HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2012, 7:16 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Although I'm pretty sure that Mexico City is growing at a faster clip than Greater New York...
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2012, 7:33 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralcoffin View Post
Although I'm pretty sure that Mexico City is growing at a faster clip than Greater New York...
I don't know. Mexico City is known as the slowest growing major Mexican city, and the city itself may be losing population.

Mexican Census reported population loss for the city proper a few years ago, though suburbs were growing.

Guadalajara, Monterrey and Queretaro have been the biggest boomtowns in the last few years.

Though it's possible that Mexico City has had a population surge in the last 2-3 years though. There has been evidence of wealthy moving to the relative safety of the capital since the surge in violence occured.

Mexico City population growth is interesting because it had the largest net population growth of any city in human history during the 70's. Since then, the region has grown very slowly. It's way to big for the present infrastructure, which still hasn't caught up to the gigantic 70's boom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 5:41 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1059951

New census numbers show big jump in Brooklyn population
Jump casts doubt on 2010 U.S. Census figures, officials say




Sunset Park is one of Brooklyn’s most crowded neighborhoods.

By Erin Durkin
April 12, 2012


Quote:
Brooklyn’s population shot up dramatically in just over a year - after city officials charged the federal 2010 Census undercounted the borough. Brooklyn’s population grew by 28,000 between April 2010 and July 2011, according to estimates released by the Census Bureau last week - a 1.1% increase and the biggest jump in the city.

Borough pols said the increase is more evidence the agency botched the official count. If the numbers are right, it would mean the borough grew almost six times faster after the Census than in an average year from 2000 to 2010.

“It’s probably a combination of some real growth and some errors that were corrected that took place in the 2010 census. We know there was an undercount,” said Joseph Pereira, who tracks census data for the City University of New York.

Department of City Planning Population Director Joseph Salvo said the numbers “confirm our contention that the city is growing, notably in the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. “We are pleased that the Census Bureau has begun to recognize this growth, but we continue to believe the real population is over 8.3 million based on our demographers’ scientific work,” he said.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 7:11 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
I wonder how they lost their challenge, exactly? Obviously, the work they (the city) did translated into a better estimate count, but it seems not to have been enough to correct the official count. I realize the formulas are different (Census is a housing unit and population count, and estimates are based on births, deaths, migration and immigration stats), but it'd have been nice to prove the Bureau wrong.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 1:56 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
I wonder how they lost their challenge, exactly? Obviously, the work they (the city) did translated into a better estimate count, but it seems not to have been enough to correct the official count.
They lost their challenge because there are only three procedural challenges, and the Census said the NYC challenge didn't fit any of the three.

Again, the Census never claimed that the NYC challenge was wrong, but rather that it wouldn't even be considered because it was outside the scope of challenge.

Basically, NYC claimed that the Census missed a ton of units in immigrant neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, and ended up listing these neighborhoods as heavily vacant. The Census basically said that you could only challenge based on procedural mistakes, and NYC didn't provide sufficient evidence.

So, of course, we see the Census is wrong, because the next year, there's a huge population jump with the 2011 estimates. NYC didn't really grow that fast in one year, but the Census-derived decennial base was clearly far too low (unless you really think some NYC neighborhoods are growing faster than Sunbelt sprawlburbs).

The craziest thing is that the neighborhoods that were listed as having the highest vacancy rates in the 2010 Census (immigrant areas in Outer Boroughs) are listed as having the lowest vacancy rates in NYC in the NYC Housing & Vacancy Survey, which is a survey conducted every three years and mostly funded from the U.S. Census!

So the Census decennial results show these areas with highest vacancy, and the Census Housing & Vacancy results show these areas with lowest vacancy. So why the crazy difference? Decennial Census can only use actual confirmed visits, which are tough in immigrant neighborhooods full of undocumented and non-English speaking. Housing & Vacancy survey uses sampling methodology, so there's some measure of imputation.

The bigger problem is that the Census decennial methodology is plain wrong. In short, you will never get an accurate count of folks who don't want to be accurately counted, which is why immigrant and minority heavy cities will continue to be screwed until the methodology changes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 6:25 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
They lost their challenge because there are only three procedural challenges, and the Census said the NYC challenge didn't fit any of the three.

Again, the Census never claimed that the NYC challenge was wrong, but rather that it wouldn't even be considered because it was outside the scope of challenge.

Basically, NYC claimed that the Census missed a ton of units in immigrant neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, and ended up listing these neighborhoods as heavily vacant. The Census basically said that you could only challenge based on procedural mistakes, and NYC didn't provide sufficient evidence.

