3 ms·
I thought the point of the analysis was to think of a city as a whole (I.e., MSA) and not just a downtown with surrounding neighborhoods... Chicago, for example
by sAuronas 11y ago
I thought the point of the analysis was to think of a city as a whole (I.e., MSA) and not just a downtown with surrounding neighborhoods... Chicago, for example, is very low density compared to CA cities despite having a downtown that could swallow all of CA cities' downtowns. And yet, it has miles of single-story homes, empty lots and abandoned factories. Comparing a city like Chicago using only the city and not the entire MSA to any CA city like SF and it still loses (if the game is density). I really appreciated the analysis because th baby boomer generation and their "I got mine..." attitude is keeping most urban places down: literally. Thank you prop 13, if you live in CA, for destroying affordability.
- tptacek 11y agoAn MSA is not simply a city as a whole. It's the city and the surrounding area. For instance, the statistical area this article uses for San Francisco includes San Jose, a wildly different and in fact larger city than San Francisco. Worse, it includes all the little towns between SF and SJ, from San Mateo to Atherton.