Tokyo vs New York: which feels bigger, more overwhelming, impressive? (theater, residential)
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.
I don't know if I agree with your statement that "NYC is not a big city geographically" (it's metropolitan region might be the largest in the world geographically), but even stranger is that you then refer to Manhattan as a proxy for NYC's size.
You are aware that Manhattan is a relatively small part of the city, and tiny part of the region, correct? The vast majority of even the very urban neighborhoods in NYC proper are not in Manhattan.
From what I gather from the OP we are talking about city boundaries proper. Not metropolitan areas, because that obviously opens up a whole new can of worms.
Many seem to refer to Manhattan as a reference point for New York City anyway. Or at the very least use it as a comparative, foundational basis on which to compare the size and qualitative features of the other districts.
Especially those who proclaim it to be the "greatest city on earth" after selectively touristing the Fifth Avenue corridor, Theater District and isolated parts of Downtown.
From what I gather from the OP we are talking about city boundaries proper. Not metropolitan areas, because that obviously opens up a whole new can of worms.
Then what is the point of the thread? City propers are arbitrary and not really comparable in terms of apples-to-apples comparison. According to city proper only, Sydney, AUS is a small town. Paris has tiny city limits. San Francisco is 1/20 as big as Jacksonville FL.
Doesn't really sound like a worthwhile thread comparing random city limits that are irrelevant to a city's real size.
And, in the case of NYC, the city proper covers around 300 square miles, the vast majority of which is quite urban. I would not call that particularly "small".
Tokyo, BTW, doesn't really have "city limits" in the American sense. It has a very different administrative framework.
Many seem to refer to Manhattan as a reference point for New York City anyway. Or at the very least use it as a comparative, foundational basis on which to compare the size and qualitative features of the other districts.
Especially those who proclaim it to be the "greatest city on earth" after selectively touristing the Fifth Avenue corridor, Theater District and isolated parts of Downtown.
I don't know who these people are. Obviously Manhattan is the city center, and like all city centers, is representative of the city as a whole, but I don't know how this is different than any other city on earth. Who looks at Paris by considering some banal apartment block suburb north of the city?
Are you suggesting we compare cities by ignoring their city centers? Compare suburban London to NJ to outer Tokyo or something? I guess we could do that, but what would be the point? Compare city's relative iconic feel by looking at the least iconic parts? Secaucus vs. St. Denis?
I don't know if I agree with your statement that "NYC is not a big city geographically" (it's metropolitan region might be the largest in the world geographically), but even stranger is that you then refer to Manhattan as a proxy for NYC's size.
You are aware that Manhattan is a relatively small part of the city, and tiny part of the region, correct? The vast majority of even the very urban neighborhoods in NYC proper are not in Manhattan.
Do people even bother to read opening posts?
My reference to Manhattan is because the OP alludes to its characteristics in his discussion. It is not intended as a "proxy" for the rest of NY -- especially so given that I much prefer BK over Manhattan
My reference to Manhattan is because the OP alludes specifically to its characteristics in his discussion of urbanity and density.
Again, most of NYC's urbanity and density isn't in Manhattan.
So, again, why would someone consider Manhattan alone when looking at NYC's urbanity and density?
If you removed Manhattan, NYC would still be, by far (like by many times over) the densest and most urban U.S city. The majority of people living in high-density census tracts in the NYC area are not living in Manhattan.
From what I gather from the OP we are talking about city boundaries proper. Not metropolitan areas, because that obviously opens up a whole new can of worms.
Also New York's metropolitan area is not as contiguous as Tokyo's so comparing both metro areas has a number of pitfalls. There was a residential density map of both zones posted a while ago that seemed to show the NY metro area as a loose collective of outlying towns/cities clustered on the municipal area. Tokyo's looked more evenly distributed
And, in the case of NYC, the city proper covers around 300 square miles, the vast majority of which is quite urban. I would not call that particularly "small".
Tokyo, BTW, doesn't really have "city limits" in the American sense. It has a very different administrative framework.
Again you're talking (or admixing features of) density against an argument about geographic size.
Defining and comparing cities by defining boundaries is almost always fraught with problems. This is not confined to comparisons between NYC and Tokyo. Still, Tokyo consists of a 840 sq mile "metropolis" of 12 million contained within a much larger metro area, which would serve as a more appropriate comparison for the municipal boundaries of NYC (even if they serve different functions in an administrative sense).
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.