Canadian cities are about as dense as German cities

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

New York Outer counties

Population: 4,894,693
Area: 4,307 miles / 11,156 kilometers
Density: 1,136 people per square miles / 438 people per square kilometer

Includes Putnam (NY), Rockland (NY), Suffolk (NY), Hunterdon (NJ), Monmouth (NJ), Morris (NJ), Ocean (NJ), Passaic (NJ), Somerset (NJ), Sussex (NJ)

So 2/3rds of the NY metro land area contains 1/4th of the population. Much of that land area is preserved green space, so the density stats are very misleading.

But I used urbanized area, so preserved green space is not included. It's actually low density urban development. There are almost 6,000 km2 of urbanized land around New York's core where density is ridiculously low with all the problem attached to it.

Again, I'm not doing this New York/Boston vs Los Angeles/Toronto/Las Vegas density comparison, I'm just saying the ultra low urbanized areas in the New York-Boston axis are usually overlooked here all treated as something minor. Or even worse: they're entitled to have it because they're the "right kind of rich".

[Steely Dan]

Urban area weighted density is the best comparative density measure we have, BY FAR, IMO.

The problem is that it's a cumbersome calculation (I still haven't come across anyone who ran all the numbers for the 2020 UA data yet), and when trying to do it cross-nationally, getting true apples to apples data in-puts can be hard to obtain.

That said, even without good apples to apples data to crunch in front of me, I am stupid confident that NYC easily obliterates Toronto on any like-for-like weighted density measure, as it does all other US/Canadian cities (duh......)

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Or even worse: they're entitled to have it because they're the "right kind of rich".

Interesting. Is there something more virtuous about living in Lincoln, Mass. or Bedford, NY?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But I used urbanized area, so preserved green space is not included. It's actually low density urban development. There are almost 6,000 km2 of urbanized land around New York's core where density is ridiculously low with all the problem attached to it.

Demographia's catchment area for New York covers a ton of preserved green space. You can pretty clearly see it on the map.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Demographia's catchment area for New York covers a ton of preserved green space. You can pretty clearly see it on the map.

I didn’t use Demographia map/definition.

I used the City Population one which is simply posting the official map provided by the US Census Bureau using their definitions and official numbers straight from the 2020 Census (and they made their urbanized area definitions more strict compared to 2010).

While it’s true we have 15 million “New Yorkers” living in a very decent 4,200 inh./kms density, there are another 5 million living in a 900 inh./km2. That’s basically a whole Atlanta, which is world’s sprawl capital.

Originally Posted by Docere

Interesting. Is there something more virtuous about living in Lincoln, Mass. or Bedford, NY?

Not for me, but for some people, apparently.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

While it’s true we have 15 million “New Yorkers” living in a very decent 4,200 inh./kms density, there are another 5 million living in a 900 inh./km2. That’s basically a whole Atlanta, which is world’s sprawl capital.

This is a poor understanding of metropolitan development patterns. The NY area has very little Atlanta-style sprawl.

The hyper-low density on the metropolitan fringe is largely due to protected regions that limit development, not low density suburban sprawl. The density would actually be higher if Atlanta-style development were allowed, but the region generally blocks sewer/water expansion and new home construction. This is why the fringe counties generally have population decline, as household sizes shrink, and growth is largely banned.

The only fringe areas with real growth are actually high density housing growth for a religious minority (but low overall density bc the growth is surrounded by protected lands).

[Crawford]

Here are some pics of the only fringe area in the NYC metro experiencing considerable growth. I would not call this low-density development. Also you will notice very hard boundaries between development and protected land:

https://www.dailymonroe.com/news/birdseye-view-of-the-new-acres-enclave-development

This is in Orange County, NY, a super low density county. This is easily the fastest growing fringe area in the tristate region. There are tens of thousands of units of such housing planned, in Orange County, NY (Kiryas Joel area) and in Ocean County, NJ (Lakewood area). Outside this you'll find basically zero fringe new construction (except for a random replacement house in the woods somewhere).

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is a poor understanding of metropolitan development patterns. The NY area has very little Atlanta-style sprawl.

