawl lol
1950s sprawl is not at all the NJ I grew up in. What parts of NJ are you familiar with ? Because there is much more to NJ than the turnpike, Hoboken, Newark, and JC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
