U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2013, 02:04 PM
 
349 posts, read 457,840 times
Reputation: 255

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiVegas View Post
This isn't true. Mexico City has 20 million in the metro area, but it covers thousands of square miles.

The city proper of Mexico City has around 8.5-9 million people in 600 square miles, so much lower density than NYC, thought somewhat higher density than other major U.S. cities.

Mexico City isn't really super high density. It's more like an LA, but somewhat denser.
I'm getting conflicting numbers, some sources have the city at 15K per square mile and then the urban area at 25K.

No. 9: Mexico City, Mexico - In Photos: The World's Densest Megacities - Forbes
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
http://www.city-data.com/world-cities/Mexico-City.html


Maybe the metro area includes very sparsely populated counties that significantly brings it down. But I can't see how the area outside of the city is more dense than the inner city. Its a mystery

Last edited by Yac; 03-11-2014 at 08:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2013, 02:10 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,576,706 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70 View Post
Mexico City does not have the concentration of high rises that New York does though it does have quite a few tall buildings. I think Los Angeles is much the same in that its a large city with a big population but there are relatively few skyscrapers. I think Honolulu, Charlotte, Nashville, Oklahoma City and Cincinnati have a lot of skyscrapers for a population their size, Louisville and Lexington also.

I think if you combine the Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas-Fort Worth areas you will equal the New York region.
No you wouldn't be close, he is talking about built environment of 12 story high rises, not population. To put it in more perspective, you'd need ~25 Dallas's to equal 1 NYC. The built environment of collective highrises in NYC is 25x larger than Dallas, not even taking to account that it is also much taller.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 04:08 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by goonsta View Post
I'm getting conflicting numbers, some sources have the city at 15K per square mile and then the urban area at 25K.

No. 9: Mexico City, Mexico - In Photos: The World's Densest Megacities - Forbes
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
http://www.city-data.com/world-cities/Mexico-City.html


Maybe the metro area includes very sparsely populated counties that significantly brings it down. But I can't see how the area outside of the city is more dense than the inner city. Its a mystery
An urban area counts contigously developed areas. Look at the city boundaries on google maps:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mexic...gl=us&t=h&z=10

At least a third of it is undeveloped and probably not in the urban area. The city boundaries are of an independent federal district like DC, for whatever they were set rather large. As OyCrumbler said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Mexico City is a pretty dense city given that its stats are taken over a large area and a large chunk of the south and southeast are national forests that can not be developed. Street level, Mexico City's density feels a lot more akin to NYC than LA though its density stats are halfway in between the two. Again, that's explained by the vast land area it covers and the amount of it reserved from development.
Judging from streetview, it looks less dense than Manhattan and the denser outer borough neighborhoods. Maybe average Brooklyn or Queens density? That goes on for the entire metro.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mexic...09.61,,0,-5.44

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mexic...39.64,,0,-8.81

Last edited by Yac; 03-11-2014 at 08:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,258,317 times
Reputation: 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
An urban area counts contigously developed areas. Look at the city boundaries on google maps:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mexic...gl=us&t=h&z=10

At least a third of it is undeveloped and probably not in the urban area. The city boundaries are of an independent federal district like DC, for whatever they were set rather large. As OyCrumbler said:



Judging from streetview, it looks less dense than Manhattan and the denser outer borough neighborhoods. Maybe average Brooklyn or Queens density? That goes on for the entire metro.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mexic...09.61,,0,-5.44

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mexic...39.64,,0,-8.81
Yes, less vertical density than Manhattan when it comes to mid-highrises. I would say more like parts of the Bronx or Brooklyn but on a larger scale. These two links show more density considering how old Mexico City founded 1325 as Tenochtitlan by Aztecs and 1521 by the Spanish. It seems they have a lot of old colonial and turn of the century ornamental architecture down there. Impressive.

http://goo.gl/maps/t2AHe

http://goo.gl/maps/atvOA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2013, 11:18 AM
 
1,613 posts, read 1,940,040 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Judging from streetview, it looks less dense than Manhattan and the denser outer borough neighborhoods. Maybe average Brooklyn or Queens density? That goes on for the entire metro.
I have spent a lot of time in Mexico City and this is basically accurate. It's pretty much a denser LA, so, if you're looking at NYC, would be like the less dense portions of the Outer Boroughs (but not the suburban parts on the fringes of the NYC city limits).

The thing with Mexico City is that there's no difference in density between one mile from city center and the urban fringe, right next to forests. It's pretty much all medium-high density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2013, 01:32 PM
 
1,613 posts, read 1,940,040 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlcc View Post
by your definition of 12 stories or higher buildings, it takes 6 Chicago or 10 LA or 14-15 San Francisco.

But most of the the buildings in your pictures are much taller than 12 stories, in terms of # of skyscrappers it only takes 2 Chicago (227 vs 119).
Probably closer to 3 Chicagos, or at least 2.5 Chicagos.

Emporis doesn't list building heights for hundreds of NYC highrises, but has building heights for 100% of Chicago highrises. There are tons of 30- and 40-something floor building in NYC with no Emporis height, so no ranking.

Also, almost 100% of the Chicago skyscrapers are in Chicago. In NYC, the skyline extends well beyond the city limits, and there are lots of skyscrapers in places outside municipal limits. Jersey City alone has a lot of 500+ foot buildings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2013, 01:58 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,576,706 times
Reputation: 5662
In terms of skyscrapers and supertalls, Chicago has almost 1/2. But in terms of what makes up most of NYC's urban framework, the highrises in the 12-40 story range, as well as midrises like DC in the 5or 6 - 12 story range making long street walls, it's a massacre blowout for NYC. You could say the same thing about other urban things like subway ridership, NYC has about 6-7x the riders.

Last edited by grapico; 11-11-2013 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2013, 02:49 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,334,183 times
Reputation: 817
Parts of 5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
6,383 posts, read 6,011,480 times
Reputation: 3558
If we're talking high rises, I thought that NYC was 6 of Chicago's downtown. Or has that changed or is not quite accurate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 10:48 AM
 
Location: East Coast
476 posts, read 275,764 times
Reputation: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by goonsta View Post
And Mexico city is 20 million people in a size of about 800 Sq miles, so its 20 million people in an area smaller than Cook County. Mind-boggling.
I know thatís crazy. Would you like to live like that?!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top