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.
For example, the 2 densest areas in SF are Chinatown and the Tenderloin. I don't think most people would want to live there by choice.
As a whole though, American [high] density isn't much of a problem outside of areas like the 2 above because it almost never reaches the third world or developing country level of city wide high density. So not only do we have [much] lower density here but most places in the U.S. don't resemble the third world or developing countries either. We should probably find the middle ground between the 2 though, density wise.
I roll my eyes whenever I see posts about cities with the best food. I will never be one of those people who would spend $1300 on a dinner on Valentine's Day at the highest rated restaurant in NYC, as a friend of mine did earlier this year. Not interested in tiny plates of food with paragraphs of description at some place in the Michelin rankings.
The highest rated restaurant in NYC is almost certainly Per Se or Eleven Madison Park, neither of which could possibly cost $1,300 unless your friend is spending like $1,000 on ultra-rare wine.
Also, those restaurants are very filling. They do indeed have "tiny plates of food", but there are usually dozens of plates brought to you (many complimentary) and you will leave full. You will also probably be given a food "gift" to take as you leave, so no shortage of food.
This is all very true. Some posters emphasize JUST density itself, without weighing in all the factors. Density just for density's sake is often NOT good. I don't think anybody here is pining for NYC of the 1920s or Manila of the present.
The issues of "NYC of the 1920's or Manila of the present" have nothing to do with density. You're talking about poverty, not density.
If those areas had half or a quarter the density, they would still suck, because of poverty. But if a wealthy, developed area has such density (such as parts of Manhattan or Paris or Hong Kong in the present), then there is no issue with high density.
The issues of "NYC of the 1920's or Manila of the present" have nothing to do with density. You're talking about poverty, not density.
If those areas had half or a quarter the density, they would still suck, because of poverty. But if a wealthy, developed area has such density (such as parts of Manhattan or Paris or Hong Kong in the present), then there is no issue with high density.
I agree. That's the thing, though. Density without context is meaningless IMO. Wealthy high rise districts are high density. So are housing projects. Cities have different mixes of those. So simply using density as an indicator of a city's superiority is flawed.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,182,294 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
The issues of "NYC of the 1920's or Manila of the present" have nothing to do with density. You're talking about poverty, not density.
If those areas had half or a quarter the density, they would still suck, because of poverty. But if a wealthy, developed area has such density (such as parts of Manhattan or Paris or Hong Kong in the present), then there is no issue with high density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nashvols
I agree. That's the thing, though. Density without context is meaningless IMO. Wealthy high rise districts are high density. So are housing projects. Cities have different mixes of those. So simply using density as an indicator of a city's superiority is flawed.
Yes and no. Density in and of itself isn't inherently bad, but it IS often associated with poverty. There's a definite relationship with poverty, whether we want to admit it or not. Even Paris and Hong Kong aren't as dense as present day Manila or early 20th century tenement NYC. Theoretically, they could be and retain their higher standards of living, but that hasn't happened yet in practice. The Walled city of Kowloon wasn't exactly present day Wan Chai when it comes to living standards. Money tends to spread people out, even in rich cities. Compare Tokyo to Dhaka...
If this is unimportant to you, so be it. Walkability was the most important metric for me when I relocated a few years back and only a half dozen U.S. cities met the threshold I required. Even as a tourist it is a critical consideration for an enjoyable visit: I would be lost without a rental car in Houston and cursed with one in Bodton.
The most ridiculous metro I've seen throttled to death in CvC is the member of billionaires who live in any particular locale. That affects my quality of life exactly how?
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,182,294 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pine to Vine
The most ridiculous metro I've seen throttled to death in CvC is the member of billionaires who live in any particular locale. That affects my quality of life exactly how?
Don't you know? Bragging about how much money other people have is a time honored tradition here on CD!
Lol seriously, I don't get it either. I know it's a rough measure of a city's power/influence, but it isn't close to being the best metric for that. San Francisco has more billionaires than Tokyo but I don't think anyone here could argue it as the more powerful city with a straight face. If anything, number of billionaires gives highly unequal/repressive areas like Riyadh and Jakarta disproportionate standing. Hell, Wyoming has more billionaires than 33 other states, but you NEVER hear anyone arguing anything in favor of Wyoming on this forum.
I hate per capita stats especially for crime. The total number of crimes in a certain area is the useful stat. You can have a safe small town end up with a higher per capita crime rate than a much less safe urban area with thousands more crimes committed during a year.
Some people just are not good at math or logic.
Which is safer: A town of 1,000 with 20 murders or a city of 1,000,000 with 500 murders?
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.
