Tokyo vs New York: which feels bigger, more overwhelming, impressive? (zip code, assessment)

[Lancer78]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I think one thing is the looseness by which “core” is defined. When someone’s talking about an urban core their definition can vary greatly from how someone else is using it.

NYC is more urban and denser for about three dozen or so square miles and then Tokyo takes over the rest of it with the difference being very pronounced once you’re in the a few hundreds of square miles and beyond.

It is actually more than that OyCrumbler.
The NYC that is on the subway map (IMO, a reasonable definition), the actual urban part of NYC, is nearly 200 sq. miles of contiguous urbanity. That urban area is at least on par with the 23 special wards in density (which has an area of ~239 sq. miles).

Plus, when you factor in the relatively higher undocumented population, urban NYC is arguably even higher in density. Some would also include the fact that NYC has a higher percentage of park areas, but I don't even have to make that argument at all.

But once you include suburban Staten Island and Eastern Queens, Tokyo wins.
Once you leave the city limits, Greater Tokyo absolutely trounces the Tri-State area in density.

[Hightower72]

Originally Posted by Lancer78

And you are not a Tokyo fanboy/fangirl?

It's not about anyone "rescuing" anyone it's about rescuing you against your own fight against logic and statistics here,particularly for Manhattan vs Yamanote (but also the outer borough vs. special wards comparison too).

I've never known Fitzrovian to be a Tokyo fanatic.

He usually comes across as fairly impartial on topics about his hometown. Nothing I've read above suggests to me otherwise.

Because many of your contentions are semantical (concerning urban boundaries or discretizations of density), you're not very well placed to retreat to ad populum arguments. That is, when the weight of polled opinions in the thread favors Tokyo as more impressive.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Lancer78

It is actually more than that OyCrumbler.
The NYC that is on the subway map (IMO, a reasonable definition), the actual urban part of NYC, is nearly 200 sq. miles of contiguous urbanity. That urban area is at least on par with the 23 special wards in density (which has an area of ~239 sq. miles).

Plus, when you factor in the relatively higher undocumented population, urban NYC is arguably even higher in density. Some would also include the fact that NYC has a higher percentage of park areas, but I don't even have to make that argument at all.

But once you include suburban Staten Island and Eastern Queens, Tokyo wins.
Once you leave the city limits, Greater Tokyo absolutely trounces the Tri-State area in density.

Well, it certainly makes sense for areas with frequent rapid transit to have a lot of density.

We might be looking at things differently rather than one of us doing it "incorrectly." Density maps for neighborhoods within Tokyo City also have a degree of variance, though not anywhere near as lopsided as that for NYC. This sort of fine-grained breaking out of population density maps for both places at the same scale and density range legends would probably help a lot in this comparison. It's possible that I'm not being generous enough with "three dozen or so square miles" where NYC is definitely denser point blank, across the board.

However, it's also possible that you're talking about density in a somewhat different way since you're talking about getting equivalent densities over a land area of 200 square miles or so. I think most of us are already in agreement that there's a lot more variance with NYC proper (and the Tri-State Area) when it comes to population density than there is with the 23 specials wards / formerly Tokyo City and the Greater Tokyo area.

In a few dozen square miles with Manhattan and a bit of contiguous neighborhoods in the outer boroughs (though there are places further out like Jackson Heights and downtown Flushing in Queens, and Sunset Park and Flatbush in Brooklyn where you densities bump up again), NYC is anywhere from denser to much denser than the 23 Special Wards. In those parts, NYC's population density goes up several times over the city's average density and substantially more dense than the 23 special wards. However, once you get past that, the density generally starts dipping to something that is closer to the average of the 23 special wards and then it starts dropping. You can still be right with the ~200 square miles of New York City being at least on part with the 23 special wards, but the prime densest few dozens of those square miles are substantially denser than the lease dense dozens of square miles within that ~200 square mile area with the middle being about where the neighborhoods of the 23 special wards generally hover around. Essentially, that densest 200 contiguous square mile of NYC still has a lot of variance. The three dozen or so square miles where NYC is much denser than their equivalent in Tokyo doesn't mean there aren't even more square miles where the two are about equivalent, but that large density "advantage" still contributes a lot to a bulk contiguous 200 square miles area which is how the two can still be about equivalent in density or with even an advantage to NYC even as the density levels on a more fine-grained look at a lot of that 200 square miles outside of the densest few dozen square miles of NYC has Tokyo of about even or denser.

