3 ms·
How about until we've turned them into Boston? Boston and Manhattan are congested, admittedly, but Boston at least (I can't personally speak for Manhattan) is a
by clock_tower 11y ago
How about until we've turned them into Boston? Boston and Manhattan are congested, admittedly, but Boston at least (I can't personally speak for Manhattan) is a wonderful place to live. It's a normal, natural, _human_ city, with medium-height buildings and mixed commercial and residential land use (businesses at street level, residences above and sometimes below); it's a far cry from the typical suburban wasteland, half Le Corbousier and half Leave it to Beaver.
- msellout 11y agoBoston is much less dense than Manhattan and much more pleasant to walk in. Some of it is that there are fewer skyscrapers to block the sun. Some of it is the colors -- more red brick and green trees.
- clock_tower 11y agoI agree strongly. But Boston as well as Manhattan is denser than SF (from what I've heard of SF); in answer to teacup50's question, I'd say "first develop to Boston levels, which are clearly still humane and habitable, then revisit the density issue after that."
- teacup50 11y agoBoston's average population density is 13.3k/sq mi. San Francisco's average population density is 18.5k/sq mi. SF has been developed beyond Boston levels, and it's still not enough.