What City/Area is the hardest to approve new development? (better, Boston)
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.
Here we go MJW, Boston has the second LEAST dense urban area out of the top 26 metropolitan areas. second lowest to just ATL
Guys, this isn’t a logical metric like MSA would be. Boston’s “ urban area” extends to NH, RI, and CT. It’s one of the largest, land wise, in the country according to that list (especially when considering city land area is the smallest).
You’re getting away from Boston suburbs, and are simply telling me that New England is sparsely populated. I think we all know that.
That’s not really a helpful exercise for the original point that was made.
Boston’s MSA is the 6th (?) most densely populated in the US. It’s inner ring suburbs/cities are almost the gold standard for density outside of the main city.
FYI- Using this Urban Area list, Phoenix is significantly more dense than Philadelphia. If that doesn’t throw you off, idk what will.
Guys, this isn’t a logical metric like MSA would be. Boston’s “ urban area” extends to NH, RI, and CT. It’s one of the largest, land wise, in the country according to that list (especially when considering city land area is the smallest).
You’re getting away from Boston suburbs, and are simply telling me that New England is sparsely populated. I think we all know that.
That’s not really a helpful exercise for the original point that was made.
Boston’s MSA is the 6th (?) most densely populated in the US. It’s inner ring suburbs/cities are almost the gold standard for density outside of the main city.
FYI- Using this Urban Area list, Phoenix is significantly more dense than Philadelphia. If that doesn’t throw you off, idk what will.
Only for like 6 miles out..and to the north. I showed how sparse it can get within ~3 miles in some towns.
Phoenix's urban are being more dense than Philly's make sense to me, small plots and no Mainline type areas and conserved forests...Dense development in those dry cities.
Very few cities are setup as idiotically as Philadelphia. Each council person has a full power on what happens in their district with what is referred to as 'Councilmanic Prerogative'. You got to scratch people's backs in Philly if you want to get stuff done.
Only for like 6 miles out..and to the north. I showed how sparse it can get within ~3 miles in some towns.
Phoenix's urban are being more dense than Philly's make sense to me, small plots and no Mainline type areas and conserved forests...Dense development in those dry cities.
Let me ask this a different way.
Why do you think there is such disparity between MSA density vs. Urban Area density?
And why isn't Urban Area a metric generally used, if you think it's a more realistic Metro analysis, than using MSA?
Places like Newton, Brookline, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Arlington, Quincy, Salem, Lynn, Everett, Chelsea, Watertown, Waltham pass the density eye test with flying colors, no? When you include Cambridge and Somerville, it only adds to the areas density.
It's hard for me to think you're being sincere using that list. Go to Seattle and ATL, two similar sized cities, and then tell me you think the MSAs are similar in density.
Also to Boston's tall phase. After the current5 500-700fters get completed, South Station Tower, State Street, Winthrop Square, Raffles and Volpe Cambridge.. Boston will be building a ton of 200-400fters in Dorchester Bay City, Charleston-Assembly-Everett area....
I'll take debunk the parcel for 300 Alex,
Yawn: not really going anywhere close to 400' except possibly in Cambridge.
Dorchester Bay FAA is 300'~340', but the nimby's kick in long before that.
It's more like 200~260'.
The Dot Ave planning looks as much like a pipedream.
You have the Red Line and commuter trains. Never say never.
But, you can't say for sure the nimby landscape doesn't change the outcome.
We're already seeing it in Southie. Boston at large;
2 dozen 240~390' towers in planning have been culled down to low or nothing infill
in Mission Hill, Roxbury, Southie, Dorchester, & Charlestown.
Cambridge: meh: good density, surely making strides near MIT, etc
Still, few/very few proposals for residential topping 200'.
Dense: surely. iconic? Cambridge Crossing, New York Streets,
Mission Hill, Air Rights, Harbor Garage, and dozens of towers cancelled.
Too many missed opportunities.
A bright spot: the future vanshnookenraggentrainworld https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/futurembta/
Last edited by odurandina; 04-12-2021 at 09:10 PM..
Why do you think there is such disparity between MSA density vs. Urban Area density?
And why isn't Urban Area a metric generally used, if you think it's a more realistic Metro analysis, than using MSA?
Places like Newton, Brookline, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Arlington, Quincy, Salem, Lynn, Everett, Chelsea, Watertown, Waltham pass the density eye test with flying colors, no? When you include Cambridge and Somerville, it only adds to the areas density.
It's hard for me to think you're being sincere using that list. Go to Seattle and ATL, two similar sized cities, and then tell me you think the MSAs are similar in density.
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.
Boston out to every town that Rt 128 touches,
in totality, is about as dense as a metro core needs to be.
After a long hiatus, the towns between 128 and 495 are infilling somewhat remarkably.
There are a ton of wetlands. The area receives 50~60 in. of rain annually.
There's only what's left of a few town forests (sigh)
As much as it goes against the grain:
we have a duty to protect our waterways and natural habitat:
You can only go so far. Let Millis/Medfield/Sherborn/Natick be that.
Let Arlington be Arlington, Belmont be Belmont.
But the Red Line should have gone under it clear to Rt 128
since the 70s when it was killed. Shame we never got it.
I spent a day in Andover last week. I'd never been!
Wow. Boston's core has such a fine mix of urban density and charm.
Give it time. SF wasn't built in a day.
Andover is filling in near the train station. Could do more.
Boston is maxed out on cars. No more.
More Transit Oriented Development/ Air Rights is needed,
and more MBTA r.o.w. potential brought on line.
Last edited by odurandina; 04-12-2021 at 09:08 PM..
Boston out to every town that Rt 128 touches,
in totality, is about as dense as a metro core needs to be.
After a long hiatus, the towns between 128 and 495 are infilling somewhat remarkably.
There are a ton of wetlands. The area receives 50~60 in. of rain annually.
You can only go so far.
Let Arlington be Arlington, Belmont be Belmont.
But the Red Line should have gone under it clear to Rt 128
since the 70s when it was killed. Shame we never got it.
I spent a day in Andover last week. I'd never been!
Wow. Boston's core has such a fine mix of urban density and charm.
Give it time. SF wasn't built in a day.
Andover is filling in near the train station. Could do more.
Boston is maxed out on cars. No more.
More Transit Oriented Development/ Air Rights is needed,
and more MBTA r.o.w. potential brought on line.
I'm part of the Billerica forums on facebook and the short-sightedness is evident.
People fight tooth and nail to stop any medium density apartment or condo project because they're afraid the town will become too urban, yet they don't complain when acres are cut down to put up McMansions.
It's like some of the can't grasp the fact that you actually cut down fewer trees with higher density developments and provide homes for more people than if you build ugly, sprawling Mcmansions.
Maybe I'm mis-reading the thread title/OP but who voted for Raleigh/Durham and Charlotte? New development is the norm in both places, see it everyday. Remember that patch of land next to Mr. Smiths ranch-style home built in 1962? Yeah well that patch of land is where the new 1,000 unit apartment complex is going, and Mr. Smiths old home will be 2-3 mini-mansions, maybe 4 if they can convince old lady Johnson to sell her home. Actually make that 5, old lady Johnson's got a nice piece of land too.
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.