So, of course, we see the Census is wrong, because the next year, there's a huge population jump with the 2011 estimates. NYC didn't really grow that fast in one year, but the Census-derived decennial base was clearly far too low (unless you really think some NYC neighborhoods are growing faster than Sunbelt sprawlburbs).

The craziest thing is that the neighborhoods that were listed as having the highest vacancy rates in the 2010 Census (immigrant areas in Outer Boroughs) are listed as having the lowest vacancy rates in NYC in the NYC Housing & Vacancy Survey, which is a survey conducted every three years and mostly funded from the U.S. Census!

So the Census decennial results show these areas with highest vacancy, and the Census Housing & Vacancy results show these areas with lowest vacancy. So why the crazy difference? Decennial Census can only use actual confirmed visits, which are tough in immigrant neighborhooods full of undocumented and non-English speaking. Housing & Vacancy survey uses sampling methodology, so there's some measure of imputation.

The bigger problem is that the Census decennial methodology is plain wrong. In short, you will never get an accurate count of folks who don't want to be accurately counted, which is why immigrant and minority heavy cities will continue to be screwed until the methodology changes.
Undoubtedly true. There are districts in Stockton where the population is counted as a couple of hundred but reality is maybe 5 or 10 times that amount ("empty" houses are filled at about 10 each, largely Philippino and Vietnamese). Same is true all over the Central Valley, Bay Area. Makes for a good return on investment while waiting for the market to strengthen.

In LA an "empty" house was found to be used for illegals to stay in when not working, and was occupied at least part of the time by dozens of people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 4:43 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20.../?ref=nyregion

New York Led Country in Population Growth Since 2010 Census

By SAM ROBERTS
June 28, 2012

Quote:
New York began the second decade of the 21st century with a growth spurt, adding more people than any other city in the country in the 15 months ending July 1, 2011, and outpacing population gains in its neighboring suburbs, the Census Bureau estimated on Thursday. An analysis of the latest reported population changes since the April 2010 census found that New York City grew at twice as fast a rate as the rest of the metropolitan area and faster than the city’s annual growth since 2000, because of higher birthrates among immigrants, a greater influx of newcomers and the recession.

“New York metro gained .6 percent, but, digging deeper, New York City’s gain of 0.9 means the city is now growing faster than its surrounding region,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College of the City University of New York who analyzed census data. The 15-month population increase in the city amounted to a third of the city’s entire growth from 2000 to 2010, according to the census.

“A number of studies have found that there’s a stronger preference for walkable neighborhoods that are close to transit and the younger population is driving less than they used to,” said Christopher Jones, vice president for research of the Regional Plan Association. “All of that favors cities, and New York City in particular has become a more desirable place to live over the past 15 years because of everything from reduction of crime to improved subway service."
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 1:04 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,703
^I love hearing about further population densification in already the most dense American city.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 2:32 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
^ Depends where it's happening. There are parts of NYC that are already too dense, or dense enough. Density is but a means to an end, and there is a point at which additional density has drawbacks but no advantages (in the form of additional services, amenities, ability to sustain retail and restaurants, etc.).

The ideal density is that which can sustain a bar on every corner, support a large variety of high quality neighborhood restaurants, coffee shops, and retail, maintain enough pedestrian traffic to have "eyes on the street" for safety (a la Jane Jacobs), make mass transit and roaming taxis practical and numerous, and create a general sense of vibrancy. If a neighborhood has all of those things, it is dense enough, and additional density can only detract from the experience of living there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 2:48 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
My ideal density is much higher than yours. Of course that assumes wide sidewalks, narrow streets, and great transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 3:40 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
The ideal density is that which can sustain a bar on every corner, support a large variety of high quality neighborhood restaurants, coffee shops, and retail, maintain enough pedestrian traffic to have "eyes on the street" for safety (a la Jane Jacobs), make mass transit and roaming taxis practical and numerous, and create a general sense of vibrancy. If a neighborhood has all of those things, it is dense enough, and additional density can only detract from the experience of living there.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Higher density can only boost all of those factors you mention. More people means more shops and retail, more mass transit usage (and with proper system management and maintenance the NYC Subway can handle many more people), and to me vibrancy means lots of people on the street and business activity, and density only increases that. From my perspective in the Midwest, where our cities are fighting just to stay steady, New York's increasing density is something to be coveted.

