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)
View Poll Results: should our cities be denser like Manila, Karachi and Mumbai?
Yes, this would be better than our sprawling us cities 25 37.31%
No, I don't want to live like a sardine 40 59.70%
I am not sure 2 2.99%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2015, 11:56 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,956,746 times
Reputation: 1953

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhamoutlook View Post
At some point but I think that's much further off than we realize. According to a study, the entire world could fit into the state of Texas with the density of Manhattan. I think it's hundreds of years away from becoming a problem... If not more.
I don't think it's ever going to be a real problem.

Fertility in Europe is already below replacement level and has been for awhile. In the Americas and Australasia it has leveled off and is pointing in the negative direction. Asia is still growing but growth is slowing and is expected to level off soon at around 5 billion.

It's only Africa that is expected to experience sustained population growth before leveling off at some point down the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2015, 03:27 AM
 
12,302 posts, read 15,205,734 times
Reputation: 8108
Not too many of us want to live like sardines in microscopic living space. But for those who do they can be good. And if provided with good rail service from lower density places, they can be a good place to do business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 08:14 AM
 
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
1 posts, read 688 times
Reputation: 12
I think it depends on the economic level of the city. If the city is poor, high density can lead to many problems. But for a developed city, high density can rise its economic efficiency. So I prefer a city have different density (higher in central area and lower in suburban area, maybe like a normal distribution curve). And people can enjoy more connection between each other if they live in high density area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 12:55 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,003,386 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
To give real life proof that high density areas aren't necessarily more crowded.

These are the two districts that make up Downtown Toronto.

Toronto Centre
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 3.9
Average household size: 1.7
so 2.29 rooms per person

......

The other "inner city" districts (in the geographic, not economic sense)

Beaches-East York: 2.35 rooms per person
Toronto-Danforth: 2.30 rooms per person
Davenport: 2.12 rooms per person
Parkdale-High Park: 2.33 rooms per person
St Paul's: 2.40 rooms per person
York South-Weston: 1.92 rooms per person
Eglinton-Lawrence: 2.32 rooms per person

So some are a bit below, others a bit above the suburban average, but overall, it's about the same.
I assume when you say room you're looking at non-kitchen or bath rooms in a dwelling, right? Regardless, a big part of what is driving the "sameness" of these ratios is the composition of households. When I was single, I had 1 LR/DR combo room, a BR, and a second smaller room that functioned as an office. 3 rooms per person.

Today, I have an old house with 10 rooms and I live with my wife and 2 kids. A 2.5 room/person ratio. That ratio may make it look more cramped, but it isn't...if my kids would pick up their damn toys and my wife would stop buying so many clothes anyway.

A better way to look at it (if there was actual information available), would be to assume that the basic provisions of daily life (outside of sleeping) require about 500 sq ft of space, regardless of household size: a bathroom, a place to cook, a place to eat, and a place to sit/read/watch TV/cry into your beer/whatever. Space above that minimum should be divided among household members. Using my example:

-me in singlehood in a more dense neighborhood: 400 sqft of additional space per person.
-me in parenthood in a less dense but still walkable neighborhood: 700 sqft of additional space per person.

A single person living in 700 sqft single=900 for a couple=1300 for a family of 4. 1200 sqft single=1900 as a couple or 3300 for a family of 4. Those seem about right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 09:22 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,763,654 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
I assume when you say room you're looking at non-kitchen or bath rooms in a dwelling, right? Regardless, a big part of what is driving the "sameness" of these ratios is the composition of households. When I was single, I had 1 LR/DR combo room, a BR, and a second smaller room that functioned as an office. 3 rooms per person.

Today, I have an old house with 10 rooms and I live with my wife and 2 kids. A 2.5 room/person ratio. That ratio may make it look more cramped, but it isn't...if my kids would pick up their damn toys and my wife would stop buying so many clothes anyway.

A better way to look at it (if there was actual information available), would be to assume that the basic provisions of daily life (outside of sleeping) require about 500 sq ft of space, regardless of household size: a bathroom, a place to cook, a place to eat, and a place to sit/read/watch TV/cry into your beer/whatever. Space above that minimum should be divided among household members. Using my example:

-me in singlehood in a more dense neighborhood: 400 sqft of additional space per person.
-me in parenthood in a less dense but still walkable neighborhood: 700 sqft of additional space per person.

A single person living in 700 sqft single=900 for a couple=1300 for a family of 4. 1200 sqft single=1900 as a couple or 3300 for a family of 4. Those seem about right.
The census would have counted kitchens as rooms, but not bathrooms.