So what makes that happen? Lots of mid-rise and high-rise buildings! It's not just midtown and downtown, it's almost all of Manhattan and it continues into the Bronx which in its most southerly parts is built mostly as a continuation of uptown Manhattan. Then there's also that in DUMBO, downtown Brooklyn, and the high-rise housing projects near those in Brooklyn, north Brooklyn near the waterfront and LIC in Queens.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by Lancer78

I have repeatedly said you missed the point I was trying to make here about the outer boroughs vs. residential wards, by like a mile.

You are confusing density with which one "feels" more vibrant.. The two are definitely correlated, but it doesn't tell the whole story in the outer borough vs. special wards comparison (partially because of the big differences between Eastern vs. Western Queens).

Forest Hills is urban, so is Kew Gardens..etc. I never said that they were not urban. What I've said is that they are high density in their own right, but that they are still sleepy "in feel" than the rest of Western Queens... although significantly more urban than much of Eastern Queens.

You haven't been to the residential wards, and they are hard to explain, but in spite of their ~30 - 50 K ppsm residential density, they "feel" quite sleepy and slow, kinda like some of these "aesthetic" neighborhoods in Queens I've mentioned. The difference is that you don't have Forest Hills covering much of Queens or Brooklyn. In place of this, you have vibrant areas like Flatbush, Jackson Heights, Astoria, Jamaica, the areas around Grand Concourse...etc. All of these latter areas, feel crazier than Forest Hills or Kew Gardens. The overall effect is what makes the outer boroughs feel busier and more vibrant than those of the residential wards.

I understood what you meant but I just thought it was ironic and illogical.

I mean your whole point is that NYC is more busy and vibrant within its densest ~200 sq miles (and therefore NYC “feels bigger”), so we went looking for any objective data to support your argument, and we started with density. But if we are gonna do that, shouldn’t the comparison be like for like — ie 200 sq miles of NYC vs 200 sq miles of Tokyo? Instead, we are spending all this time to figure out the relevant density for NYC but we are not even using correct reference data for Tokyo! Obviously Tokyo’s density across its densest 200 sq miles would be higher than its average density across 240 sq miles. Until you’ve calculated that, how can you say that “NYC is at least on par with Tokyo within 200 sq miles”? This is Logic 101 but it seems to escape you.

Your counter-point is “well I am just comparing the urban portions of each city so it doesn’t matter that they differ in size”. But that’s total nonsense. If both of the following statements are true: (1) City A has a higher density than City B in a smaller area (i.e., 200 sq miles) and (2) City A carries its density farther than City B (i.e., beyond the 200 sq miles), then what rational argument can there be for the proposition that City B’s density is “at least on par” with City A? None is the right answer.

Now it’s appropriate to point out something that we both agree on — that density is not the only thing that dictates vibrancy and big city feel (especially when the difference in density is not massive). So what else can we look at? Well another critically important *objective* factor that people often look at as an important benchmark in these matters is infrastructure and transit orientation. Conventional wisdom is that a city where more people use public transportation is likely to be more pedestrian-oriented and vibrant than a city where more people drive because when people drive they just go from point A to point B and spend minimal time on the streets interacting with other people, thereby reducing pedestrian traffic. And on this metric Tokyo wipes the floor with NY.

So you are then only left to your subjective feelings and experiences — which is fine and you are entitled to them, but I am entitled to point out that they are not supported by any objective evidence.

