Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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 10-15-2022, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Buenos Aires and La Plata, ARG
2,943 posts, read 2,891,329 times
Reputation: 2109

Advertisements

Per Demographia, one of the best sources for universal comparisons between metro areas across the world:

London's urban area density: 6.481 ppl per square km
NY's urban area density: 1.779 ppl per square km
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2022, 08:20 PM
 
474 posts, read 256,414 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by marlaver View Post
Per Demographia, one of the best sources for universal comparisons between metro areas across the world:

London's urban area density: 6.481 ppl per square km
NY's urban area density: 1.779 ppl per square km
Thx. That's a good resource. It provides enough info to allow you to convert like to like. So while the density of London is almost 4 times higher, the area measured is only 1/7th or 14% the size of the NY area measured. 670 to 4,670 sqm IIRC.
In fact the area of London measured is only a little over half the area inside the M25 beltway. 120 m cirq.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 04:14 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,894 posts, read 13,109,396 times
Reputation: 19121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker View Post
Thx. That's a good resource. It provides enough info to allow you to convert like to like. So while the density of London is almost 4 times higher, the area measured is only 1/7th or 14% the size of the NY area measured. 670 to 4,670 sqm IIRC.
In fact the area of London measured is only a little over half the area inside the M25 beltway. 120 m cirq.
Exactly, Britain only measures a small amount as it's metro area, and it's quite dense.

Britain could of course use the US method, and include a super region, such as the South East.

However I am not a fan of super regions full stop, and that includes the NYC MSA and CSA, however it is strange that London's metro area is so small and of London's air ports only includes Heathrow and the relatively small London City Airport (Docklands), whilst Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and Southend on Sea, not even being part of the current London metro area.

In this respect I can see blatant problems with both the London and NYC metro areas, but for very different reasons.

Airports of London - Wikipedia

Thameslink Map - Wikipedia

Crossrail - Elizabeth Line Map

As for the Greater South East Region it might be something that needs re-examining in the future, especially as the impact of new transport links impact commuter travel, as currently the Reading (and Twyford) which is now one of the main Crossrail terminals isn't even included in the London Metro area, and I am not even sure ig Shenfield is counted as part of the current London Metro area, whilst most of Thameslink is not even part of the London Metro area.

As for Thameslink has improved North to South and even East to West travel significantly across the South East and parts of the East Region, and like Crossrail travels through the heart of London, then you have HS2, the ECML upgrade and numerous other schemes that will cut journey times to London.

It does sadly feel ridiculous that Crossrail Stations and the majority of major London airports are not even included in London's metro area, and it just shows the need for some much needed rethinking.

Much of this ridiculous thinking is because local areas prefer to be part of what is known as the Metropolitan Green Belt which back in 2011 had a population of 18,868,800, and although it does have some areas of outstanding beauty,and is a more realistic metro area, as is the Greater South East Region.

GaWC Research Bulletin 296 -The Greater South East Region

Last edited by Brave New World; 10-16-2022 at 05:43 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 04:24 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,894 posts, read 13,109,396 times
Reputation: 19121
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post

Also Brave New World, you keep saying NYC ain’t urban outside of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn. All of Brooklyn and All of the Bronx are denser than the majority of London except 2 and 4 boroughs respectively. Queens is denser than a significant portion of London, hardly suburban anywhere even by UK standards.
Hudson County, Yonkers/New Rochelle/Mount Vernon, Newark/Irvington/Orange (parts), Passaic/Clifton/Paterson, SE Bergen, South Nassau and Northern and Eastern Staten Island all have densities on par or higher than many areas of greater London. That’s millions of people there. Outside of the city (not including Staten Island). If I had to put a number I would say 2-3 million people outside of NYC living at similar densities.
I don't think there is big difference in the density of housing in terms of a lot of NYC boroughs, there is however a big difference in relation to green space, and this is what makes London boroughs extremely attractive, as they are full of heaths, commons, deer parks and all kinds of protected land, however in terms of actual density in many parts of London it's fairly similar to many parts of Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Staten Island.

