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)
 
Old 02-22-2014, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Paris
8,133 posts, read 6,670,148 times
Reputation: 3371

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
OK, that's helpful for being able to do the math - now we have a reliable number for Paris. But we still have no idea what area that encompasses and we have no idea what the actual population of the NYC urban area that was presented earlier is.
All the dark orange area under the "banlieue" label. It underestimates the density of the built-up area a great deal as it includes rural and forested land. And yes, Les-Clayes-sous-Bois and Saint-Geneviève-des-Bois are included.
Insee - Territoire - Recensement de la population de 2006 - Retour de la croissance dmographique au centre de lagglomration francilienne



Quote:
But the point isn't to compare the land areas of one metro that's a good deal larger than another. The point is to compare how densely people live on that land because, I assume, we're trying to determine whether or not density has an effect on how often people use cars.
I originally posted in this thread to give a link that back up nei's density figures for Paris. But yes, in this case, it would be helpful to have access to transit use figures by county, borough or department of residence.



Quote:
Sure, so for comparison, let's assume the posted numbers of 18 million and 10 million for the urban areas. The NYC metro population is 55% larger than Paris so we would compare the first 2.2 million of Paris to the first 3.4 million of NYC (Manhattan + adjacent areas of B'klyn) and you get roughly the same density - perhaps a slight edge to NYC.

Now you can compare the 1.5 million of Hauts-de-Seine to the next 2.3 million people in the balance of Brooklyn & parts of Queens. Again, roughly similar.

You can compare Seine-Saint-Denis to the Bronx and the balance of the Queens population with a decisive advantage to NY.

Then compare Val-de-Marne to Staten Island and adjacent areas of Hudson, Bergen and Essex Counties. Slight edge to Val-de-Marne.
As stated earlier, the densest 64% of Paris UA average 23k ppsm and the densest 56% of NY's average 16.5k ppsm. That's a clear advantage to Paris.



Quote:
It absolutely is the case that Paris has been rapidly suburbanizing for two decades. Paris has lost people and jobs to the suburbs and all of the metro area growth in Paris has been in its suburbs.

It's not as if one steps out of the city of Paris and into farm fields. It fades to this -
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@48.8...gCsg37xq2A!2e0

Add another 500,000 people to the Paris metro in that style of housing and see what happens to the metro density.

These low density suburban areas of Paris are few in number relative to the population of the region but they drag the Paris average down disproportionately. The same is true in the NYC metro. One doesn't get to ignore the fact that NYC is much larger and thus has more of these low density areas dragging down the metro average.
I'm not denying that Paris has been suburbanizing. Didn't claim that fields sit just outside the city limits. After all, I live in the suburbs. What it lacks is the large-scale low density developments seen in suburban New York:
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...tats-Unis&z=15
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...tats-Unis&z=15

Your example is similar to dense suburbs and large swathes of the outer boroughs in New York:
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...17.73,,0,10.41
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...203.4,,0,10.71

It's denser than most New York suburbs from what I've seen. So, physically, Paris is comparable to NYC and the densest suburbs till we reach the 10.4 million line. Places like Huntington Station, NY or Livingston, NJ don't exist in Paris suburbs. Stuff like this is pretty unusual over here and it's always small scale developments.



Quote:
Add another 500,000 people to the Paris metro in that style of housing and see what happens to the metro density.

These low density suburban areas of Paris are few in number relative to the population of the region but they drag the Paris average down disproportionately. The same is true in the NYC metro. One doesn't get to ignore the fact that NYC is much larger and thus has more of these low density areas dragging down the metro average.
By much larger, do you mean in land area or population? Sorry English isn't my native language. Either way, I don't really understand the argument. Tokyo is much larger than Paris and is denser as well. Do you mean that the difference between the average and median densities is larger in New York? It most likely is. Would be interesting to see how Paris compares with NYC on this graph made by nei, but I wasn't able to find subdivisions similar to US census tracts:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-X...y%25202010.png

Made a similar graph using municipality and arrondissement figures, so it includes large swathes of undeveloped land and thus underestimates density. While underestimated, the curve still crosses the 50% line at a higher density than New York:
http://imageshack.com/a/img21/9608/ig9l.jpg

Also, the percentage of people living at densities totally unconductive to public transit (let's say below 10k ppsm) is much lower in Paris UA.