I also noticed that you’ve been harping a lot on how sleepy Tokyo’s residential areas are. While I have no doubt this is true (and it’s consistent with my experience), this seems to me like a very skewed and distorted perspective as you are totally ignoring all the activity that’s happening in and around Tokyo’s 100s of train stations. And if you want to tell me that NYC’s outer boroughs are teeming with vibrancy away from transit hubs then nothing could be further from the truth. That’s a myth. As is the notion that Americans as a matter of lifestyle tend to spend more time on the streets than people in other countries (in my experience the opposite is closer to reality).

Originally Posted by Lancer78

The overall density figures in "Urban NYC" vs. "Tokyo proper" are likely similar (and AGAIN, you ignore my point about the high illegal population in NYC which would skew NYC's density figures in its favor), it's just that Urban NYC feels busier overall. There is a difference. Maybe its cultural/lifestyle differences, or something else (perhaps Urban NYC does have the higher density). The stats are not clear enough to make this distinction, although one can make educated guesses (see below).

This is just more mental gymnastics.

I have ignored this point because you have no data to support it. Yes there are lots of illegal immigrants in NY, but we don’t know exactly how many or where they live (they are, after all, “undocumented”) — so there is no point in getting into it. But you’d need every one of your 500k undocumented residents and then some, all living within the said 194 sq miles, to even come close to equalizing density figures.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

The problem is that the entirety of Queens averages less than 22 K ppsm, and the Western half is much, much denser than the Eastern Half. So, I take issue with your idea that Eastern Queens has densities anywhere near 15 - 20 K ppsm. Remember that Staten Island averages ~8K ppsm and I definitely feel that a good part of Eastern Queens is less dense than Staten Island... But let's keep going with your calculation and see if it works.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

Where I disagree with you is that Eastern Queens has a density even that high (15 K ppsm). I do think it is likely lower that that, otherwise you underestimate the density of Western Queens (as I show now).

You don’t know what you are talking about. You haven’t actually studied the numbers, and just going off your feelings and untested assumptions.

Eastern Queens is actually much denser than Staten Island. Staten Island is not built out as densely, and has a lot of empty space, large parks, and a huge former landfill. Eastern Queens has much less of that. In fact it has a very high utilization rate (ie it’s almost completely built out except for a few parks) so even though it’s mostly SFH neighborhoods it registers surprisingly high densities.

But don’t take my word for it. Below is a link to a website that will show you population density within any radius of any zip code in the US. I have checked a number of zip codes (both in the northern and southern halves of eastern Queen) using a range of radiuses and they all show densities of 15k psm or more.

CAPS 2010 - MCDC

For example zip code 11423 is almost right smack in the middle of eastern Queens. Population density within a 1 to 5 mile radius ranges from high 17k psm to 20k psm. And this is based on the 2010 census and not the latest higher population estimate (which we were using as a baseline for our calculations). So, realistically, the population density of eastern Queens is probably higher than 15k psm and I was being conservative.

Now - how can that be when Queens total population density is about 21k psm?

That’s a good question.

I think the answer is that you are overestimating the *average density* across western Queens. Yes, it has many dense neighborhoods but it also has quite a lot of fluff — SFHs, warehouse areas, massive rail yards, cemeteries, stadiums and large parks. Whereas eastern Queens is almost completely built out with very little dead space. So their average densities are likely not as widely divergent as you think.

And btw, sidenote: all this fluff in western Queens, some of which is right on the doorstep of Manhattan (eg LIC), is precisely what in my view dilutes NYC’s “big city feel”. I mean it’s not like all of western Queens looks like Jackson Heights. Not even close. In fact, driving on LIE from Manhattan, once you’ve passed the highrises of LIC, you are not gonna see another highrise for about 5 miles until you approach Elmhurst. Instead it’s mostly low rise areas, warehouses, rail yards and cemeteries. Not much “big city feel” in any of this.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

I can tell you that places like Washington Heights and Harlem, UES,UWS..etc. ALL feel much more vibrant than the lower density infill within the Yamanote loop.

