GDP per capita of the European and North American metro areas

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

Also it's no shame to be compared to Queens, Queens is definitely no slouch when it comes to density as the foregrounds of these pictures can attest to. When you come back to NY Shiro you should visit neighborhoods like Astoria, Corona, Jacskon heights, and Jamaica. I've only just started exploring these places and I was blown away by the density and hustle and bustle

Great pics and will do!

When I visit again (which will be soon I hope) one of my priorities will be exploring the boroughs outside Manhattan. In the week I was there last, I saw pretty much every corner of Manhattan and a bit of Staten Island, but none of the rest.

Even far-flung Flushing has great density

As it happens, I'm in the original Flushing a couple of times a week... It's nice too, but a far cry from the Flushing in your picture!

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

No you don't have to exclude parkland areas.

Those are part of what makes London less dense, yes, but the parks are part of London's urban built form. And when looking at total area of parkland, only part of it is from "major" parks (Hyde Park/Ken Gardens, Green Park, St James, Regent's, Greenwich, Battersea, Richmond, Wimbledon Common, Kew Gardens, Hampstead Heath, etc). The bigger difference between London and New York (which also has a number of large parks) is that London is laced with garden squares and small parks:

https://goo.gl/maps/3hTm8

To exclude these from a calculation of population density is like taking American suburbia and excluding all the parking lots. They are part of what makes neighborhoods less dense, but also part of the city's character.

Those would be the domestic gardens which make up another 24% of the area of Greater London. And noone exclude those from any calculations. This is just another attempt to obfuscate which is becoming quite the pattern in your debating style.

Excluding the woodland/parkland/Green Belt areas for London makes as much sense as excluding the water area for NYC. I'm fine with including the heavily trafficed urban parks, but then you need to include Central Park and other urban parks for NYC too. The woodland/parkland/Green Belt areas (as well as golf courses, farms and nature reserves) on the fringes of the city don't have many people trafficking them and just as you can go hiking in the woods, you can go boating on the water. Likewise, you can build on wood and parkland but you can also build on water (don't believe it, come to the Netherlands and even New York has plenty of reclamated areas). There is no excuse to treat the one differently from the other.

Look at the Madrid example if you still don't get it.

SHiRO, you cannot compare the hundreds of square miles of undeveloped land in San Bernadino County (which contains more or less the entire Mojave Desert!) to London's parks. THAT is a ludicrous position.

You don't even know what that debate was about (but yes it was about how in case of US cities you all of a sudden could omit undeveloped land area), but it makes no matter if the area you omit is desert, water or woodland (especially at the fringes of a city) the point is that noone lives there and it is not part of the urban fabric. All three receive people recreating there, be it hikers, boaters or otherwise, but it has no bearing on the density of the actual city.

Even the largest of London's parks, Richmond, is only c.2,400 acres. Pelham Bay Park, which is part of New York City's 350 square miles, covers c.2,800 acres.

And yet all of London's parkland amounts to 38% of 1,572 km2 while all of NYC parkland amounts to 14% of 789 km2 so you tell me which has more? Is everything with you a dick measuring contest?

I'm pretty much done debating you btw since everything with you by default is "New York is greatest!" Funny thing is that noone is even arguing that London is bigger, better, greater or denser, just trying to give you a reality check.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

I am guessing when Crawford says "late night oriented", he means places where there are bars open with people in them until at least 2-3am.

In other words big and small cities alike all over Europe.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ You are missing the fucking point, you stubborn asshole.

You are going too far but I'll let another mod judge it...

And "denser" doesn't mean "greatest", it means denser. New York is denser, much denser, than London.

Manhattan is much denser than London, it is even much denser than any comparable area in London. NYC is denser than Greater London, not "much, much" denser, but a bit (10,000 p/km2 vs 12,000 p/km2). Noone ever disputed that NYC is more dense btw.

New York however is not more crowded. It all depends on the specific spot and the specific time and trying to compare things that way is an exercise in futility. Your claim about some sort of blanket crowdedness all across NYC (and not London) however is most certainly not true. This doesn't exist even in Manhattan. Some places in NYC are certainly more crowded than certain places in London, but the reverse is also true. The concentrated nightlife in London, Oxford Street shopping crowds and the Tube are certainly more crowded than their NYC equivalents.