And if Manhattan gets too crowded, well there are four other boroughs...
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 4:31 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralcoffin View Post
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Higher density can only boost all of those factors you mention.
And I respectively choose to disregard the opinion of someone that lives in Iowa City with respect to this subject.

And no, more density doesn't always mean more shops and restaurants. There's only so much street level real estate to be had. And even so, having every street consist of ground level retail (as opposed to side streets with rowhouses, etc.) detracts from the attractiveness and liveability of a neighborhood.

The NYC subway can surely handle more riders throughout the day, but certain lines are already stretched beyond capacity at rush hour. Why do you think they're building the Second Avenue Subway? There are trains that stop in station and you literally cannot get on because there is no room.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 4:40 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
And I respectively choose to disregard the opinion of someone that lives in Iowa City with respect to this subject.
Considering that your mascot is the Wisconsin badger, I certainly understand this. But hey, if you live in the densest city on the continent and want to complain about density, it's your right. The way I see it, New York's density is something to be encouraged and strengthened.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 6:49 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralcoffin View Post
Considering that your mascot is the Wisconsin badger, I certainly understand this. But hey, if you live in the densest city on the continent and want to complain about density, it's your right. The way I see it, New York's density is something to be encouraged and strengthened.
To what ends? So that you can be wowed even more when you come to visit for a couple of days? People live here, and a city first and foremost needs to be livable. There is no point in density for it's own sake.

I'm certainly not some NIMBY that wants Manhattan to be more like Atlanta, but I also wouldn't want it to turn into Kowloon Walled City just because "density should be encouraged".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 7:45 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
NYC is by far my favorite city in SE New York State.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 8:00 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
You can go way denser than Manhattan and have it be very liveable. But that means phenomenal transit (better than Manhattan's) and very few cars. With few cars you can have very narrow streets with more room for peds and shops. Below-ground utility/delivery/garbage access would further eliminate some barriers to density. I'm not saying it's easy to create all that...

I've thought about how you can get beyond even the 400,000/sm level for a whole city. You'd have basically zero cars except ambulances etc. You'd have a deep utility level, guarded of course. Above that deliveries and garbage. Above that two levels of trains, with a line every couple blocks or so. Above that, an underground pedestrian concourse that would be a second sidewalk. Ground level would be pedestrian only (no bikes, buses, taxis, etc., because trains would get you anywhere). In denser areas you could connect buildings at one or two standard heights, like 100' and 500', greatly reducing elevator requirements, travel times, and pressure on the pedestrian levels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 8:38 PM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
There's only so much street level real estate to be had.
Yes, but new developments can start having retail on two or three floors instead of just one. That's going on here in Toronto with a lot of new developments. Aura for example will have nearly 200k retail below a single tower. Maple Leaf Square (completed a couple years ago) has 140k of retail on its bottom three floors including a 48k square supermarket in its basement level. One Bloor's previous design had 100k retail on it's bottom several floors including a 50k supermarket. I'm not sure how much the newer design is supposed to have, but I'm sure it will be a lot.

Quote:
And even so, having every street consist of ground level retail (as opposed to side streets with rowhouses, etc.) detracts from the attractiveness and liveability of a neighborhood.
Yes, but you really don't find that (outside of a core CBD) over an area larger than a few short blocks long by a few short blocks wide, no matter what the density.

As far as the subways, they will be able to carry more pax per hour per direction during peak hours if they can speed them up. NYC subways are significantly slower than other subway systems with similar station spacing (we discussed this in another thread). It's my understanding that the old technology and signal systems are responsible for this, and that when it is modernized they will be able to run trains faster and more frequently.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 8:48 PM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
And I respectively choose to disregard the opinion of someone that lives in Iowa City with respect to this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralcoffin View Post
Considering that your mascot is the Wisconsin badger
LOL, Flyover Country pettiness . Like any LA/NY native would differentiate between the two
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 1:13 AM
599GTO 599GTO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralcoffin View Post
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Higher density can only boost all of those factors you mention. More people means more shops and retail, more mass transit usage (and with proper system management and maintenance the NYC Subway can handle many more people), and to me vibrancy means lots of people on the street and business activity, and density only increases that. From my perspective in the Midwest, where our cities are fighting just to stay steady, New York's increasing density is something to be coveted.

And if Manhattan gets too crowded, well there are four other boroughs...
Manhattan is not dense enough for you? Jesus Christ.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 1:23 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Would you go to Hong Kong and complain that it's too dense? What kind of monster are you?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.