London was also successful in becoming a national park, the first city in the world to do so and even in the centre of London you have numerous Royal Parks, local parks, city squares and gardens. The London suburbs are also home to a lot more gardens than most cities.

47 per cent of London is green space: Is it time for our capital to become a national park? - The Independent (2014)

Furthermore no one is suggesting that London's historic West End with it's beautiful Georgian and Regency architecture is anything like Manhattan or NYC.

Whilst as already pointed out, London is becoming ever more dense in certain areas as areas such as Square Mile (City), Canary Wharf, Greenwich Peninsula and Stratford whilst Elephant & Castle, Vauxhall, Battersea, Nine Elms, White City, Paddington Basin, Croydon etc are seeing a lot of development.

The 2022 annual Tall Buildings Survey recently published by New London Architecture reveals that there are 583 buildings of 20 or more storeys either planned or in construction across the capital. The so-called ‘pipeline’ shows that 341 towers have full planning permission, 109 are already being built, 71 have partial permission, there are 55 applications pending and seven tall buildings have apparently stalled during construction.

Most of these new tall buildings are being built on former industrial wasteland and docks, as part of replacing former poorly planned post was housing estates or are part of plans to increase London's two main financial districts further, however they will impact London's density. Whilst at the same time Thameslink, the opening of Crossrail and the current construction of HS2 will all impact London's commuter traffic patterns.

Last edited by Brave New World; 10-16-2022 at 04:41 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,894 posts, read 13,109,396 times
Reputation: 19121
Finally if you look at train travel, areas such as Oxford and Cambridge are just over one hour from London by commuter train, whilst the likes of Brighton is less than an hour, as is Milton Keynes, as is Southend, as are places such as Bedford and Luton, and most of Thameslink, whilst Crossrail's new Elizabeth Line means places such as Reading are just 25 minutes from the heart of London and the same is true of stations in Essex.

Whilst both the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink can run up to 12 trains an hour through London at peak times, whilst Thameslink is a 24-hour main-line route, and the Elizabeth Line will be moving towards a similar operation.

Thameslink Map - Wikipedia

Crossrail - Elizabeth Line Map

Compare this with say New Haven in Connecticut, which is part of the US MSA and CSA, and an average train journey takes 2h 45min, which is just shy of the time between London and Newcastle Upon Tyne in the UK. Although the ECML upgrade is set to cut that by 25 minutes, reducing the Newcastle to London train time to just two hours and 25 minutes.

It's also quicker to get from London to Paris (2 hours 15 minutes) as well as Lille (1 hr 22mins) and Brussels (1hr 53mins) , than it is to get the train to areas within the NYC Metro area. Even a Dover to Calais ferry only takes around 1 hour and 30 minutes.

If you're going from NYC to the Hamptons or the Hamptons to NYC on the LIRR, it will take 2-3 hours, wit the train terminating at about 3 hours once it hits Montauk, yet this is part of the NYC metro area.

As for those who want to go to a lot places, there are often no direct trains, and this includes New Yor to Atlantic City, for which you have to change at Penn Station for thre approximately 3h 43m journey, which is ridiculous.

New York to Danbury takes 2 hr 29 min on the train, and so it goes on and on, whilst the New York metro area, includes lots of rural areas including the Hudson Valley.

New York Metropolitan Area Map - Wikipedia

So it's far quicker to get to London from virtually every major city in England, than it is to travel to New Haven, the supposed NYC metro area.

Indeed once Phase one of HS2 is complete, you will even be able to travel from London to Birmingham (or vice versa) in 52 minutes.

Are you starting to comprehend what I am saying about these rather idiotic metro areas.

Last edited by Brave New World; 10-16-2022 at 07:40 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, New Jersey
11,972 posts, read 7,721,914 times
Reputation: 9934
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
I swear that Brooklyn and The Bronx as well as a substantial part of Queens are denser than the median for Central London.