There is no one "recreating" in 90% of San Bernadino County. You can't even get to most of it, not even by road. London's many parks are used by Londoners, and their presence is part of what gives the city its essential character, so they should be included.

Why do you insist on dragging in San Bernardino County? I made no comparison to it with regards to London.

There is very little recreating in the forests, farmland and nature preserves at the fringes of London either. Are you seriously suggesting that something like Epping Forest needs to be included to get a more accurate picture of the density in London? Strange because in another thread you were arguing that such undeveloped and forest areas are a cause for not including certain places (mainly Reading, Wokingham) in the London urban or metro area. More double standards I guess...

And no, the green spaces shown in my Google Maps link are NOT domestic gardens. They are semi-public spaces (residents of surrounding buildings have keys to access them). Domestic gardens are private gardens, terraces, etc belonging to individual homes. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Ehh, that's exactely what domestic means. If you need a key to access it, what else is it? Public space? (or open green space as it says on that London land use graph?)

A large portion of London's overall greenspace are small parks like this. It makes no sense to just take them out of the numbers. They change the character of the city... by making it less dense:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.49...mySfFg!2e0!3e5

Yeah that's not what gives the city 38% parkland and 8% other. Places like this do:

https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Tot...903dbc458169fd
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Epp...1185c626bde210
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Epp...1185c626bde210
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Epp...1185c626bde210


Are you seriously suggesting we include that and it will result in a more accurate picture of London's density?

Don't try to make this debate about the small pieces of green space inside urban London or even the relatively large urban parks. This debate is about the woodland/parkland/Green Belt areas on the fringes of Greater London that have nothing to do with the density of the actual city (unless you incorrectly try to include them like you are trying to do).

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by 10023

No you don't have to exclude parkland areas.

Those are part of what makes London less dense, yes, but the parks are part of London's urban built form. And when looking at total area of parkland, only part of it is from "major" parks (Hyde Park/Ken Gardens, Green Park, St James, Regent's, Greenwich, Battersea, Richmond, Wimbledon Common, Kew Gardens, Hampstead Heath, etc). The bigger difference between London and New York (which also has a number of large parks) is that London is laced with garden squares and small parks:

https://goo.gl/maps/3hTm8

To exclude these from a calculation of population density is like taking American suburbia and excluding all the parking lots. They are part of what makes neighborhoods less dense, but also part of the city's character.


SHiRO, you cannot compare the hundreds of square miles of undeveloped land in San Bernadino County (which contains more or less the entire Mojave Desert!) to London's parks. THAT is a ludicrous position.

San Bernadino county:
https://goo.gl/maps/YD3DP


Even the largest of London's parks, Richmond, is only c.2,400 acres. Pelham Bay Park, which is part of New York City's 350 square miles, covers c.2,800 acres.

I agree, I don't think these small parks that litter London should be jumbled up in the Parkland statistic because they indeed form part of the urban fabric.

Even when we greatly bias the numbers in favor of London though, NYC is still significantly more dense than London whether you look at residential or daytime population (and even when including NYC's distinct outlier, Staten Island).

[10023]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Manhattan is much denser than London, it is even much denser than any comparable area in London. NYC is denser than Greater London, not "much, much" denser, but a bit (10,000 p/km2 vs 12,000 p/km2). Noone ever disputed that NYC is more dense btw.

10,000 p/km? Only if you're reducing London's land area by half. I will not accepting your making up your own numbers.

Kensington & Chelsea is a central London borough (and the smallest borough in Greater London aside from the City) and mostly multi-family residential. It not include vast areas of open space or parkland (only Holland Park, a small piece of Kensington Gardens immediately surrounding the palace, and smaller parks and squares like the ones in my Google map or the grounds of the Royal Hospital. It's population density is 13,000 persons per square kilometer... less dense than not only Manhattan but also Brooklyn, and similar to the Bronx (which DOES include very large areas of parkland).

Originally Posted by SHiRO

New York however is not more crowded. It all depends on the specific spot and the specific time and trying to compare things that way is an exercise in futility. Your claim about some sort of blanket crowdedness all across NYC (and not London) however is most certainly not true. This doesn't exist even in Manhattan. Some places in NYC are certainly more crowded than certain places in London, but the reverse is also true. The concentrated nightlife in London, Oxford Street shopping crowds and the Tube are certainly more crowded than their NYC equivalents.