The hyper-low density on the metropolitan fringe is largely due to protected regions that limit development, not low density suburban sprawl. The density would actually be higher if Atlanta-style development were allowed, but the region generally blocks sewer/water expansion and new home construction. This is why the fringe counties generally have population decline, as household sizes shrink, and growth is largely banned.

The only fringe areas with real growth are actually high density housing growth for a religious minority (but low overall density bc the growth is surrounded by protected lands).

Metro area dynamics are of course very different, but in terms of land use those 5 million people live exactly the same. It’s a fact that New York fringes take 6,000 km2 of land (more than twice of the size of Rhode Island). And I don’t know why you even make the big deal out of it: just look at Google Earth. Massive plots of land, freeways, a very poor usage of land.

And of course one has always welcome sprawl. There are in fact several advocates of it. Demographia, for instance.

I fail to see the point of denying New York core is surrounded by a massive area taken by ultra low urban sprawl. Whether do you think it’s a good or a bad thing, it’s another subject entirely.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Urban area weighted density is the best comparative density measure we have, BY FAR, IMO.

The problem is that it's a cumbersome calculation (I still haven't come across anyone who ran all the numbers for the 2020 UA data yet), and when trying to do it cross-nationally, getting true apples to apples data in-puts can be hard to obtain.

That said, even without good apples to apples data to crunch in front of me, I am stupid confident that NYC easily obliterates Toronto on any like-for-like weighted density measure, as it does all other US/Canadian cities (duh......)

I did the same exercise for Chicago. Chicago and Round Lake UAs had 8,933,581 inh. (2020) within 6,385 km2 for a simple density of 1,399 inh/km2.

I added Chicago with 14 minor divisions around it and found 3,790,917 inh. within 1,044 km2 for a 3,632 inh./km2 density.

So we have 5,142,664 “Chicagoans” living around that core, in 5,341 km2 of land for a 963 inh./km2.

It actually surprised me: I was expecting a slighter higher density than the New York outskirts. I guess the difference is the presence of urban nodes on the outskirts of New York (e.g. Bridgeport), raising the overall density.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Metro area dynamics are of course very different, but in terms of land use those 5 million people live exactly the same. It’s a fact that New York fringes take 6,000 km2 of land (more than twice of the size of Rhode Island). And I don’t know why you even make the big deal out of it: just look at Google Earth. Massive plots of land, freeways, a very poor usage of land.

No, they don't live the same way in suburban Atlanta. New Jersey Transit alone has like 5 times the ridership of Atlanta's MARTA, despite New Jersey only having about 30% more people than metro Atlanta. In fact, public transit is mostly non-existent in Atlanta's suburbs. While much of New Jersey Transit's ridership does live in suburban communities.

Originally Posted by Yuri

I fail to see the point of denying New York core is surrounded by a massive area taken by ultra low urban sprawl. Whether do you think it’s a good or a bad thing, it’s another subject entirely.

Nobody said New York doesn't have sprawl. We were talking about whether someone would say Toronto feels more dense than New York.

[Docere]

According to Wikipedia one-third of Berlin is made up of forests, parks and gardens, rivers, canals and lakes.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

No, they don't live the same way in suburban Atlanta. New Jersey Transit alone has like 5 times the ridership of Atlanta's MARTA, despite New Jersey only having about 30% more people than metro Atlanta. In fact, public transit is mostly non-existent in Atlanta's suburbs. While much of New Jersey Transit's ridership does live in suburban communities.



Nobody said New York doesn't have sprawl. We were talking about whether someone would say Toronto feels more dense than New York.

Those New Jerseyans using transit are definitely the 4.1 million ones I mentioned that are living inside NY’s 15 million people core. It’s certainly not the 5 million people living in ultra low densities around that core.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

It actually surprised me: I was expecting a slighter higher density than the New York outskirts. I guess the difference is the presence of urban nodes on the outskirts of New York (e.g. Bridgeport), raising the overall density.

The NY fringe and Chicago fringe are very different. NY fringe tends to be very wooded, hilly, rocky and poor farmland, but quite scenic. Chicago fringe tends to be excellent farmland, but devoid of any scenic appeal.

