I appreciate your essay.

With regards to some of the ambiguities you state with respect to the map data. The number are based on the most recent Census 2006 data – population and dwelling counts. Thus, they were given in persons per hectare. The numbers were then converted to persons per acre and then dwelling units per acre (using the national average of 2.3 people per dwelling).

I used dwelling units per acre since it is widely used in the planning and development field and could therefore relate to other density-research papers.

That said, I think there is a slight misunderstanding concerning the point I was trying to make. It was less for homogeneous densification, than for a more natural densification process.

Years ago, the City embarked on institutionalizing (through bylaws, etc.) a system that artificially created low density areas. Without these bylaws, these areas would have undergone the natural process of densification common to popular urban settlements.

The consequences of this are many.
I describe a few of these in a series of articles called The Flipside of Ecodensity – critically analyzing the arguments brought forth in the initiative.

Check them out at http://www.regardingplace.com….I think you might find them interesting.

Not to mention it will give us more to banter back and forth about.

E

Andres Duany’s system of zoning has built in upgradability to allow for densification over time and he says everywhere it has been used the locals have taken advantage of it. It translates into money!