Not to reiterate this too often -- but Paris [city limits] has about the same area as Boston -- and nearly 4X the population essentially without any towers
The problem with this idea is transportation. If the population of West Roxbury, Mattapan, Hyde Park, Roslindale, and western JP (the least dense neighborhoods) suddenly tripled, how would everyone get to work? The roads certainly couldn't handle it, and there is limited public transportation to those neighborhoods. It's a great idea in theory but will never happen without improved public transit.
???????
At least you SOUND confident when you write that stuff.........
http://www.frenchmoments.eu/wp-cont...nse-from-Arc-de-Triomphe-©-French-Moments.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2952031849_f368e4f950.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...Seine_as_seen_from_Pont_Mirabeau_140412_1.jpg
Boston -
600+ ft towers - 6
500+ ft towers - 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_Paris_region
Paris -
600+ ft towers - 8
500+ ft towers - 17
The Eiffel tower, la Defence business district (background) and the Montparnasse tower (R) are seen in an aerial view in Paris July 14, 2011.
Fenway -- you are presupposing that everyone has to move all about the city at the same time or that there is a definitive central destination for everyone. In reality a lot of the commuting could be quite local without much need to to travel to / from the core on a daily basis.
For example the neighborhoods within walking distance of Longwood could increase in density without the need for much improved transportation networks.
Similarly many of the employees of the Seaport / Innovation District might live either in the District or in fringe existing residential areas of Southey within easy walking distance and which could be bulked-up with denser residential developments.
I understand and should have said upfront that Tokyo isn't a fair comparison on any level.
But surely there are Red Line or Orange Line stations that could roughly be connected by a medium spine, no? Just start with one stretch. Add an additional parallel bus route along that stretch or add an express of some sort.
Paris Area sq. mi
• City 105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
• Urban 2,844.8 km2 (1,098.4 sq mi)
• Metro 17,174.4 km2 (6,631.1 sq mi)
Paris Population (Jan. 2012)
• City 2,240,621
• Density 21,000/km2 (55,000/sq mi)
• Urban 10,550,350
• Metro 12,341,418
Boston Area sq. mi
• City 48.42 sq mi (125.41 km2)
• Urban 1,770 sq mi (4,600 km2)
• Metro 4,500 sq mi (11,700 km2)
• CSA 10,600 sq mi (27,600 km2)
Boston Population (2014)
• City 655,884
• Density 13,340/sq mi (5,151/km2)
• Urban 4,180,000 (US: 10th)
• Metro 4,628,910 (US: 10th)
• CSA 8,041,303 (US: 6th)
Seamus -- for your benefit I've highlighted the data for the two core cities in SI [homage to the Le Bureau International des Poids et Mesures]You're a sciency guy. When comparing things, always use the same order of units. Even trying to read something as simple as what you have hurts the head because you have British standard (imperial) units lining up with Metric.
We know Paris is SI (it's housed in France after all.) But, you get poor marks on your report for not making the information easy to read and compare.
Re-write it, but you will receive 10 points off.
But even if Boston had the density of Paris or even Tokyo it wouldn't ever look like them and the reality is that as much as some of that "New England" charm might be nice there is also plenty of "New England" charm in Beacon Hill at least as far as I can see and the Back Bay and South End are also pretty charming. Southie is increasing density but maintaining the same vernacular in a lot of the new buildings so I don't think the neighborhoods will necessarily lose what makes them special by getting denser. The feel will of course change and there won't be as many spots where one can say it feels like I'm in a cute New England village, but I don't personally think that is a bad thing.
But -- perhaps you can enlighten us on the formatting tools that are available on AB Forum
Formatting tables by inserting spaces is tedious and often fails in the final display due to varying character widths
This seems a little bit snarky. You presented one city with km first and miles in parenthesis, and then the other city with miles first and km in parenthesis. That's sloppy, and that's on you.
DZH -- I agree that my post was sloppy but it was not intentionally snarky -- for expedience -- I just copied and pasted from tables in the the two wiki articles Paris [which featured km] and Boston [with featured mi]
Then I left for some singing in my church choir -- only later in the day did I see the sloppiness in presentation coupled with the difficulty in formatting a table on th AB Forum
The snark was in the "perhaps you can enlighten us....." comment. But hey, whatever, not the end of the world. I'm not going to rail on you quite as much as some of the other posters here would.