Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 10-31-2011, 09:46 AM
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: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,204,802 times
Reputation: 15174

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
As to Tokyo, that's a vastly different society dealing with vastly different economics and transportation worlds. Compared to Tokyo, even the densest American cities are practically unpopulated in terms of density.
Taking the densest American city (NYC) and comparing it with Tokyo I don't think this statement is true.

Not really. If you go by comparing the old, core in the cities, NYC comes out quite a bit denser. The densest neighborhoods in Tokyo max out at about 50,000 people per square mile. Many NYC neighborhoods are higher than that, some much higher; the densest neighborhood in NYC (Upper East Side) is roughly 120,000 people per square mile. Some neighborhoods outside of Manhattan (which is only about 23 square miles or so) are denser than the densest neighborhoods of Tokyo. There was a thread in city vs city of many people your city would have if it was the size of San Francisco — 47 square miles (and obviously contained only the densest core of the city).

LA came out to 1.0-1.1 million. NYC had 2.9-3.0 million; Tokyo 2.15 million. If you go urban districts of roughly the same size (23 special wards for Tokyo, the city proper for NYC), Tokyo comes out somewhat denser (36k per square mile vs 27k per square mile). But to call it a vastly different world is a bit of an exaggeration. NYC's CBD is much denser than Tokyo's in terms of employment density (I could find a source for it if you're interested). NYC has a much denser, compact core than Tokyo. Tokyo has a flatter profile.

By transportation pattern, NYC car ownership rate is lower than Tokyo's (228 cars per 1000 people for NYC compared to 308 cars per 1000 people for Tokyo). But interestingly, Tokyo residents barely use their cars for commuting.

Tokyo Metropolitan Government Environmental White Paper 2006 (http://www2.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/kouhou/env/eng_2006/chapter2_2.html - broken link)

Anyway, a bit of a sidetrack, but my point is that the density of Tokyo is not far removed from the experience of the densest of American cities. In fact, in many ways it is less dense.

Last edited by nei; 10-31-2011 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2011, 04:18 PM
 
1,108 posts, read 2,276,697 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Taking the densest American city (NYC) and comparing it with Tokyo I don't think this statement is true.

Not really. If you go by comparing the old, core in the cities, NYC comes out quite a bit denser. The densest neighborhoods in Tokyo max out at about 50,000 people per square mile. Many NYC neighborhoods are higher than that, some much higher; the densest neighborhood in NYC (Upper East Side) is roughly 120,000 people per square mile. Some neighborhoods outside of Manhattan (which is only about 23 square miles or so) are denser than the densest neighborhoods of Tokyo. There was a thread in city vs city of many people your city would have if it was the size of San Francisco — 47 square miles (and obviously contained only the densest core of the city).

LA came out to 1.0-1.1 million. NYC had 2.9-3.0 million; Tokyo 2.15 million. If you go urban districts of roughly the same size (23 special wards for Tokyo, the city proper for NYC), Tokyo comes out somewhat denser (36k per square mile vs 27k per square mile). But to call it a vastly different world is a bit of an exaggeration. NYC's CBD is much denser than Tokyo's in terms of employment density (I could find a source for it if you're interested). NYC has a much denser, compact core than Tokyo. Tokyo has a flatter profile.

By transportation pattern, NYC car ownership rate is lower than Tokyo's (228 cars per 1000 people for NYC compared to 308 cars per 1000 people for Tokyo). But interestingly, Tokyo residents barely use their cars for commuting.

Tokyo Metropolitan Government Environmental White Paper 2006 (http://www2.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/kouhou/env/eng_2006/chapter2_2.html - broken link)

Anyway, a bit of a sidetrack, but my point is that the density of Tokyo is not far removed from the experience of the densest of American cities. In fact, in many ways it is less dense.
The only developed city I've ever been to that truly felt denser and more urban than NYC is Hong Kong. Its like NYC on steroids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2011, 07:30 PM
 
12,999 posts, read 18,811,640 times
Reputation: 9236
Definitely it is urban, with activity almost around the clock, a subway system, high density in many areas. Yes, there are some spread out neighborhoods, but that is true of most cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 08:17 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,808,656 times
Reputation: 11862
I agree with the above. NYC (Manhattan at least) is development in the same class of density as Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Cairo, Sao Paolo. Hong Kong and Singapore are extremely dense because most housing is at least 15 storey apartments/flats,. with many being 20-30 storeys high now. Single houses or 'bungalows' in Singapore are virtually restricted to some of the less urban parts of the island/city, such as Bukit Timah. In other parts the rich live in luxury apartments/penthouses.

Hong Kong is the same. The only sizeable congregations of single-dwellings are probably on the Peak, Stanley and some of the outlying towns/village areas. Townhouses don't seem to characterise Hong Kong like they do say Penang or Kuala Lumpur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 09:32 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: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,204,802 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
I agree with the above. NYC (Manhattan at least) is development in the same class of density as Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Cairo, Sao Paolo.
Paris should be on the list as well. Saõ Paulo might be on the low end of that list.