But this is not what I was talking about, is it? Again you deflect into an irrelevant tangent. Go back to what I wrote and think again.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

Totally disagree that there are 30 rail stations in Tokyo that are busier than Penn Station. The link you once shared on the busiest rail stations in the world, as I've argued, is complete nonsense and likely double-triple counts passengers. Otherwise,there is as much office space right outside Shinjuku station than in all of Manhattan or the Yamanote loop itself (if you are to believe those numbers).

Yeah I know you said that, but I will take a professional report over your “feelings”. It doesn’t matter how they count it, as long they count things consistently. Or are you saying they count it one way for Japanese train stations and a different way for everyone else? What is it, a conspiracy to present Japanese stations as busier than they really are?

I mean, candidly, the fact that you can think that tiny and outdated Penn Station is busier than Namba (which is like 6 different train stations consolidated into one enormous integrated complex) tells me that you have zero credibility on the matter.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

Except that the aggregate of the busy areas within Yamanote cover a smaller area than Manhattan. You showed this the other day.
...

Again, you answered this question yourself the other day when you did the math. Manhattan is just the larger core with a larger aggregate of vibrant areas. Period.

I did no such thing. Now you’re just making things up.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

Again, we are comparing NYC proper to Tokyo proper (the urbanized city portions). What does NJ, which is outside NYC proper, have to do with NYC proper? Absolutely Nothing.

No — we are comparing *which city feels bigger*. That’s what we are comparing! And I certainly think that what happens 2 miles from Manhattan has a big impact on how big NYC feels. If you don’t then you are divorced from reality.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

Very good. I leave that task for you.

Well, I was not the one who made the rather laughable comment that “NYC has more train stations than Tokyo”, was I?

Originally Posted by Lancer78

How about Jaokim? Who has recently said a similar thing that Manhattan is "simply unchallengable" in its density and vibrancy as compared to the Yamanote loop no matter how you cut it?

I never disagreed that Manhattan cannot be challenged by *any contiguous 20 sq miles in Tokyo*. In fact, I myself said the same thing in my very first post. So if you want to fall back on that, all else fails, that’s your prerogative. But I think there is a LOT more to the story than that (as we spent the last 5+ pages hashing out).

[Lancer78]

Originally Posted by Hightower72

I've never known Fitzrovian to be a Tokyo fanatic.

He usually comes across as fairly impartial on topics about his hometown. Nothing I've read above suggests to me otherwise.

But he comes across as not very knowledgeable about Tokyo aside from the popular tourist areas. I didn't say anything about whether he was impartial/partial about his hometown. Your argument is a strawman.

Because many of your contentions are semantical (concerning urban boundaries or discretizations of density), you're not very well placed to retreat to ad populum arguments.

My contentions are based on statistics. Not on semantics. Here there are again (in short form):

1)Manhattan is denser than the Yamanote loop. This is based on statistics.

2)The true urban continuous 200 sq. km of NYC proper, based on the statistics, is about as dense as the 23 special wards.

3) The Greater Tokyo area is denser than the Tri-State area. Again, based on statistics.

Your statement is ironic. If we are being honest, many of the people polling have not even been to Tokyo, nor lived in it for any amount of time to get a true understanding of both the city and the metro area. Many (but not all) base their opinions on very general metro stats from wikipedia or from basic cultural expectations and heresay... It's not the same as the perspective of someone actually living here.

That is, when the weight of polled opinions in the thread favors Tokyo as more impressive.

The thing is I have lived in both cities for a long time. So, I have an intimate understanding of the city, core, and metro comparisons. The only people in a a position to really argue with me on the specifics are those who have done the same.

[Lancer78]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

I understood what you meant but I just thought it was ironic and illogical.