Inner London- Roughly ~30,000 ppsm (This is higher than the actual population numbers but given it's been 10 years since the census and we are working off estimates I feel like this is a slightly generous but accurate figure)

in 123 square miles.

Brooklyn density- 37,000 ppsm
in 71 square miles
Bronx denisty- 35,000 ppsm
in 42 square miles

In 113 square miles outside of Manhattan. NYC has 4,000,000 people.

Central London has somewhere around ~3.6 million in 123.

On top of that Queens and Hudson counties are outright denser than Outer London, Northern Staten Island, Eastern Staten Island, South Nassau, East Essex, Southern Westchester, NE Union, Southern Bergen, SW Suffolk and Passaic/Clifton/Paterson in Passaic County all have many cities and suburbs denser than the outer London average, with more people too.

NYC and it's inner suburbs is arguably denser than London with more people without Manhattan. So it's outrageous you make the argument that outside of Manhattan London is denser, when Brooklyn alone is denser than everything but Tower Hamlets and Islington. The Bronx is denser than everything but the above and Hackney.
Throw in parts of Hudson County NJ too.

Some places are 50,000 people per square mile or greater.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,894 posts, read 13,109,396 times
Reputation: 19121
Manhattan has a population density of 28,872 per km2

Brooklyn has a population density of 15,227 per km2

The Bronx has a population density of 13,482 per km2

Queens has a population density of 8,542 per km2

Staten Island has a population density of 3,327 per km2

Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia

Inner London covers an area of 319 square kilometres (123 square miles) and has a population density of 11,464 people per square kilometre (km 2).

More than 10,000 / km² -

1 Islington - 16,097

2 Tower Hamlets -16,057

3 Hackney - 14,681

4 Kensington and Chelsea - 12,884

5 Lambeth - 12,157

6 Camden - 12,035

7 Westminster - 11,883

8 Hammersmith and Fulham -11,308

9 Southwark - 10,992

List of English districts by population density - Wikipedia

Queens and Staten Island are not that densely populated, and there are boroughs in London with significant population density even when compared to NYC, and despite London being a very green city.

The real problem I have is not with density, it is the nonsense that is the MSA and CSA, as pointed out in my earlier posts.

Last edited by Brave New World; 10-16-2022 at 11:12 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,441 posts, read 4,005,007 times
Reputation: 4481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Finally if you look at train travel, areas such as Oxford and Cambridge are just over one hour from London by commuter train, whilst the likes of Brighton is less than an hour, as is Milton Keynes, as is Southend, as are places such as Bedford and Luton, and most of Thameslink, whilst Crossrail's new Elizabeth Line means places such as Reading are just 25 minutes from the heart of London and the same is true of stations in Essex.

Whilst both the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink can run up to 12 trains an hour through London at peak times, whilst Thameslink is a 24-hour main-line route, and the Elizabeth Line will be moving towards a similar operation.

Thameslink Map - Wikipedia

Crossrail - Elizabeth Line Map

Compare this with say New Haven in Connecticut, which is part of the US MSA and CSA, and an average train journey takes 2h 45min, which is just shy of the time between London and Newcastle Upon Tyne in the UK. Although the ECML upgrade is set to cut that by 25 minutes, reducing the Newcastle to London train time to just two hours and 25 minutes.

It's also quicker to get from London to Paris (2 hours 15 minutes) as well as Lille (1 hr 22mins) and Brussels (1hr 53mins) , than it is to get the train to areas within the NYC Metro area. Even a Dover to Calais ferry only takes around 1 hour and 30 minutes.

If you're going from NYC to the Hamptons or the Hamptons to NYC on the LIRR, it will take 2-3 hours, wit the train terminating at about 3 hours once it hits Montauk, yet this is part of the NYC metro area.

