Those maps were pretty interesting. NYC and parts of Chicago, SF, DC, and Boston were expected.
But some of the red parts of LA, Miami, and Houston may not be as expected as most people think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montréaliste
We all need to take a break and reevaluate our thinking on the subject of density. Why not focus on how many more people or extra families we can cram into SFH's to blow up the stats on density. Then, we can devise appropriate schemes for furthering transit in suburbs like Godforsakiana or Boredham.
|
Well, it's pretty much a fact that we all have to consider. If multi-family units or apartments aren't largerly present in a growing metro that has reach it's geographic limits, the housing environment that exists will gain more people per square mile than it had before. Whole extended families will be forced to live under one house and singles will have to pay rent to live in a master bedroom with another family in the area or even consider the basement or garage. This type of stuff is common where I live now in Southern California.
I believe that many older or gridded suburbs, when they aren't growing geographically but still growing population wise, will reach a critical mass in which they will become more walkable and urban because of necessity. Traffic will get too bad and many people will realize the usefulness of mass transit to overcome that.