I mean your whole point is that NYC is more busy and vibrant within its densest ~200 sq miles (and therefore NYC “feels bigger”), so we went looking for any objective data to support your argument, and we started with density. But if we are gonna do that, shouldn’t the comparison be like for like — ie 200 sq miles of NYC vs 200 sq miles of Tokyo? Instead, we are spending all this time to figure out the relevant density for NYC but we are not even using correct reference data for Tokyo! Obviously Tokyo’s density across its densest 200 sq miles would be higher than its average density across 240 sq miles. Until you’ve calculated that, how can you say that “NYC is at least on par with Tokyo within 200 sq miles”? This is Logic 101 but it seems to escape you.

You could do comparisons based on same area vs. same area, but that is meaningless.

Because once you do that, Tokyo would lose much of the Yamanote loop (which are largely commuter wards), which makes no sense.

The comparison should be urban area vs. urban area. The logic for removing Staten Island + Eastern Queens is precisely because those two areas are not very urban. This is based on two main reasons: 1) the subway trains do not go there, and 2) their density is significantly lower than the rest of the city. The apples to apples comparison is urban vs. urban area (truly urban).

Your counter-point is “well I am just comparing the urban portions of each city so it doesn’t matter that they differ in size”. But that’s total nonsense. If both of the following statements are true: (1) City A has a higher density than City B in a smaller area (i.e., 200 sq miles) and (2) City A carries its density farther than City B (i.e., beyond the 200 sq miles), then what rational argument can there be for the proposition that City B’s density is “at least on par” with City A? None is the right answer.

The rationale is very clear. NYC is a totally different beast in Staten Island or Eastern Queens. These are a different world altogether in urbanity compared to the rest of the city. I think it makes sense to separate them, especially since the area I have defined is contiguous (it's not like I am ignoring infill).

Bu then, even here, I admit, if you include those two Staten Island and Eastern Queens, Tokyo proper is denser than NYC proper.

Conventional wisdom is that a city where more people use public transportation is likely to be more pedestrian-oriented and vibrant than a city where more people drive because when people drive they just go from point A to point B and spend minimal time on the streets interacting with other people, thereby reducing pedestrian traffic. And on this metric Tokyo wipes the floor with NY.

You don't know what you are talking about. You can't argue with me on this because you have not spent any time walking around and experiencing the residential wards, cities, and metro areas in Tokyo like I have. You are right, if you are talking about the metro area. But within Manhattan+Bronx+Brooklyn + Western Queens, the comparison is much, much closer.. On par, or (arguably), even higher in the Urban NYC I have defined.

So you are then only left to your subjective feelings and experiences — which is fine and you are entitled to them, but I am entitled to point out that they are not supported by any objective evidence.

It's a combination of statistics + facts, which support my observations.

I also noticed that you’ve been harping a lot on how sleepy Tokyo’s residential areas are. While I have no doubt this is true (and it’s consistent with my experience), this seems to me like a very skewed and distorted perspective as you are totally ignoring all the activity that’s happening in and around Tokyo’s 100s of train stations.

I am not. But the overall activity in Manhattan trounces that activity you mention in the Yamanote loop. And the outer boroughs (outside of Eastern Queens and Staten Island), in my assessment, are more "lively" than the residential wards (explained more below).

I did no such thing. Now you’re just making things up.

Yes you did. You mentioned that if you summed all of the vibrant areas in Yamanote, they *might get you to 96th street (paraphrasing here). However, Manhattan's urban core goes far beyond this, it is virtually the entire island.

This is just more mental gymnastics.

Like your mental gynmnastics to "show" that the Yamanote loop is as hyperdense as Manhattan?

I have ignored this point because you have no data to support it.

I think you have ignored it because it does not support your argument.

Really? The undocumented have no documentation to support (pun intended)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undocu..._New_York_City
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...487709351.html
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/publicat...BetterLife.pdf

Here is the statement from the wikipedia:

"A 2007 report by Fiscal Policy Institute estimated there are 535,000 undocumented immigrants in New York City.[1]"

I think this is much more believable documentation than the link you showed the other day showing that the supposed "busiest train stations in the world" where Penn Station was nowhere to be found and that some of the stations' ridership rivaled the total amount of workers in either the Yamanote loop or Manhattan.

