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.
Tokyo - 239 square miles, 9.3 million people, 40K PPSM
NYC - 304 square miles, 8.5 million people, 28K PPSM
How is it less dense than NYC, Paris, or Barcelona?
This isn't what we're talking about. You don't ascertain density/urbanity by mindlessly plugging in population/land area. If that were the case then Hong Kong isn't dense or urban. In fact Hong Kong has lower density than many U.S. suburbs.
But if we're talking actual weighted density (ie how people actually live) or core density, then NYC is much denser than Tokyo. NYC probably has the largest contiguous high densities anywhere in the first world. HK would have even higher, but in smaller geographies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Also, Tokyo has the two most crowded train stations in the world, nearly 4 times the density of restaurants compared to NYC, narrower streets with much less on-street parking, a denser built environment, and many other aspects that make it incredibly urban.
Some of these points are true (train stations), some are made-up (restaurant and parking), none are particularly relevant to what we're talking about. Crowded train stations, restaurant density, and whether or not there's on-street parking have nothing to do with anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Perhaps it doesn't have quite the peak residential density that NYC has, but in terms of activity, storefronts, built environment, walkability, and several other metrics to judge urbanity by, Tokyo is more urban than NYC.
Definitely not true. Have been to both cities, and NYC is significantly denser, busier and more urban at its core than Tokyo. NYC is probably the densest/busiest first world city on the planet, at least if we're talking larger geographies (not smaller nodes, where HK is definitely #1).
Tokyo has medium density over a HUGE area but doesn't have the structural or human density of cities like NYC, Paris or Barcelona. It just doesn't. It's more like hundreds of urban nodes stitched together by a vast rail web.
This isn't what we're talking about. You don't ascertain density/urbanity by mindlessly plugging in population/land area. If that were the case then Hong Kong isn't dense or urban. In fact Hong Kong has lower density than many U.S. suburbs.
But if we're talking actual weighted density (ie how people actually live) or core density, then NYC is much denser than Tokyo. NYC probably has the largest contiguous high densities anywhere in the first world. HK would have even higher, but in smaller geographies.
Some of these points are true (train stations), some are made-up (restaurant and parking), none are particularly relevant to what we're talking about. Crowded train stations, restaurant density, and whether or not there's on-street parking have nothing to do with anything.
Definitely not true. Have been to both cities, and NYC is significantly denser, busier and more urban at its core than Tokyo. NYC is probably the densest/busiest first world city on the planet, at least if we're talking larger geographies (not smaller nodes, where HK is definitely #1).
Tokyo has medium density over a HUGE area but doesn't have the structural or human density of cities like NYC, Paris or Barcelona. It just doesn't. It's more like hundreds of urban nodes stitched together by a vast rail web.
The street parking and restaurant stats are not made up at all.
Most of Tokyo's streets are more like alleys and have no street parking. Most of NYC's street do have street parking. It makes Tokyo more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. Some random examples:
I could post photos like this for over a dozen neighborhoods. The only one that compares in terms of activity in NYC is Midtown/Times Square.
You're focusing too much on peak residential density. Manila has some of the highest peak residential densities in the world but much of it is hardly walkable or classically. Any way you slice it, 9.5 million people in an area just over 200 square miles is an extraordinary critical mass, and the core areas of Tokyo is where most of those people congregate. In terms of street crowds, activity, walkability, restaurant/drinking options, Tokyo's core beats NYC's core.
Last edited by Edward234; 07-29-2016 at 02:48 PM..
The street parking and restaurant stats are not made up at all.
Then show your source.
They are made up, because there is no comparative source that measures either thing. It would be completely impossible to compare the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Most of Tokyo's streets are more like alleys and have no street parking. Most of NYC's street do have street parking. It makes Tokyo more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. Some random examples:
First, these aren't "random examples". Tokyo's main streets are wide and highway-like, and generally pedestrian unfriendly, with boulevard medians and small sidewalks. Second, I never disagreed with your original point. Third, street parking has zero to do with what we're talking about. Places like Paris have tons of street parking, many U.S. suburbs ban street parking, doesn't mean that Paris is less urban than suburban Columbus, OH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
As for restaurants:
In other words, you're making stuff up. You're just googling two random, unrelated opinions.
There is no comparative source for worldwide restaurant counts. Given that NYC is significantly wealthier than Tokyo and has a more of a dining out culture, it's likely true that NYC has more dining options, at least on a relative basis, but again, no way of actually knowing.
And this has nothing to do with urbanity or density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Also, in terms of bustling areas you are just flat out wrong:
This is definitely, 100% wrong.
Don't take my word for it. Scroll around the neighborhoods yourself.
