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.
Do London and Paris have the sheer crowds of Tokyo, Seoul, New York?
Perhaps not Tokyo or Seoul level, but easily comparable to New York. Go to the West End and see for yourself, and it just goes on and on. The difference is that they're a bit more evenly spread out, so while it's not Times Square per se, it's similar to of the rest of Manhattan below Central Park's level of pedestrians (if not higher).
According to wikipedia NYC is only the 5th most densely populated city in the US after Guttenberg,Union City,West New York and Hoboken,all of which are in New Jersey. It's not even close.The population densities of Guttenberg and Union City are double that of NYC.
Mexico City is probably the most densely populated city in North America.
Those 4 small towns in Hudson County NJ are considered part of the New York urban area. Hudson County is often referred to as the sixth borough of NYC. I should have been more specific in that I was referring to the NYC urban area, and not just the city proper. Guttenberg is about 120 acres.
However, the final conclusion about the upper East side (Manhattan Community Board 8) is still true as it is about twice the population density of Guttenberg, NJ. It is also almost 1300 acres as opposed to 120 acres for Guttenberg.
Generally Mexico City is about twice the area with the same population as NYC. There are essentially few to no skycrapers in Mexico City as there is the realistic problem of constant severe earthquakes. A skyscraper is extraordinarily expensive because of the extra construction cost. All reasonably tall buildings are for commercial use only, and there are no tall residential buildings.
Perhaps not Tokyo or Seoul level, but easily comparable to New York. Go to the West End and see for yourself, and it just goes on and on. The difference is that they're a bit more evenly spread out, so while it's not Times Square per se, it's similar to of the rest of Manhattan below Central Park's level of pedestrians (if not higher).
I found London to be somewhat less busy than much of Manhattan, though as you said it might be because it's more evenly spread. It's busy but not as intense. That being as said, it feels very big and busy; they aren't that dissimilar/
Isn't the East End of London like one of the poorest parts of the city?
But to the original topic prob only London and some Asian mega cities like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Seoul.
Manhattans density is comparable to Asian mega cities so most NYers shouldn't have too much of a problem with that.
It's about megacities, which London certainly counts as. The East End isn't nearly as poor as it used to be, and areas such as Shoreditch and Hoxton are some of the trendiest in the city; much of the East End is rapidly gentrifying à la Brooklyn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I found London to be somewhat less busy than much of Manhattan, though as you said it might be because it's more evenly spread. It's busy but not as intense. That being as said, it feels very big and busy; they aren't that dissimilar/
Manhattan's density is 69,771/sq mi, with the city overall at 27,243/sq mi. Using the combination of CoL, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington as an approximation for the most Manhattan-like areas of the city gives us a density of 28,746/sq mi, with Greater London at 13,466/sq mi. Interestingly, Manhattan and inner-inner London have a similar step gradient in density (Manhattan being 2.5 times more dense than NYC as a whole, I-I London 2.1 times denser than Greater London). So yes, there's a differential between the two cities, but it ignores the fact that London is very pluricentric, with the City, West End and now Canary Wharf as three core areas with significant hubs scattered around, such as Croydon.
It's about megacities, which London certainly counts as. The East End isn't nearly as poor as it used to be, and areas such as Shoreditch and Hoxton are some of the trendiest in the city; much of the East End is rapidly gentrifying à la Brooklyn.
I never said London wasn't it was the only none Asian city I said I could see a NYer being really impressed by but thats really for it's business.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I found London to be somewhat less busy than much of Manhattan, though as you said it might be because it's more evenly spread. It's busy but not as intense. That being as said, it feels very big and busy; they aren't that dissimilar/
That's what it looks like from videos from I haven't been yet. Also London doesn't have the long straight avenues of NYC so there's less of a sense of scale.
That's what it looks like from videos from I haven't been yet. Also London doesn't have the long straight avenues of NYC so there's less of a sense of scale.
Ive been to London a few times in my teens(my families from the Caribbean so i have a lot of relatives in London). But I agree with nei London is a more spread out and has a less buisy feel overall. I do like the smaller winding streets though but overall London is pretty similar to NYC it's a little bigger and less dense.
There are some cities out there that out of sheer density would make even a New Yorker feel disoriented, but also really unpleasant, so I'm not sure I'd use the word "impressed." I'd go with Seoul.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshd9124
Ive been to London a few times in my teens(my families from the Caribbean so i have a lot of relatives in London). But I agree with nei London is a more spread out and has a less buisy feel overall. I do like the smaller winding streets though but overall London is pretty similar to NYC it's a little bigger and less dense.
Actually if you compared to New York metro area, which extends into Jersey and Connecticut, with the London area it's larger by area and much larger by population. 22 million versus 14 million. I think it's fair to say New York is the bigger city and feels much more massive. Funnily enough I never really thought of London as a 'megacity' until recently, although in sheer influence it certainly is in the top 3.
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.
