Posted Mar 13, 2015, 1:02 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Peace Up, A-Town Down
Posts: 899
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint
I'm sure you know this, but it bears repeating for those who don't: the outer suburbs of historic colonial cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc. were for centuries farms and relatively isolated, independent villages and towns that were only swallowed up by their respective metropolitan economies very late in the game. Thus they don't have the built environment of modern suburbia, purpose-built explicitly to be part of a larger metropolitan system, like we see in newer areas like Dallas, Memphis and San Diego.
For example, the place where my family first lived was first settled in 1651, and wasn't really a "suburb" of Boston until around 1964, when the first subdivisions were built. I don't know if the laws have changed in recent years, and there have definitely been variances granted, but the town has required one acre per 'settlement' for most of its history, which means it was parceled out and built out in a way that is not amenable to Dallas-style suburbia, and keeps densities very low. It would be silly to compare a place that existed for 313 years as an independent town before becoming a functional suburb with a place that was purpose-built yesterday to offer suburban homes near a freeway entrance without noting the fundamental differences between them.
|
A very comprehensive, well-thought response. There are many factors that contribute to built form and uniqueness in development to every city.
|