On paper the fringe sprawl density numbers might be similar, but the NY area will be characterized by individual houses in forests and then a few clustered communities, while the Chicago area will be characterized by the more typical North American subdivision-style sprawl.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Those New Jerseyans using transit are definitely the 4.1 million ones I mentioned that are living inside NY’s 15 million people core. It’s certainly not the 5 million people living in ultra low densities around that core.

No, Morris County actually is a low density county, located on the fringe of NY metro. That county alone has more rail stations than all of the suburban stations on the Atlanta MARTA system combined.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The NY fringe and Chicago fringe are very different. NY fringe tends to be very wooded, hilly, rocky and poor farmland, but quite scenic. Chicago fringe tends to be excellent farmland, but devoid of any scenic appeal.

On paper the fringe sprawl density numbers might be similar, but the NY area will be characterized by individual houses in forests and then a few clustered communities, while the Chicago area will be characterized by the more typical North American subdivision-style sprawl.

Yeah, they are. We can clearly see the tradition suburban layout for the most part and they tend to be somewhat denser. On the East Coast (from Boston to Atlanta), we can see those “houses in the forest” type of development. Across Appalachia it’s very hard to find.

Speaking of which, I did Boston. Boston, Ipswich, Nashua and Worcester UAs had 5,116,458 inh. (2020) within 5,485 km2 (!!!) for a simple density of 933 inh./km2.

I added Suffolk Coubty, 11 municipalities in Middlesex County and Brooline and found 1,531,477 inh. within 366 km2 for a quite high 4,182 inh./km2 density.

So we have 3,584,981 “Bostonians” living around that core, spread over 5,120 km2 of land (!!!) for a 700 inh./km2.

It’s even more extreme the low densities over that region, specially considering we have some urban nodes outside Boston core pushing density up (Brockton, Worcester, Lowell, Lawrence).

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

No, Morris County actually is a low density county, located on the fringe of NY metro. That county alone has more rail stations than all of the suburban stations on the Atlanta MARTA system combined.

Ok, but it’s only 509k inh. county, irrelevant either compared to the very dense 4.1 million New Jerseyans in the core or the over 5 million living in the ultra low densities around the 15 million urban core.

Morris County will provide just a fraction of passengers the 4.1 million New Jerseyans living east of it provide.

BTW, what’s the transit share on Morris County commute? I couldn’t find on Google but I’d bet it’s over 90% by car. One number came up: “only” 11,500 commute into Manhattan and 25,000 into Essex. Those are the most likely to use transit but I bet the majority of them probably drive into those places.

[Nouvellecosse]

It is true that urban areas with large dense cores also tend to have more centralized employment which can make commuting by public transit easier. People may live basically the same outside of commuting since they'll drive for their daily needs, but commute patterns have a big effect on energy usage, infrastructure costs and quality of life. Public transit usually requires less energy and less infrastructure cost per person compared to private automobiles and studies have shown that people are happier on average when commuting by transit compared to cars. That's important since commuting trips make up a big portion of people's overall movements.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The NY fringe and Chicago fringe are very different. NY fringe tends to be very wooded, hilly, rocky and poor farmland, but quite scenic. Chicago fringe tends to be excellent farmland, but devoid of any scenic appeal.

On paper the fringe sprawl density numbers might be similar, but the NY area will be characterized by individual houses in forests and then a few clustered communities, while the Chicago area will be characterized by the more typical North American subdivision-style sprawl.

I would add that the wooded, hilly terrain is more common going north or west of NYC. Going south or southwest tends to be more flat and development is abutted by farmland or protected lands, and with very little built after the 1970s. Going east from NYC you have mid-century tract housing on flat land that ends pretty abruptly when you get to mid-Suffolk County. From there until the Hamptons it's mostly protected woodlands or wetlands.

NY area suburbs have astonishingly little single-family housing built after roughly about the 1970s. I suspect Chicago has a lot more single-family suburban housing built in the 1990s and early 2000s.

[muppet]

Berlin flyover:

• Video Link


Toronto

• Video Link

[muppet]

Even denser:

Munich

• Video Link


Montreal

• Video Link