You contradict yourself. Oxford Street may be more crowded than the equivalent spots in NYC (Fifth Avenue, Broadway below Houston Street, or maybe Herald Square around Macy's). I agree with that. But walk to the south or north and there are areas quieter than you'll find anywhere in Midtown a short distance away.

Note that I work in Mayfair, and when I take the tube I get off at Bond Street (the main station for Oxford Street shopping). I know what I'm talking about.

London is less consistently dense than New York. It is full of quiet streets where one can happily live in a ground floor apartment, even in the center, whereas this is nearly unheard of in Manhattan.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

There is noone recreating in the forests, farmland and nature preserves at the fringes of London either. Are you seriously suggesting that something like Epping Forest needs to be included to get a more accurate picture of the density in London? Strange because in another thread you were arguing that such undeveloped and forest areas are a cause for not including certain places (mainly Reading, Wokingham) in the London urban or metro area. More double standards I guess...

Oh no? London's open spaces are very well used. This is all part of the essential character of London, and it's actually quite nice: http://www.visiteppingforest.org/

You're going to compare that to this? I'll give you a break for bringing up such a ridiculous comparison as San Bernadino County, but honest to god: https://goo.gl/maps/Czcq6



You may also need to check the borders of "Greater London"... it does not cover everything within the M25 ring road (e.g., all that farmland around Watford or Epsom). By the way... EPPING FOREST IS NOT IN LONDON. It's outside of the 607 sq. mi. land area governed by the authority: https://goo.gl/maps/34EE8

If you insist on excluding "fringe" areas, then there is an official definition of the built-up area of London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater..._Built-up_Area

This excludes the Green Belt (farmland, forest, etc) and lots of the open space that is less heavily used, but is only 8% denser than Greater London and a bit more than half as dense as NYC's five boroughs. You cannot exclude all greenspace, because you cannot tell us how much of this is what you call "fringe areas" and how much is small parks that are interspersed within London's built environment.


Contrary to your claims, this is not a competition about density in which I am always trying to make New York the winner. Too much density sucks. I hate Midtown Manhattan, and I can only visit most Asian cities (couldn't live there). No one outside of SSP or a similar forum believes that super-high densities are objectively "better".

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

I agree, I don't think these small parks that litter London should be jumbled up in the Parkland statistic because they indeed form part of the urban fabric.

Many of these "small parks" are in fact domestic gardens and as such are included in the 24% domestic gardens category which we did include and not in the 38% open parkland category. As I said, I'm fine with including London's urban parks (but that means including NYC's urban parks too) but not fine with including the woodland/parkland/Green Belt areas as well as golf courses, farms and nature preserves at the edges of the city.

[10023]

Alternatively, compare Inner London (which definitely does not include large areas of open space) to the combination of Manhattan+Brooklyn (which has 30% greater population in 24% less space):

Inner London: ~10,130 per sq km

Manhattan+Brooklyn: ~17,360 per sq km

[10023]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Many of these "small parks" are in fact domestic gardens and as such are included in the 24% domestic gardens category which we did include and not in the 38% open parkland category. As I said, I'm fine with including London's urban parks (but that means including NYC's urban parks too) but not fine with including the woodland/parkland/Green Belt areas as well as golf courses, farms and nature preserves at the edges of the city.

London's semi-private parks are not "domestic gardens".

And why not golf courses? You're going to argue that people don't "recreate" in these?

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

You are going too far but I'll let another mod judge it...


Manhattan is much denser than London, it is even much denser than any comparable area in London. NYC is denser than Greater London, not "much, much" denser, but a bit (10,000 p/km2 vs 12,000 p/km2). Noone ever disputed that NYC is more dense btw.

New York however is not more crowded. It all depends on the specific spot and the specific time and trying to compare things that way is an exercise in futility. Your claim about some sort of blanket crowdedness all across NYC (and not London) however is most certainly not true. This doesn't exist even in Manhattan. Some places in NYC are certainly more crowded than certain places in London, but the reverse is also true. The concentrated nightlife in London, Oxford Street shopping crowds and the Tube are certainly more crowded than their NYC equivalents.