Last edited by Rozenn; 02-22-2014 at 11:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2014, 09:05 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,952,939 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rozenn View Post
All the dark orange area under the "banlieue" label. It underestimates the density of the built-up area a great deal as it includes rural and forested land. And yes, Les-Clayes-sous-Bois and Saint-Geneviève-des-Bois are included.
Insee - Territoire - Recensement de la population de 2006 - Retour de la croissance dmographique au centre de lagglomration francilienne
This is also the case in NYC - and even more so - there are no tidal wetlands in Paris. There's no equivalent of Jamaica Bay, the Meadowlands, etc.


Quote:
I originally posted in this thread to give a link that back up nei's density figures for Paris. But yes, in this case, it would be helpful to have access to transit use figures by county, borough or department of residence.
I already posted the city data earlier in the thread. New York City (5 boroughs) beats Paris handily in transit usage but, for reasons I already explained, this isn't necessarily saying very much as Paris has substantially more people walking to work.

It's the fundamental problem with the premise that "higher density = higher transit use" since transportation is merely a solution to the problem of access and there are multiple transportation solutions one can use.

Quote:
As stated earlier, the densest 64% of Paris UA average 23k ppsm and the densest 56% of NY's average 16.5k ppsm. That's a clear advantage to Paris.
So, again, you're comparing the land area of a metro area of +18 million people to a metro area of +12 million people.

You're comparing land area to land area. We already know that NYC is a larger city. We already know that the outer ring of suburbs around NYC is less dense than comparable areas of Paris . . . and most of that is because Paris is a much smaller city.

If you want to compare residential densities then compare how people actually live. The 2.2 million people in the City of Paris do not live more densely than the 3.4 million people in Manhattan and adjacent areas of Brooklyn. The 1.5 million people in Seine-Saint-Denis do not live at anywhere near the density of the 2.2 million people in Queens.


Quote:
I'm not denying that Paris has been suburbanizing. Didn't claim that fields sit just outside the city limits. After all, I live in the suburbs.

What it lacks is the large-scale low density developments seen in suburban New York:
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...tats-Unis&z=15
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...tats-Unis&z=15

Your example is similar to dense suburbs and large swathes of the outer boroughs in New York:
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...17.73,,0,10.41
https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=nyc&hl...203.4,,0,10.71

It's denser than most New York suburbs from what I've seen. So, physically, Paris is comparable to NYC and the densest suburbs till we reach the 10.4 million line. Places like Huntington Station, NY or Livingston, NJ don't exist in Paris suburbs. Stuff like this is pretty unusual over here and it's always small scale developments.
pas si simple. The suburbs of NYC are not an even gradient of declining population densities.
Places like this exist throughout
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@40.7...HlppThvo6g!2e0

and to a french eye you might see one house, in most cases there are 2-4 apartments in each building. That's why the anecdotal, "I drove through there" or "I saw it on google maps" is a lot less reliable than actual, apples-to-apples data.


Quote:
By much larger, do you mean in land area or population? Sorry English isn't my native language. Either way, I don't really understand the argument. Tokyo is much larger than Paris and is denser as well. Do you mean that the difference between the average and median densities is larger in New York?
NYC is larger in population and land area than Paris.

The argument is not that complicated - Let's say that Paris has 10 million people. We'll say that 20% of them live in the City of Paris, 60% in the dense suburbs, 10% in medium density suburbs and 5% in lower density suburbs.

In New York that's more like 45/20/25/10 . . . of course, the least dense 10% lives on as much land (if not more) than the densest 45%.

In New York 10% of the population means 1.8 million people. In Paris 5% of the population means 500,000 people. If you scaled Paris up to the population of New York that means your 5% suburban population would be 900,000 people. That's an extra 400,000 people who are going to be living at lower densities than anywhere else in Paris and dragging down your metropolitan average.