Anyone who thinks Shinjuku is as dense or urban as Midtown Manhattan is doing some serious drugs. Shinjuku looks like a suburb compared to Midtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
You're focusing too much on peak residential density.
What should we focus on? Fringe suburban density?
That's the only thing that matters- peak core density. You don't want to focus on it, because you know Tokyo doesn't have strong peak density, neither in built form or in population density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Manila has some of the highest peak residential densities in the world but much of it is hardly walkable or classically.
Manila is a dirt-poor third world city. Has nothing to do with anything. And Manila's doesn't have a strong core or highly variable density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Any way you slice it, 9.5 million people in an area just over 200 square miles is an extraordinary critical mass, and the core areas of Tokyo is where most of those people congregate. In terms of street crowds, activity, walkability, restaurant/drinking option, Tokyo's core beats NYC's core.
None of this is true. First, you're fabricating population numbers, second, Tokyo doesn't have a strong core, it's highly dispersed, and third Tokyo's core is nowhere in the same universe as NYC.
They are made up, because there is no comparative source that measures either thing. It would be completely impossible to compare the two.
First, these aren't "random examples". Tokyo's main streets are wide and highway-like, and generally pedestrian unfriendly, with boulevard medians and small sidewalks. Second, I never disagreed with your original point. Third, street parking has zero to do with what we're talking about. Places like Paris have tons of street parking, many U.S. suburbs ban street parking, doesn't mean that Paris is less urban than suburban Columbus, OH.
In other words, you're making stuff up. You're just googling two random, unrelated opinions.
There is no comparative source for worldwide restaurant counts. Given that NYC is significantly wealthier than Tokyo and has a more of a dining out culture, it's likely true that NYC has more dining options, at least on a relative basis, but again, no way of actually knowing.
And this has nothing to do with urbanity or density.
This is definitely, 100% wrong.
Don't take my word for it. Scroll around the neighborhoods yourself.
Anyone who thinks Shinjuku is as dense or urban as Midtown Manhattan is doing some serious drugs. Shinjuku looks like a suburb compared to Midtown.
What should we focus on? Fringe suburban density?
That's the only thing that matters- peak core density. You don't want to focus on it, because you know Tokyo doesn't have strong peak density, neither in built form or in population density.
Manila is a dirt-poor third world city. Has nothing to do with anything. And Manila's doesn't have a strong core or highly variable density.
None of this is true. First, you're fabricating population numbers, second, Tokyo doesn't have a strong core, it's highly dispersed, and third Tokyo's core is nowhere in the same universe as NYC.
Wow, talk about cherry-picking. You basically chose a highway to represent Shinjuku. This is what the majority of Shinjuku looks like (walk around to check out the surrounding area as well): https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6942...7i13312!8i6656
Also, the restaurant thing is an established fact. Tokyo has 4 times as many restaurants as NYC and the most Michelin-rated restaurants in the world. Look it up on Google - you'll find many sources.
And that streetview I showed earlier of Tokyo was completely random. It's what the majority of Tokyo looks like. Yes, there are some wide major streets, but the vast majority of the streets are narrow - much narrower than NYC - and don't have street parking, which does completely change the feel of it. There's no doubt in my mind that you've never been to Tokyo.
Seriously, it's impossible to take you seriously. Shinjuku looks like a suburb compared to Midtown? That statement is absurd. Both are incredibly urban neighborhoods - I think there's a strong case that Tokyo feels more urban and vibrant than NYC. (By the way, I prefer NYC as a city overall, so I have no bias towards Tokyo.)
Last edited by Edward234; 07-29-2016 at 03:20 PM..
Wow, talk about cherry-picking. You basically chose a highway to represent Shinjuku. This is what the majority of Shinjuku looks like (walk around to check out the surrounding area as well): https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6942...7i13312!8i6656
No. I posted a typical main street in Shinjuku. As you also noted, the main streets in Shinjuku are highway-like and pedestrian unfriendly. There are no such streets in Midtown Manhattan.
And it isn't cherry-picking, the street I posted contains the Park Hyatt, the tallest buildings in Shinjuku, and some of the most important landmarks, and is just a few blocks from Shinjuku station.
Your second example, which shows a minor side street, also confirms that Shinjuku isn't remotely as dense or urban than Midtown Manhattan. Little two-floor back-alley buildings won't give a similar built density.
Also, the restaurant thing is an established fact. Tokyo has 4 times as many restaurants as NYC and the most Michelin-rated restaurants in the world. Look it up on Google - you'll find many sources.
If it's an "established fact" then you can show us a source. You have provided absolutely none, because you know it's a made-up claim.