What makes you say you need more space in less dense (but still walkable) neighbourhoods?

As for how much space you need, I'm not sure. I mean if you're single, you don't really need social space (ex living rooms) unless you have guests over, but you could also meet friends and such outside your home. In terms of just personal space, I don't think a single person needs anything beyond a bedroom (which could contain a desk and tv), eat-in kitchen and bathroom. Anything extra would be for guests and storage.

With a family, you might want a place where you can watch TV together (not in a bedroom), and do various other things together, a bigger table, more bathrooms, and just more space for more belongings. You might want more personal space too, if you're single, the whole house is exclusively your own.

Personally, I think 400-500 sf is quite fine if you're single, although if you have a lot of guests or a lot of stuff, you might want an extra 100-200 sf. I would say that a family of 4 would be equally comfortable in about 1600 sf.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 10:47 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,003,386 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
The census would have counted kitchens as rooms, but not bathrooms.

What makes you say you need more space in less dense (but still walkable) neighbourhoods?

As for how much space you need, I'm not sure. I mean if you're single, you don't really need social space (ex living rooms) unless you have guests over, but you could also meet friends and such outside your home. In terms of just personal space, I don't think a single person needs anything beyond a bedroom (which could contain a desk and tv), eat-in kitchen and bathroom. Anything extra would be for guests and storage.

With a family, you might want a place where you can watch TV together (not in a bedroom), and do various other things together, a bigger table, more bathrooms, and just more space for more belongings. You might want more personal space too, if you're single, the whole house is exclusively your own.

Personally, I think 400-500 sf is quite fine if you're single, although if you have a lot of guests or a lot of stuff, you might want an extra 100-200 sf. I would say that a family of 4 would be equally comfortable in about 1600 sf.
Mainly due to economies of scale, space flexibility, and redundancies. Space, privacy, and comfort aren't really linear. A 1 person house has one stove, microwave, kitchen sink, refrigerator, washer/dryer, etc. A 5 person house doesn't need five of these. One person can only occupy one position at one point in time. You could be in your kitchen making a sandwich and someone else is in your den. You don't feel more crowded. You might not even know the person was there. Multiple people would only require/desire the same room in certain circumstances. My kitchen wouldn't need to be 5x bigger, I wouldn't need 5 bathrooms, etc. More of certain things for sure, but not "n" more.

Scale/walls play a role as well. Sit in a 7x7 room and watch television by yourself with the door closed. It feels like a prison cell or a portalet. Watch a game with 8 other people in a 21x21 room. It's spacious by comparison, even though the ratio of sqft per person is the same.

You need enough room to not get in other occupants way. Some people may have privacy issues, but that's not a "crowd" issue. You could live in a 10,000 sqft mansion with one other person and not like it because you're sharing a dwelling.

Occupants/room only captures density within a dwelling too...not total land area. A 5 person household at 2000 sqft in a detached single family home on a quarter acre lot isn't the same thing as a bunch of single householders living in a bunch of 500 sqft apartment flats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2015, 04:15 PM
 
4,069 posts, read 3,100,731 times
Reputation: 5620
The entire United States is backwards in regards to density. The densest cities should be down south. Why? The south does not suffer from snow accumulation. Presently the United States has its densest cities in places which deal with high snowfall and snow accumulation. Trust me, it is not fun to shovel snow when there is no place to put it. Shoveling snow in a place like Boston proper is a Sisyphean task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2015, 06:03 PM
 
Location: bend oregon
929 posts, read 844,707 times
Reputation: 351
not too far down south were its a desert, idaho and oregon is south enough
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2015, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,094,154 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
The entire United States is backwards in regards to density. The densest cities should be down south. Why? The south does not suffer from snow accumulation. Presently the United States has its densest cities in places which deal with high snowfall and snow accumulation. Trust me, it is not fun to shovel snow when there is no place to put it. Shoveling snow in a place like Boston proper is a Sisyphean task.
Just need heated streets/sidewalks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:07 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: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
The entire United States is backwards in regards to density. The densest cities should be down south. Why? The south does not suffer from snow accumulation. Presently the United States has its densest cities in places which deal with high snowfall and snow accumulation. Trust me, it is not fun to shovel snow when there is no place to put it. Shoveling snow in a place like Boston proper is a Sisyphean task.
Northern Japan gets a ton snow. Sapporo averages 235 inches of snow. Perhaps not dense enough to count as extremely dense, but it appears denser than Boston:

http://www.google.com/maps/place/Sap...937e9d4687bad5
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