A bigger problem for Paris is that it wouldn't be just 5% of your population growing in a suburban development pattern. All of Paris growth is happening in the suburbs. New York City has added over 1 million people while Paris has lost 300,000. NYC (and the region as a whole) is getting more dense while the City of Paris is getting less dense and dragging down the average density of the region with it.

Quote:
Also, the percentage of people living at densities totally unconductive to public transit (let's say below 10k ppsm) is much lower in Paris UA.
As we've already shown there's only a slight positive correlation between density and transit use. People use transit to get to work and to go out for entertainment and shopping . . . but they only use transit to do those things when they can't walk or ride a bike.

10kppsm is a good number for a metro system but not necessary for a bus or suburban rail (RER) system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 01:58 AM
 
97 posts, read 79,946 times
Reputation: 51
Living without a car = American Dream
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 02:15 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Experiment_2014 View Post
Living without a car = American Dream
This comment reminded me of this commercial.


Cadillac ELR Winter Olympics Ad Is Sharp (VIDEO) | CleanTechnica

Which is an excellent commercial that really illustrates American values.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,267 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
This is also the case in NYC - and even more so - there are no tidal wetlands in Paris. There's no equivalent of Jamaica Bay, the Meadowlands, etc.




I already posted the city data earlier in the thread. New York City (5 boroughs) beats Paris handily in transit usage but, for reasons I already explained, this isn't necessarily saying very much as Paris has substantially more people walking to work.

It's the fundamental problem with the premise that "higher density = higher transit use" since transportation is merely a solution to the problem of access and there are multiple transportation solutions one can use.



So, again, you're comparing the land area of a metro area of +18 million people to a metro area of +12 million people.

You're comparing land area to land area. We already know that NYC is a larger city. We already know that the outer ring of suburbs around NYC is less dense than comparable areas of Paris . . . and most of that is because Paris is a much smaller city.

If you want to compare residential densities then compare how people actually live. The 2.2 million people in the City of Paris do not live more densely than the 3.4 million people in Manhattan and adjacent areas of Brooklyn. The 1.5 million people in Seine-Saint-Denis do not live at anywhere near the density of the 2.2 million people in Queens.




pas si simple. The suburbs of NYC are not an even gradient of declining population densities.
Places like this exist throughout
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@40.7...HlppThvo6g!2e0

and to a french eye you might see one house, in most cases there are 2-4 apartments in each building. That's why the anecdotal, "I drove through there" or "I saw it on google maps" is a lot less reliable than actual, apples-to-apples data.




NYC is larger in population and land area than Paris.

The argument is not that complicated - Let's say that Paris has 10 million people. We'll say that 20% of them live in the City of Paris, 60% in the dense suburbs, 10% in medium density suburbs and 5% in lower density suburbs.

In New York that's more like 45/20/25/10 . . . of course, the least dense 10% lives on as much land (if not more) than the densest 45%.

In New York 10% of the population means 1.8 million people. In Paris 5% of the population means 500,000 people. If you scaled Paris up to the population of New York that means your 5% suburban population would be 900,000 people. That's an extra 400,000 people who are going to be living at lower densities than anywhere else in Paris and dragging down your metropolitan average.

A bigger problem for Paris is that it wouldn't be just 5% of your population growing in a suburban development pattern. All of Paris growth is happening in the suburbs. New York City has added over 1 million people while Paris has lost 300,000. NYC (and the region as a whole) is getting more dense while the City of Paris is getting less dense and dragging down the average density of the region with it.



As we've already shown there's only a slight positive correlation between density and transit use. People use transit to get to work and to go out for entertainment and shopping . . . but they only use transit to do those things when they can't walk or ride a bike.

10kppsm is a good number for a metro system but not necessary for a bus or suburban rail (RER) system.
If you add 400,000 people to low density suburbs (honestly I suspect Paris has maybe more like 1% in such low density suburbs/exurbs, it's mostly medium and high density) to scale up to New York, you're still also adding 7,600,000 at much higher densities... overall the net density won't change, unless as you said the growth is all low density. I'm not convinced that would happen though.