Wrong. You claimed that the special wards have 9.5 million residents. They actually have 8.9 million residents per the latest (2015) population estimates.
And this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Tokyo's special wards could have 2 million people, and be denser/more urban than anywhere, or 20 million people and less dense/urban than most places.
No. I posted a typical main street in Shinjuku. As you also noted, the main streets in Shinjuku are highway-like and pedestrian unfriendly. There are no such streets in Midtown Manhattan.
And it isn't cherry-picking, the street I posted contains the Park Hyatt, the tallest buildings in Shinjuku, and some of the most important landmarks, and is just a few blocks from Shinjuku station.
Your second example, which shows a minor side street, also confirms that Shinjuku isn't remotely as dense or urban than Midtown Manhattan. Little two-floor back-alley buildings won't give a similar built density.
Obviously Midtown, by far.
If it's an "established fact" then you can show us a source. You have provided absolutely none, because you know it's a made-up claim.
Wrong. You claimed that the special wards have 9.5 million residents. They actually have 8.9 million residents per the latest (2015) population estimates.
And this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Tokyo's special wards could have 2 million people, and be denser/more urban than anywhere, or 20 million people and less dense/urban than most places.
I've seen and heard it from plenty of legitimate sources, but since I can't track it down right now, let's use Trip Advisor's index as a proxy - according to Trip Advisor Tokyo has 81K+ restaurants, while NYC has 10K+ restaurants. Even assuming a huge margin of error, Tokyo demolishes NYC in terms of number of restaurants.
Also, that wasn't a minor side street. Shinjuku and much of Tokyo is a network of very commercially-dense narrow streets. To me, that's more urban. For example, I think the first link is more urban than the second: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6941...7i13312!8i6656
And, yes Tokyo does have a some wide arterials, but what you showed was essentially a highway. This is what the typical Tokyo arterial looks like (just to clarify, the typical major arterial, not the typical street): https://www.google.com/maps/place/To...917064!6m1!1e1
And the latest estimates for the special wards are 9.3 million. I said 9.5 - it's called rounding to the nearest .5. Finally, I think you're understating just how impressive a population density of 40K ppsm with 9.3 million people is. As a point of comparison, Barcelona has 1.6 million and is at 41K ppsm. San Francisco - the second densest city in North America - has 850K and a ppsm of 18k.
Last edited by Edward234; 07-29-2016 at 03:47 PM..
Exactly. This is how the densest LA neighborhoods look. They have high walkscores, but they're auto-oriented. Walkscore doesn't measure quality of pedestrian environment; it only measures whether "stuff" is in proximity.
Not too many people walking in areas like Koretown or Westlake, and those that do are generally very poor Central American migrants who lack vehicles.
And that surfeit of stuff in proximity makes Koreatown a very walkable neighborhood.
Yea, there are poor Central American migrants lacking vehicles in both neighborhoods, but especially Westlake. For Koreatown, there's that contingent and a lot more. There are multiple people crammed into old apartments and there are people paying 3k a month for a one bedroom. There's a large socioeconomic range in Koreatown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Whoever that guy was should be given a gold star for setting the conversation straight.
If you want to find an urban, walkable context in the U.S., one of the best clues is older midrises. That means the neighborhood was high density before autotopia, which almost guarantees the neighborhood is urban and walkable today.
Right, that guy was you and the argument wasn't very good. The problem is that your posts are peppered with unreasonable arguments which seems bundled with actual reasonable arguments. Trying to equate Long Beach, NY and Santa Monica as equally walkable and urban possible means 1) you argue without actually knowing what you're saying or 2) you're arguing with a very specific viewpoint or criteria that isn't evident to anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Hmm, the Census data reports otherwise.
Koreatown is both A. High poverty and B. High household size. It's dense but poor and crowded.
LA has one of the highest % of poverty of any major U.S. city, and the highest poverty neighborhoods are almost all the ones were talking about- Westlake, Koreatown and the like.
That may be your motivation, but I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the typical resident is moving there for these issues. Koreatown is very heavily composed of poor immigrants from Central America.
The name "Koreatown" is a misnomer. It's a majority Latino neighborhood, very poor, and very heavily Central American. They move there because it's cheap and convenient not because they're looking for "diversity" or "amenities". Some laborer from Guatemala isn't moving there for cold pressed coffee, yoga, and vegan curry stands; he's looking for an affordable place to sleep.
Did you notice that the study cites mostly the 2000 Census as well as the 2006 ACS? Koreatown does have poor people in crowded conditions still, but they are joined by a lot of other people.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-29-2016 at 05:04 PM..
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.
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.