For some reason, I used to imagine as Tokyo as a super-busy dense city, much more so than the city I'm most familiar with (NYC) but after reading up on it I was surprised to find that it's center is a bit less "packed" than NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 09:37 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,808,656 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Paris should be on the list as well. Saõ Paulo is somewhat on the low end of that list.

For some reason, I used to imagine as Tokyo as a super-busy dense city, much more so than the city I'm most familiar with (NYC) but after reading up on it I was surprised to find that it's center is a bit less than NYC.
Much moreso than NYC? Lol...I can't imagine any city being much denser, busier than NYC. I've been to New York, and it felt every bit as busy as Hong Kong if not even more so. Haven't been to Tokyo to compare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Glendale, CA
1,299 posts, read 2,528,990 times
Reputation: 1395
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Anyway, the point is not so much what LA is (or NY or London or Paris) for that matter... but rather what scale and reference can fairly be applied when considering these overlarge cities that are statistical outliers relative to the more compact cities and their more, lets say, ordinary urban schema.

There are all manner or reasons to say LA is special.
OK. It stands almost alone among a very few.

But then comparative references shouldn't be used...
especially when it's done w/r/t cities like Sac or even SF and Chicago...
and locals shouldn't get their noses out of joint when those same differences are pointed out.
L.A. is "urban", but just not in the same model as an older, compact East Coast city.

It is not a matter of "disjointed noses" by those of us in L.A. We know this city is urban. But it's also BIG from a land area perspective, so you all types of urbanity and suburbanity contained within a single city's boundaries.

The "problem" with L.A. is that you cannot paint the entire city with a broad brush and pigeonhole it. And I think that frustrates a lot of people that try to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 03:57 AM
 
1,108 posts, read 2,276,697 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Paris should be on the list as well. Saõ Paulo might be on the low end of that list.

For some reason, I used to imagine as Tokyo as a super-busy dense city, much more so than the city I'm most familiar with (NYC) but after reading up on it I was surprised to find that it's center is a bit less "packed" than NYC.
I dont have a ton of experience in NYC, but the parts of Tokyo (some are pretty large swaths) and even Osaka that are uber-dense did seem to trump anything I saw in NYC. Shinjuku, Shibuya, and literally dozens of other districts in Tokyo are as packed and urban as anywhere I've ever been. Maybe part of it is just how chaotic the endless streams of people and businesses are. I once read that Tokyo literally has nealry 6 times as many restaurants as NYC, and you can see why. One narrow building will somehow manage to cram 20 establishments within its walls. The whole city is a very different development model than NYC, though.

Hong Kong, on the other hand, seems to have a more NYC-like development patterns and reminded me way more of NYC in terms of street feel. Although I stand by claim that certain parts of Hong Kong feel like NYC on steroids, I do think the two cities are very comparable. Tokyo is it's own beast, and I think its commercial districts are incredibly urban, beyond anywhere else I've been. I also think the Tokyo subway is better than NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2011, 02:10 AM
 
1,027 posts, read 2,037,365 times
Reputation: 285
I think what is confusing to people is Los Angeles like alot of sun belt cities before the 50's took on the streetcar suburb look and feel.Most streetcar suburb are spread out but very urban in look and feel.



- grid system
--sidewalk at the street
--store-fronts
--building like at the street
--tight parking at the back or side of the building
--non street hierarchy
--non faces of subdivision
--tight parking
That suburbs built after ww2 very much frown on this.


But the flat and spread out look but still looking urban before suburbs took of after ww2.


typical post ww2 suburbs .

-street hierarchy
-faces of subdivision
-non grid system
-no store-fronts
-building pulled back and in parking lot
-non tight parking at the back or side of the building but bigger parking lot with building pulled back.
-malls and plazas


Also mid 90's to now box stores ,power centers.


Note I also think that city zoning laws may be very loose in southwest US like in LA , Phoenix and Albuquerque with Phoenix being really much so of this streetcar suburb look and feel where suburbs built after ww2 very much frown on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2011, 10:32 AM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,206,810 times
Reputation: 4685
I think they have the streetcar suburb "look and feel" because they were streetcar suburbs. Los Angeles' streetcar/interurban system expanded the city like spokes on a wheel, but the spaces between the spokes were largely unoccupied because they weren't close to transit. Cars (and paved streets) allowed people to buy cheaper lots in between those spokes and drive past their friends waiting for the streetcar on their way to work (at least until they hit downtown and the massive traffic congestion that appeared by the late 1920s...)

But, as I have mentioned elsewhere, West Coast streetcar suburbs look different than East Coast ones due to climate, technology and fashion.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top