Growth 1999-2010

Inner suburbs
Hauts de Seine: +144,000
Seine Saint Denis: +134,000
Val de Marne: +100,000

Outer suburbs
Yvellines: +41,000 (1999 to 2006)
Seine et Marne: +141,000 (1999 to 2011)
Essonne: +80,000
Val d'Oise: +55,000 (1999 to 2007)

I don't feel like looking too much for 2010 data for the outer suburbs, but basically it looks like they were growing no faster, probably a bit slower than the inner suburbs. Assuming rate of growth for the periods for which I have data for the outer suburbs was the same as for 1999-2010, you'd get +349,000 for the outer suburbs and +378,000 for the inner suburbs. Growth in the inner suburbs is almost certainly infill, growth in the outer suburbs could be either infill or outwards. The greenfield growth seems at least what you call "medium density suburbs" though, rather than low density.

As for density and transit, I don't think 10,000 ppsm is a too bad threshold. You might still be able to pull off 30 min bus service or infrequent commuter rail, but I think for more frequent rail service (RER) or bus service, you would generally want around 10,000 ppsm or more, especially if it's to be universal and not just on select corridors with feeder/lower frequency routes elsewhere. And it depends on location and wealth too. Mississauga and Scarborough have similar density but Scarborough has about double the transit use (see page 14 of this thread). Scarborough is pretty working class, Mississauga is middle class, and Scarborough is closer to denser employment centers in Toronto. Still, it's "only" 30-35% transit use and about nothing walking for Scarborough. I would say you need over 25,000 ppsm and substantial employment close by (i.e. mixed use) to be truly transit/walking oriented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 09:16 AM
 
1,264 posts, read 2,149,999 times
Reputation: 1430
Note that the City of Paris is growing again since the 2000's.
City of Paris population 1999: 2,125,246
City of Paris population 2011: 2,249,975
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,055 posts, read 16,063,174 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This comment reminded me of this commercial.


Cadillac ELR Winter Olympics Ad Is Sharp (VIDEO) | CleanTechnica

Which is an excellent commercial that really illustrates American values.
Yes, work hard, play hard is an integral American value. I'm not really into the work hard, accumulate a bunch of stuff value but it's a much better value than work lazy and buy it on credit consumerism. I prefer to actually think would it actually make me happier. Maybe it's just because I live in a suburb and am not very cultured that the ad doesn't speak to me the way it does to you about exactly what American values are?

I just went through that with the Accord Hybrid. I get about 26 mpg with my current car and drive about 25,000 miles a year. Accord Hybrid I'd get about 45. I could save about 400 gallons of gas a year with an Accord Hybrid, or roughly $1,500 a year. After the gas savings and trade-in, I'd still be out $400/mo. Worth it? Nope. Planning a trip to South America, starting to relearn Spanish.

And no, I'm not learning Spanish because Rosetta Stone told me it would last me a lifetime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Yes, work hard, play hard is an integral American value. I'm not really into the work hard, accumulate a bunch of stuff value but it's a much better value than work lazy and buy it on credit consumerism. I prefer to actually think would it actually make me happier. Maybe it's just because I live in a suburb and am not very cultured that the ad doesn't speak to me the way it does to you about exactly what American values are?

I just went through that with the Accord Hybrid. I get about 26 mpg with my current car and drive about 25,000 miles a year. Accord Hybrid I'd get about 45. I could save about 400 gallons of gas a year with an Accord Hybrid, or roughly $1,500 a year. After the gas savings and trade-in, I'd still be out $400/mo. Worth it? Nope. Planning a trip to South America, starting to relearn Spanish.

And no, I'm not learning Spanish because Rosetta Stone told me it would last me a lifetime.
This commercial didn't make me want the car. But the subtle things in the commercial painted a not so subtle pic of what's important. I will try not to be super cynical here. Taking more vacation is lazy. Working hard is good, but notice the hero hardly interacted with his family. Yet he had a well paying enough job where he had the flexibility to leave and go when he chooses. Notice it wasn't in the wee hours of the morning he was leaving to commute. It was like late morning or perhaps afternoon.