We just went through this but here it is again:

So at 40% parkland and waterways, which should be lower if the figure includes all the small parks that litter London, but even if we proceed with that number:


Greater London
population: 8.5 million
area: 607 sq mi
built up area: 364 sq mi
density of the build up area: 23,351 ppsm

New York City
population: 8.4 million
area: 469 sq mi
land area: 305 sq mi
built up area: 262 sq mi
density of the build up area: 32,061 ppsm


New York City as a whole (with low-density Staten Island, a definite outlier) is still 37% denser than London. (With the just the 4 boroughs it's 37,860/sqmi, 62% denser)



As for daytime population:

If we add all the boroughs' daytime populations you get 9,806,678 over an area of 256.03 sqmi (taking into account 16% parkland) yielding a daytime population density of 38,303/sqmi (45,554/sqmi without Staten Island).

Greater London's daytime population is an astounding 10,783,949 over 409.31 sqmi yielding a daytime population density of 26,346/sqmi. This means that the daytime population density of New York City as a whole is 50% more than Greater London's. 73% more dense if we exclude Staten Island. There's really not much else to it, those are the numbers. It means that in the 4 representative boroughs on NYC (where 8 million people live), there are on average 388 people in buildings or out on an average city block. On the same city block at London daytime densities there would be 224, 163 people less than NY. These are noticeable differences on the ground (that many here have indeed noticed). (Remember these are averages, so you could definitely find places in London that are just as crowded as NY, NY must just have more of them and/or larger areas of them). And as you get closer to the core of both cities this difference actually increases as I have shown.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Ok, the distance from Raritan to Penn Station in NYC is 36 miles as the crow flies.

The high-speed train fares that I quoted (US$550 to US$750) are for places located 100 to 125 miles from Paris as the crow flies. So much, much further away. Still, these places are less than an hour from central Paris by high-speed train.

A place at the same distance as Raritan would be Bonnières-sur-Seine. Bonnières-sur-Seine<-->Saint Lazare station in central Paris is the same distance as Raritan <-->Penn Station. I don't have time right now, but perhaps Minato Ku can tell you how much it would cost per month to commute by train from Bonnières-sur-Seine to St Lazare station. Bonnières-sur-Seine is in zone 5 of the Paris public transit network. You'd have to buy a monthly pass covering zones 1 to 5.

Zones 1 - 5 montly pass costs €113.2 per month.
It is less expensive if you take an annual subscription. €1,170.4 for the whole year (about €97.5 per month).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 10023

Castres is a bit of a tourist town (like any well-preserved medieval city in France)

Not really. And in any case we didn't see any tourists. They all clearly looked like locals. The local youth (and military servicemen).

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

10,000 p/km? Only if you're reducing London's land area by half. I will not accepting your making up your own numbers.

38% + 2% + 8% = 48 % so sounds about right. These are not my own made up numbers, Greater London as such is only 52% build up. I can agree on including urban parks but those are not a large part of what makes up that 38%.

You contradict yourself. Oxford Street may be more crowded than the equivalent spots in NYC (Fifth Avenue, Broadway below Houston Street, or maybe Herald Square around Macy's). I agree with that. But walk to the south or north and there are areas quieter than you'll find anywhere in Midtown a short distance away.

This is not a contradiction in any way. Did I ever claim otherwise?

London is less consistently dense than New York. It is full of quiet streets where one can happily live in a ground floor apartment, even in the center, whereas this is nearly unheard of in Manhattan.

Bullshit. I've been to plenty of quiet streets and neighbourhoods in Manhattan myself. And stop pretending Manhattan = New York. London is less consistently dense than Manhattan and Brooklyn but not the other parts of NYC.

Oh no? http://www.visiteppingforest.org/

I didn't write there was no recreation in Epping Forest specifically. I wrote that there is very little recreation in the forests, farmland and nature preserves at the fringes of London. Off course there is recreation in the areas especially designated for that. Doesn't mean those areas are to be included in the city. In fact, according to the ONS definition they're not included in the urban area and a mere 200m break in the form of such an area will cause the official urban area to end.

You're going to compare that to this? I'll give you a break for bringing up such a ridiculous comparison as San Bernadino County, but honest to god: https://goo.gl/maps/Czcq6

Don't strawman me. I didn't compare anything to San Bernadino, you are the one who keeps bringing it up when I already made clear it was part of another discussion.

London's open spaces are very well used. This is all part of the essential character of London, and it's actually quite nice.

Well used doesn't make them part of the city or the urban fabric.

