tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post8568442515585435315..comments2019-02-27T06:35:52.280-05:00Comments on The Walking Bostonian: Two charts showing development in Boston over the decadesMatthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post-49932821467888549002015-04-30T13:13:41.713-04:002015-04-30T13:13:41.713-04:00Land area is 'land'. Not sure how better t...Land area is 'land'. Not sure how better to explain that one.<br /><br />FAR = gross floor area divided by land area.<br /><br />No, it does not include highways and parks. This is parcel data, so it only includes the land on which parcels exist.<br /><br />Larger lot sizes wouldn't explain why the enormous bump is in the 1960s because much of those areas were developed prior to the 1960s.<br /><br />However, I did isolate the blip in the data in this case, and it's caused by MassPort, which has along the East Boston Harbor waterfront a basically undeveloped 101 million square foot piece of land that was listed as being 'built' in 1960.<br />Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post-30880913568839963752015-04-30T11:20:20.548-04:002015-04-30T11:20:20.548-04:00I can't figure out the difference from the cha...I can't figure out the difference from the chart between gross floor area, living area and land area. Gross floor area seems to be the total amount of built space, living area the residential space and then what's the third? <br /><br />If it includes all development, including things like highways and parks, then I think you have your answer: the Mass Pike expansion, the Central Artery, the Southeast Expressway, Logan Airport expansion and urban renewal. Plus the outermost neighborhoods, like Roslindale, West Roxbury, Hyde Park and even parts of Brighton have much bigger lot sizes - which would be thanks to zoning.Matthew M. Robare https://www.blogger.com/profile/01238656296410351634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post-56492944231683071162015-04-22T12:01:01.402-04:002015-04-22T12:01:01.402-04:00I thought about that. Demolition took place in ~19...I thought about that. Demolition took place in ~1959, I suppose the buildings constructed would be considered 1960s. But even though those high-rise projects were very wasteful of land, I don't think they were THAT wasteful. I haven't had a chance to more closely examine the parcels in question yet.<br />Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post-86900449117114038132015-04-22T02:01:44.691-04:002015-04-22T02:01:44.691-04:00Could the 1960s land consumption be explained by U...Could the 1960s land consumption be explained by Urban Renewal? So much of the West End and other areas being demolished and built on, but so little of it residential?Jameson Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08000642185640559457noreply@blogger.com