As for those who want to go to a lot places, there are often no direct trains, and this includes New Yor to Atlantic City, for which you have to change at Penn Station for thre approximately 3h 43m journey, which is ridiculous.

New York to Danbury takes 2 hr 29 min on the train, and so it goes on and on, whilst the New York metro area, includes lots of rural areas including the Hudson Valley.

New York Metropolitan Area Map - Wikipedia

So it's far quicker to get to London from virtually every major city in England, than it is to travel to New Haven, the supposed NYC metro area.

Indeed once Phase one of HS2 is complete, you will even be able to travel from London to Birmingham (or vice versa) in 52 minutes.

Are you starting to comprehend what I am saying about these rather idiotic metro areas.
I would agree with you if New Haven is part of the MSA. It’s not. At all. New Haven is a whole county removed. As nowhere in Connecticut is part of the NYC MSA. I would also take out Putnam county and include some Connecticut cities in SW Fairfield County as well as remove Ocean County and the Outer New Jersey counties but either way your removing likely less than 1,000,000 people from the NYC MSA and can remove most of the excess land area. It’s at most a 5% bump in the population maybe a 10% bump if your extra-stringent.

A lot of people who clown MSAs as a designation say they include a lot of rural areas, which is true but simultaneously think these rural areas inflate the population numbers to the max. The only place that has egregiously inflated population numbers are CSAs specifically Los Angeles because their are multiple separate large metros in the rural areas of Inland Empire. On top of that Temecula-Murrieta has a San Diego Orbit more than an LA one.

I would also agree that the Hampton are really far away from NYC, but 90% of Suffolk’s population is direct NYC sprawl that is clearly linked to NYC. The Hampton’s are the exception not the rule. I literally say this because the Towns of Southold, Riverhead, Southampton, Shelter Island and East Hampton the areas you say aren’t part of NYC are 160,000 out of the 1.525 million people in Suffolk County.

The rest of it is directly adjacent to the city…

Last edited by NigerianNightmare; 10-16-2022 at 12:40 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,441 posts, read 4,005,007 times
Reputation: 4481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Manhattan has a population density of 28,872 per km2

Brooklyn has a population density of 15,227 per km2

The Bronx has a population density of 13,482 per km2

Queens has a population density of 8,542 per km2

Staten Island has a population density of 3,327 per km2

Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia

Inner London covers an area of 319 square kilometres (123 square miles) and has a population density of 11,464 people per square kilometre (km 2).

More than 10,000 / km² -

1 Islington - 16,097

2 Tower Hamlets -16,057

3 Hackney - 14,681

4 Kensington and Chelsea - 12,884

5 Lambeth - 12,157

6 Camden - 12,035

7 Westminster - 11,883

8 Hammersmith and Fulham -11,308

9 Southwark - 10,992

List of English districts by population density - Wikipedia

Queens and Staten Island are not that densely populated, and there are boroughs in London with significant population density even when compared to NYC, and despite London being a very green city.

The real problem I have is not with density, it is the nonsense that is the MSA and CSA, as pointed out in my earlier posts.
How is Queens not dense? Are you arguing Lewisham, Haringey, Wandsworth, Newham and Brent are suburban?

Also Queens is literally one of the worlds most diverse places arguably being one of the most diverse official divisions from a language, racial and ethnic perspective in the world.

Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
Here is a neighborhood breakdown. I don’t know how anyone could say the majority of NW Queens isn’t dense.

Last edited by Yac; 10-18-2022 at 11:14 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2022, 01:04 PM
 
474 posts, read 256,414 times
Reputation: 524
Maybe this can settle it.
The five boroughs of NYC have an area of 302 sqm, population of 8,800,000, density 29,000, 2020 census

The 33 boroughs of London have an area of 621 sqm, population of 7,172,000, density 11,536 2001
census.
Couldn't find more up to date figures for London, but it has hardly changed that much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr..._New_York_City

London Subdivisions Population & Density from 1951
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.


 
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 > World Forums > World

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