How Beacon Hill can cram as many people in as parts of Manhattan without skyscrapers
Mike the Mad Biologist riffs on Bostonography's population density maps and ponders how much of Beacon Hill, the Back Bay and the North End approach Manhattan levels of density without anything approaching Manhattan-style building heights:
Boston has two things going for it that most other cities don't have: narrow streets and sidewalks. Not a lot of space is wasted in residential areas. Sidewalks at most are about nine to ten feet wide, and skinnier in other places (e.g., Beacon Hill). The streets typically are very narrow–about ten Mad Biologist paces (my pace length is about average)–if you factor in parked cars, add about four paces. Not only does this making walking around easier, but the real estate is used to house people, not air or cars. That allows much higher densities (although it makes drivers crazy at times) without skyscrapers.
Ed question: Would that also apply in Somerville, still one of the most densely packed cities in America?
Comments
I'm your density...
Well Ed., when you look at the maps there's almost none of Somerville showing up as Manhattan level density - just the blocks across form Johnnie's Foodmaster way out west. Beacon Hill, Fenway, Back Bay, Brighton, North End, Eastie...all have Manhattan level densities, with cramped streets, little to no yards, multiple story/family buildings.
The other part of those tiny streets is that they keep the cars from going too fast and result in Boston having some of the lowest rates of pedestrian deaths by vehicle...believe it or not.
Far west Somerville
That area across from Foodmaster, south of Broadway and east of Route 16, is the Clarendon Hill Towers, a subsidized housing development. Three large towers, though surrounded by a fair amount of parking lot and some green space.
If this counts as Manhattan-scale density, I'd expect the three similarly large Rindge Towers in Cambridge to count as well, yet they don't show up on the map.
Actually, in my day job, I do
Actually, in my day job, I do research on things like car fatalities, politeness, etc. among many other topics...and Massachusetts actually ranks among the safest fairly consistently. Massachusetts does rank lower compared to the rest of New England, but we ain't got nothing on south of the Mason Dixon.
Maps are lies
"If I can ever finish it, I believe I will open my atlas with a confession, for all mapmaking involves sin." -Daniel Huffman, a friend and colleague
As the author of some of those density maps, I should offer the caveat that the "Manhattan-level density" comparison isn't as simple as the maps suggest. I've exploited the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (or MAUP, if you like one-syllable acronyms), I guess, by comparing block-level density of Boston to borough-level density of NYC. The super-dense parts of Boston are indeed very dense, but I suspect that similar block-by-block maps of Manhattan would show its residential areas to be much denser. And even most of those areas aren't full of skyscrapers and have street widths not so different from the Back Bay, although buildings do tend to be at least a bit taller than Boston's. Somerville versus anything is a similar issue: it outranks most places at the city-level, but neighborhoods and blocks don't stack up compared to Beacon Hill, the North End, etc.; or good chunks of Chelsea, Cambridge, and even Brookline.
All that said, it's curious what passes for "dense" in this area. Mike says that "neighborhoods such as Jamaica Plain and Roxbury just aren’t very dense," and sure they're no North End or East Boston, but these inner-ring areas (which include places like Somerville) are still pretty damn dense compared to most parts of the country. Through the previous Census, the standard for being included in an "urban area" was only 500 people per square mile—we're certainly doing a lot better than that!
The super-dense parts of
Yeah, not hard to figure out. Apples to oranges, etc.
gray area
I remember that Roxbury (specifically Elm Hill) was identified explicitly by Jacobs as a "gray area" 50 years ago with "21-40 d.u. per acre" compared to the North End's 270 d.u. per acre. These "gray areas" being places with enough density to possibly produce city problems but not necessarily enough density to generate city liveliness, safety, convenience and interest.
In 2010 it seems that same Roxbury neighborhood has a density of ~18300 people/sq mile vs 63000 people/sq mile in the North End. This doesn't quite compare to dwelling units but it seems like the basic outline she observed is still there.
Manhattan vs. Mattapan - D'oh!
Am I the only dolt who thought this thread was comparing MATTAPAN-level of density? I guess my skull is denser than both.