sure; each compact city will have it's own issues on how likely it is that it could have a high density population but I think that is a bit different exercise than whether that city could offer a good quality of life if it achieved that result (again in our case).imperialmog wrote:^ With those comparisons the Boston and San Francisco numbers have a couple of caveats that exist. Mainly the presence of oceans/bays that act as development barriers and also very high housing costs that's several times what it is here. also it would be interesting to note for different cities how much as a percentage of the land is places like parks and industrial areas that lower density overall, but are important land uses.
I do think it's interesting to compare those three cities with us btw as we imagine what the city could look like with a larger and larger population...
Minneapolis had a peak population of 521,000 so it has about 110,000 to go before it reaches that again.
Boston had a peak population of 801,000 so it still has about 135,000 to gain
San Francisco already has record high population
I think each of those three cities demonstrate that you can have higher density and good average quality of life. Of course, the important thing is for us to start growing again in a smart, sustainable fashion. Hopefully we're starting on our way.