Yes there are lots of illegal immigrants in NY, but we don’t know exactly how many or where they live (they are, after all, “undocumented”) — so there is no point in getting into it. But you’d need every one of your 500k undocumented residents and then some, all living within the said 194 sq miles, to even come close to equalizing density figures .

Let's see if that is true.
Let's even assume that they have overestimated the amount of illegals, or that only 400 K out of the ~535 K are in "Urban NYC".. the rest are in Eastern Queens and Staten Island..

Your numbers were some 36.9 K for NYC in 194 square miles (7.17 million people).
The population jumps from 7.17 to 7.57 million people (for 400 K more people) or ~39 K ppsm, which is just about equal to the density in the 23 wards.
So, no, again, even with your numbers (let's assume for the moment they are right although I have my doubts), that would again put Urban NYC on par with the density in the 23 special wards. If it is more than 400 K illegals (likely) , that would put it just above the 23 special wards in density.

You don’t know what you are talking about. You haven’t actually studied the numbers, and just going off your feelings and untested assumptions.

Well.. you haven't looked at the numbers close enough. You just looked at a couple of zip codes in some of the most urban parts of Eastern Queens (more on this below), right near the end of the train lines (and bordering Jamaica, of all places).
That's called cherry-picking.

Eastern Queens is actually much denser than Staten Island.

I don't doubt that overall that is the case.. My initial 11K estimate is higher than ~8K for Staten Island.

But don’t take my word for it. Below is a link to a website that will show you population density within any radius of any zip code in the US. I have checked a number of zip codes (both in the northern and southern halves of eastern Queen) using a range of radiuses and they all show densities of 15k psm or more.

CAPS 2010 - MCDC
For example zip code 11423 is almost right smack in the middle of eastern Queens. Population density within a 1 to 5 mile radius ranges from high 17k psm to 20k psm. And this is based on the 2010 census and not the latest higher population estimate (which we were using as a baseline for our calculations). So, realistically, the population density of eastern Queens is probably higher than 15k and I was being conservative.

I suspect that this is part of problem. You took some of the densest tracts of Eastern Queens (Hollis area, an area I am quite familiar with and still pretty urban), just east of Jamaica in Western Queens. This is near the start of Eastern Queens...

Now let's try a few others on your website farther away from Hollis , and south too:

Rosedale (11,800 ppsm)
Douglaston (zip , 11362 ~7,400 ppsm)
Bayside (zip, 11360, ~13K ppsm)

I've looked at some other locations and they were hovering around 15 K ppsm. In retrospect, my 11 K ppsm average for Eastern Queens may be too low, but it is probably closer to halfway between your numbers and mine (perhaps 13 K ppsm). In any case, that would put Western Queens at a density near 30 K ppsm.

Now - how can that be when Queens total population density is about 21k psm?

That’s a good question.

That certainly is!

I think the answer is that you are overestimating the *average density* across western Queens. Yes, it has many dense neighborhoods but it also has quite a lot of fluff — SFHs, warehouse areas, massive rail yards, cemeteries, stadiums and large parks. Whereas eastern Queens is almost completely built out with very little dead space. So their average densities are likely not as widely divergent as you think.

And btw, sidenote: all this fluff in western Queens, some of which is right on the doorstep of Manhattan (eg LIC), is precisely what in my view dilutes NYC’s “big city feel”. I mean it’s not like all of western Queens looks like Jackson Heights. Not even close. In fact, driving on LIE from Manhattan, once you’ve passed the highrises of LIC, you are not gonna see another highrise for about 5 miles until you approach Elmhurst. Instead it’s mostly low rise areas, warehouses, rail yards and cemeteries. Not much “big city feel” in any of this.

