This project is a very valuable idea but is spoiled by careless inaccuracies and missing information. The idea of comparing city figure-ground maps at the same scale is something of great interest to architects and urban designers. It is too bad that so many of the plans are filled with graphical errors, thereby casting doubt on many of the other drawings. Mr Jenkins writes in the introduction of the importance of going to original sources for accurate information and data, but clearly has not done so in many cases. For example the map of Bath in England shows the street running straight across the park in front of the Royal Crescent, when anyone who has ever studied this marvellous place knows that the road follows the oval shape of the buildings. The footprints of the buildings around the Royal Circus and Crescent by the Wood father and son are inaccurately drawn in relation to their depth, and most significantly, the property lines and garden walls are omitted from the drawings.
This latter item is a consistent flaw in the whole book because the dimensions of the lot, or parcel lines are of enormous significance in understanding the scale and grain of an urban fabric. Knowing the dimensions of the individual parcel widths is a key to understanding the pattern of a city's building typologies and measuring facts such as residential density, for example.
San Francisco North of Market blocks have a typical block dimension of 150 x 100 varas (Spanish land measurements) that translate into 412.5' x 275' with a 2:3 ratio of width to length. Portland Oregon has a 200' x 200' block dimension that is the smallest of any US city.
If this book ever gets revised it would be valuable if all these drawings were corrected and verified.