Continuing on the theme of yesterday's post about Melbourne/Australia's growth debate:
Paul Mees, of RMIT has an interesting column in today's paper, in which he calls into question some common assumptions about the relationship between density and public transport, and its implications for sustainability. Mees has applied a more informative density calculation to compare cities, taking into account only "urbanized" land, rather than total land. The result is that a city like Los Angeles turns out to have much higher density than many believe, while New York, which includes the normally forgotten outer Boroughs, has a much lower density than expected. Melbourne comes out somewhere near the middle.
I like Mees' conclusions, which point out that these discussions should maintain a clear focus on what we can actually do to change things in a metropolitan area:
Posts