You may also need to check the borders of "Greater London"... it does not cover everything within the M25 ring road (e.g., all that farmland around Watford or Epsom). By the way... EPPING FOREST IS NOT IN LONDON. It's outside of the 607 sq. mi. land area governed by the authority: https://goo.gl/maps/34EE8

Epping Forest is 1/2 inside Greater London. If you live there long enough you'll eventually get the hang of this...I'm perfectely clear on what constitutes Greater London and what doesn't.

If you insist on excluding "fringe" areas, then there is an official definition of the built-up area of London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater..._Built-up_Area

This excludes the Green Belt (farmland, forest, etc) and lots of the open space that is less heavily used, but is only 8% denser than Greater London and a bit more than half as dense as NYC's five boroughs.

It includes areas outside Greater London. Not comparable.

Contrary to your claims, this is not a competition about density in which I am always trying to make New York the winner. Too much density sucks. I hate Midtown Manhattan, and I can only visit most Asian cities (couldn't live there). No one outside of SSP or a similar forum believes that super-high densities are objectively "better".

You need to be real and that is a quality you (or at least your online persona) is severly lacking. If large parts of a city are undeveloped woodland/parkland/golf courses/nature preserves and even farms on the fringes, you cannot in good conscience compare that to a city that is almost entirely build out to its administrative borders. But you are in the NY vs London mode so you will...

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

London's semi-private parks are not "domestic gardens".

And why not golf courses? You're going to argue that people don't "recreate" in these?

FFS stop trolling!

Places where people recreate are not by definition also places that should be included in the build up area of a city!
Why should we include forests where people might hike, but not New York Harbor where people boat?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Zones 1 - 5 montly pass costs €113.2 per month.
It is less expensive if you take an annual subscription. €1,170.4 for the whole year (about €97.5 per month).

Ok, so US$300 a month for Raritan, NJ<-->Penn Station, NYC, and US$145 a month for Bonnières-sur-Seine<-->St Lazare station in central Paris.

I don't know whether the US$300 monthly ticket/pass from Raritan to Penn Station allows you to use the NYC subway. The US$145 monthly pass from Bonnières to St Lazare allows you to use the Métro and all the public transportation of Paris and its suburbs (RER, suburb trains, buses, streetcars) for free, all month long.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

We just went through this but here it is again:

So at 40% parkland and waterways, which should be lower if the figure includes all the small parks that litter London, but even if we proceed with that number:

I don't know why you keep insisting on that 40% figure since it has been clear that another 8% is golf courses, nature preserves and freaking farms! I don't know how anyone reasonably would want that included when we are talking about urban density.

And what's with the need to lower the figure even further because of "small parks"? Does NY not have small parks? I see you omitted Central Park from NY's build area in you calculation below. Yet you want to include parks in London's. Please use the same standards for either city. Again, I do not object to including urban parks, but surely that starts with including Central Park for New York (and Regent's and Hyde Park for London).

Greater London
population: 8.5 million
area: 607 sq mi
built up area: 364 sq mi
density of the build up area: 23,351 ppsm

New York City
population: 8.4 million
area: 469 sq mi
land area: 305 sq mi
built up area: 262 sq mi
density of the build up area: 32,061 ppsm

Greater London
population: 8.5 million
area: 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
land area: 1,541 km2 (595 sq mi)
build up area: 817 km2 (316 sq mi)
density of the build up area: 10,404 p/km2 (26,899 ppsm)

New York City
population: 8.4 million
area: 1,214 km2 (469 sq mi)
land area: 789 km2 (305 sq mi)
build up area: 679 km2 (262 sq mi)
density of the build up area: 12,371 p/km2 (32,061 ppsm)

[dc_denizen]

The urban area of New York includes several 100 square miles of extreme low-density sprawl inhabited by a small minority of the urban area's population. If NY had saner growth management policies, no doubt these would be wilderness, farms or parks, as they are in London. If you cut these areas out (they are 3/4 trees anyhow, so consider it green space haha), the urban area density numbers are going to favor NYC to a far greater extent.

link

link

[SHiRO]

Are you trying to out-troll 10023?

We are talking about the city limits of New York and London, not urban areas. Further, noone is advocating omitting areas where people actually live i.e. New York suburbia. I am advocating not counting nature preserves, forests, golfcourses and freaking farms when looking at urban density. Is that so hard to understand?

And if you're just here for the trolling, don't bother posting in this thread please.

[Steely Dan]

vs. threads are not permitted on this forum.

you all should know that.