You raise a *very* good point here. And this is an observation OyCrumbler makes as well. I agree with both of you here. I do feel that Tokyo's residential wards have much flatter density than Western Queens. They don't feel particularly vibrant, but the density distributions are nice and (relatively) uniform. In Western Queens, OTOH, you have many dense and crazy neighborhoods, but all the infill brings the overall density statistics down.

Nevertheless, on average, however, the urban part of NYC (those 194 square miles or so) just about equals the density in the 23 special wards (as I show above, even with your numbers). Those dense neighborhoods in NYC do just enough.

In my own personal opinion, however, such relatively flat density (that is quiet) feels less active than lots of crazy and busy neighborhoods with some boring infill, though. This has been my main point about this comparison. It is not like the residential wards in Tokyo have vibrancy approaching that in Manhattan's residential areas or even the busy neighborhoods in the outer boroughs. The former just feels like a whole bunch of quietness to me. Certainly more aesthetic than rail yards and warehouses, but not really any more vibrant. On the whole, this is why those boroughs feel more vibrant to the residential wards (to me personally, although others' mileage may vary).

I mean, candidly, the fact that you can think that tiny and outdated Penn Station is busier than Namba (which is like 6 different train stations consolidated into one enormous integrated complex) tells me that you have zero credibility on the matter.

Now you pivot away from Tokyo to Osaka (irrelevant). I am nowhere near as familiar with Osaka, as I am with Tokyo. Ask me about Tokyo stations. I can only say that the only station that impressed me there was Umeda... in some ways, even crazier than Shinuku itself. I didn't find Namba or the others that insane. However, without the full ridership stats for both Namba and Penn Station, we cannot know for sure. What you say is based in your "own feelings."

No — we are comparing *which city feels bigger*. That’s what we are comparing! And I certainly think that what happens 2 miles from Manhattan has a big impact on how big NYC feels. If you don’t then you are divorced from reality.

I vehemently disagree. The bolded is your own personal opinion. I don't share it at all. Again, NJ is not in NYC proper. The only thing from NJ that impacts the feel of NYC proper are the commuters/travelers from there going into and out of NYC proper. Manhattan and much of the outer boroughs feel crazy and busy irrespective (and indeed, in spite of) of what is going on in the Pallisades or anywhere else outside of the city.

It's not like as I am walking through the insane crowds in Fifth Avenue, Flushing, Herald Square... etc, thinking how crazy everything there is.. thinking "Gee! Why are things so dead over by Pallisades?!"

Maybe YOU do, but I certainly don't. You literally want to turn an orange into an apple.

Well, I was not the one who made the rather laughable comment that “NYC has more train stations than Tokyo”, was I?

The point is that I find it irrelevant. Our discussion has been more on the density statistics, and how that figures into vibrancy more than anything else. You can look at tangential things like ridership numbers (accompanying aspects dictated by density), number of train stations, but then that is opening a whole can of warms because the way each city is built and the relative importance of the transportation options (rail, subway, bus, car..etc) is so different. It is harder to compare.
The simplest metric is to just look at more bulk quantities, like density (daytime vs. night-time populations..etc).

[Hightower72]

Originally Posted by Lancer78

But he comes across as not very knowledgeable about Tokyo aside from the popular tourist areas. I didn't say anything about whether he was impartial/partial about his hometown.



My contentions are based on statistics. Not on semantics. Here there are again (in short form):

1)Manhattan is denser than the Yamanote loop.

2)The true urban continuous 200 sq. km of NYC proper, based on the statistics, is about as dense as the 23 special wards.

3) The Greater Tokyo area is denser than the Tri-State area.

Your statement is ironic. If we are being honest, many of the people polling have not even been to Tokyo, nor lived in it for any amount of time to get a true understanding of both the city and the metro area. They just base their opinions on very general metro stats from wikipedia.