It was sort of like a 50s time warp, wife stays home with the kids. Dad goes to work. But it is highly unrealistic these days unless you started with generational wealth. So the basic message is work hard, play hard but you better have a head start of privlege if you want the trappings of success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,055 posts, read 16,063,174 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This commercial didn't make me want the car. But the subtle things in the commercial painted a not so subtle pic of what's important. I will try not to be super cynical here. Taking more vacation is lazy. Working hard is good, but notice the hero hardly interacted with his family. Yet he had a well paying enough job where he had the flexibility to leave and go when he chooses. Notice it wasn't in the wee hours of the morning he was leaving to commute. It was like late morning or perhaps afternoon.

It was sort of like a 50s time warp, wife stays home with the kids. Dad goes to work. But it is highly unrealistic these days unless you started with generational wealth. So the basic message is work hard, play hard but you better have a head start of privlege if you want the trappings of success.
Perhaps it was a Saturday or Sunday? Apple is well-known for its Sunday evening meetings. I actually don't think that was what they were going for. I think it was designed to show a well-rounded lifestyle where one could transition from family/social to work easily. As in, buy our car. It works great in your social life with chinos and and short sleeves as it does in ferrying you to the boardroom.

The broader point is that the point of an ad is not a PSA on what American culture is so new immigrants can integrate with American society better or being ontop of the kids' homework (suggested.) The point of an ad is to sell stuff. In this case, the point is to sell a $75k Cadillac using an appeal on ethos/pathos. Thus the reference to American values of hard work, the American Dream, American ingenuity and determination, images of success at home and at work, of power and prestige.

Whether you buy into the distorted image manipulated to try and sell the ELR (and the Cadillac brand) or not and think it's an accurate rendition of American culture is on you. It's a stereotype of American culture that is cultivated with the sole purpose selling an expensive car from a luxury brand. All stereotypes have a nugget of truth to them. I don't know how you get the better have a head start thing. If it showed the man as a kid in a boarding school, perhaps. But really, I wouldn't look to advertisements to tell me what is important. I find the debate about what it reflects very interesting, which is why I have allowed myself to be distracted in an analysis of it.

For the demographic that can afford an ELR, I wouldn't say it's really that uncommon for the wife to stay home and run the household. That's very much a class thing. And while your chances of ending up in the top 5% are better if you start there, they aren't guaranteed.

Last edited by Malloric; 02-23-2014 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Perhaps it was a Saturday or Sunday? Apple is well-known for its Sunday evening meetings. I actually don't think that was what they were going for. I think it was designed to show a well-rounded lifestyle where one could transition from family/social to work easily. As in, buy our car. It works great in your social life with chinos and and short sleeves as it does in ferrying you to the boardroom.

The broader point is that the point of an ad is not a PSA on what American culture is so new immigrants can integrate with American society better or being ontop of the kids' homework (suggested.) The point of an ad is to sell stuff. In this case, the point is to sell a $75k Cadillac using an appeal on ethos/pathos. Thus the reference to American values of hard work, the American Dream, American ingenuity and determination, images of success at home and at work, of power and prestige.

Whether you buy into the distorted image manipulated to try and sell the ELR (and the Cadillac brand) or not and think it's an accurate rendition of American culture is on you. It's a stereotype of American culture that is cultivated with the sole purpose selling an expensive car from a luxury brand. All stereotypes have a nugget of truth to them. I don't know how you get the better have a head start thing. If it showed the man as a kid in a boarding school, perhaps. But really, I wouldn't look to advertisements to tell me what is important. I find the debate about what it reflects very interesting, which is why I have allowed myself to be distracted in an analysis of it.

For the demographic that can afford an ELR, I wouldn't say it's really that uncommon for the wife to stay home and run the household. That's very much a class thing. And while your chances of ending up in the top 5% are better if you start there, they aren't guaranteed.
Not straying too far off topic, I think it was an illustrative and brilliant commercial. It also sells the false ideal that if you work hard you'll live the good life. It is very American messaging. And included digs about the lazy Europeans too. Adding in our jingoistic attitude too. It was amazing how well they encapsulated so many American truisms in a single 60 second spot!

Imagine if those ad people were doing our political ads! They could sell us on eliminating taxes for the 1%.
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
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