The thing is I have lived in both cities for a long time. So, I have an intimate understanding of the city, core, and metro comparisons. The only people in a a position to really argue with me on the specifics are those who have done the same.

The bolded comments aren't points of contention. Both you and Fitzrovian agree that they are true.

The following are semantical points of contention.

1. Is a spatial/concentric definition of urban space more relevant to the topic than a functional definition based on transit links?
2. How is big city feel defined? Is it reducible to density, or do infrastructure and aesthetics contribute independently?

On the rest of your post, remember that you're responding to a talking point on ad populum arguments.

If you assume that others lack the experience to argue with you on the specifics, you end up rejecting not just the poll (and contradictory opinions), but also supportive opinions as well. Unless you've gone to the effort to vet those opinions.

[Lancer78]

Originally Posted by Hightower72

The bolded comments aren't points of contention. Both you and Fitzrovian agree that they are true.

Your implication is that things are true and are not in contention so long as Fitzrovian also agrees with them. No. I would argue that the truth is what it is irrespective or who or who doesn't believe it.

The following are semantical points of contention.

1. Is a spatial/concentric definition of urban space more relevant to the topic than a functional definition based on transit links?
2. How is big city feel defined? Is it reducible to density, or do infrastructure and aesthetics contribute independently?

My other point, that the contiguous almost 200 sq. miles of NYC (outside of Staten Island + Eastern Queens.. what I call "urban NYC") has a density similar to that of the 23 special wards, is also objectively true or at least supported by the stats.
As I have also mentioned, if you compare the entire city proper for both, Tokyo proper is clearly denser. This, again, is also supported by the stats.

Now, what is subjective is how vibrant a city feels and that is not as easily defined for the reasons you have given. Nevertheless, I think most would agree that density is a key component of it.
In any case, you do need a certain level of experience with the cities to make informed opinions on the matter.

On the rest of your post, remember that you're responding to a talking point on ad populum arguments.

If you assume that others lack the experience to argue with you on the specifics, you end up rejecting not just the poll (and contradictory opinions), but also supportive opinions as well. Unless you've gone to the effort to vet those opinions.

First, if you look back at my comment, I said "Many" people on the poll, not all of them. Some will have the relevant experience (and of differing levels), but not all (that is the case with all of these types of polls though). Some indeed resort to ad populum, basing their arguments on simplified wikipedia numbers and general metro area base stats without looking at things in more detail (visiting the city, doing the core vs. core and city proper vs. city proper comparisons..etc). I am basing my central arguments on a wide array of stats, bolstered by my own personal experiences.
And when I don't have stats and things are more opinion-based, particularly on vibrancy issues, I clearly designate it as such... Saying things like, "IMO, I think that.., I believe that Urban NYC is more vibrant for this reason..etc."

[MrJester]

Summary:

If you're talking about the metro area, Tokyo is denser and just has more people overall than NYC. So the answer is Tokyo.

If you're talking about city limits, Tokyo is still denser than NYC proper, and has slightly more people overall than NYC city proper. So still Tokyo.

But if you're comparing Manhattan to the districts of Tokyo, Manhattan is denser than any of the 23 wards, and sustains that density over a much larger area and population than any of the wards.

So yes, Manhattan takes the cake when it comes to crowds.

[Lancer78]

Originally Posted by MrJester

Summary:

If you're talking about the metro area, Tokyo is denser and just has more people overall than NYC. So the answer is Tokyo.

If you're talking about city limits, Tokyo is still denser than NYC proper, and has slightly more people overall than NYC city proper. So still Tokyo.

But if you're comparing Manhattan to the districts of Tokyo, Manhattan is denser than any of the 23 wards, and sustains that density over a much larger area and population than any of the wards.

So yes, Manhattan takes the cake when it comes to crowds.

Yes, I really do wish more people take into account or specify the difference between city proper, core(s), and metro area comparisons. The scales of each of these, especially for NYC vs Tokyo, are so different, that the answer really is.... well, it depends on exactly what you are comparing.