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 10-12-2022, 12:51 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
Nah, it is a troll because I don't think there's any definition of London vs. NYC where NYC isn't the bigger city, with the exception being city limits, but even then it's obvious that all of Nassau, Rockland, Bergen, Union, Hudson, Essex , Middlesex most to some of Passaic, Morris, Westchester, Suffolk, Fairfield, Somerset and Monmouth counties are NYC sprawl.

Which if you don't include or choose to include Fairfield County because it's a CSA by itself is (18-19 million people), even if you chopped out the more rural areas mentioned above and Fairfield County that aren't directly in NY city's orbit your not getting much less than 18,000,000.

Yea, while I think it's an interesting exercise to try to figure out better apples to apples comparison since the way metropolitan areas or the closest equivalents are constructed can change dramatically, doing so thus far just makes it clear that New York City is more populous and denser over almost any reasonable area for apples to apples comparison. It's not multiples more populous, of course, but it is more populous. I do think the first part of the title saying that one "feels" larger is also interesting though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2022, 08:16 AM
Status: "“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”" (set 16 hours ago)
 
Location: Great Britain
27,162 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Yea, while I think it's an interesting exercise to try to figure out better apples to apples comparison since the way metropolitan areas or the closest equivalents are constructed can change dramatically, doing so thus far just makes it clear that New York City is more populous and denser over almost any reasonable area for apples to apples comparison. It's not multiples more populous, of course, but it is more populous. I do think the first part of the title saying that one "feels" larger is also interesting though.
Only Manhattan is really densely populated and even Manhattan is not the most densely populated area in terms of international comparisons.

Most of NYC is not more densely populated than London or indeed Paris, and in terms of metro area, London's metro area is more densely populated than that of NYC.

Population Density, Myth and Reality - Savills

How Does London Measure Up? - Savills
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2022, 10:51 AM
 
474 posts, read 263,808 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Only Manhattan is really densely populated and even Manhattan is not the most densely populated area in terms of international comparisons.

Most of NYC is not more densely populated than London or indeed Paris, and in terms of metro area, London's metro area is more densely populated than that of NYC.

Population Density, Myth and Reality - Savills

How Does London Measure Up? - Savills
Remind me never to buy or sell a house with Savills. Their Manhattan numbers are way off, and they don't say where they get them, which casts even greater doubt on their numbers for other cities.

They have Manhattan at 188/per hectare. At a conversion rate of 259ha/1sqm that works out at a Manhattan population of 48,692/per sqm or 1,111,151 for the 22.8sqm of Manhattan.

In reality Manhattan has a population of 1.7M and a density of 70,825/sqm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Manhattan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2022, 06:34 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Only Manhattan is really densely populated and even Manhattan is not the most densely populated area in terms of international comparisons.

Most of NYC is not more densely populated than London or indeed Paris, and in terms of metro area, London's metro area is more densely populated than that of NYC.

Population Density, Myth and Reality - Savills

How Does London Measure Up? - Savills
These are some really bad comparisons and odd numbers. Does anyone actually take this at face value?

The way they got their numbers per hectare doesn't make any sense unless this is some really weird definition of hectare that changes by location. Not only that, it does a nonsensical comparison of much smaller units to Manhattan.

Manhattan is 59.1 square km of land area with a resident population of 1,694,251 in the 2020 census. That works out to 28,873 per square km

Toshima Ward placed just above it and also with a 2020 census count is 13.01 square km of land area with a resident population of 301,599 which works out to 23,182 per square km.

Is 23K a larger value than 28K? No, that's ridiculous. What's also ridiculous is the massive disparity between the size of these two units. Manhattan's land area here is more than four times that of the area covered by Toshima ward. At least on a city to city (as in the 23 special wards to the 5 boroughs) the land area difference isn't multiples higher so even that would be more reasonable, but then you'd be wondering if that really makes a ward to borough comparison sensible if the two are similar in total land area but one is being split into 23 and the other into 5. Or what about the single neighborhood of Chinatown in San Francisco which is less than a square km in size? I've been there and it's very immediately obvious that there are scads of areas of a single square km not just in Manhattan (though of course also in Manhattan including the Chinatown in Manhattan), but in any of the boroughs save for maybe Staten Island that has denser square km blocks. Remember, for areas of such large sizes, there's generally going to be a lot of internal variation in population density if you start sectioning off the densest quarter or so or even less than single digit percentage of the physical area. If you don't know this, then you probably shouldn't be engaging in a conversion about population density in the first place.

Let's even take a look at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The 2019 numbers for that were 12.13 square km of land area with a resident population of 156,129 which works out to 13,000 per square km. Again, Manhattan is more than four times the land area and even with that is 28,873 per square km. By your link, Manhattan should be only 1.43 x that of Kensington and Chelsea. 28,873 / 13,000 does not work out to 1.43--it's 2.21x, and again for emphasis, over a land area over four times in size. And if the area outside of Manhattan isn't so dense, then let's take a look at the Bronx, the next step up in borough size.

The Bronx is 110 square km with a population of 1,472,654 with a population which works out to 13,481.8 people per square km. That's higher than that of Kensington and Chelsea even though we're now looking at 110 square km vs 12.13 square km--nearly an order of magnitude difference in size. You're definitely going to easily find multiple 12.13 square km parcels of the Bronx that are much higher in population density. Is the idea then that Kensington and Chelsea are "not really densely populated" since places outside of Manhattan are supposedly "not really densely populated"?

What about Brooklyn? Even bigger at 183.4 square km and it has a population of 2,736,074 which works out to 14,917 per square km. That's also denser than Kensington and Chelsea and now we're actually just past an order of magnitude greater area than 12.13 square km. If this isn't dense, then what are the dense parts of London supposed to be?

Yea, there exists places in the world that are more densely populated than New York City. I lived in Shanghai for a bit and that is a tangibly different level of density. Puxi's districts (not Puxi District as that report states it since that doesn't exist) include some very dense areas over its 288.7 square km and taking out Changning district from that count means you get Manhattan density levels over a land area that's about four times that of Manhattan's land area--and again, with large variations given that large land area so peak density in neighborhoods get truly wild. If that was the metric you were going to use, then yea, I would agree in that context that only Manhattan is really densely populated in NYC, but it's nonsensical if you're comparing it to London. Is it possible that you're commenting without having ever been to NYC before?

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-13-2022 at 07:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2022, 08:56 PM
 
474 posts, read 263,808 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
These are some really bad comparisons and odd numbers. Does anyone actually take this at face value?

The way they got their numbers per hectare doesn't make any sense unless this is some really weird definition of hectare that changes by location. Not only that, it does a nonsensical comparison of much smaller units to Manhattan.

Manhattan is 59.1 square km of land area with a resident population of 1,694,251 in the 2020 census. That works out to 28,873 per square km

Toshima Ward placed just above it and also with a 2020 census count is 13.01 square km of land area with a resident population of 301,599 which works out to 23,182 per square km.

Is 23K a larger value than 28K? No, that's ridiculous. What's also ridiculous is the massive disparity between the size of these two units. Manhattan's land area here is more than four times that of the area covered by Toshima ward. At least on a city to city (as in the 23 special wards to the 5 boroughs) the land area difference isn't multiples higher so even that would be more reasonable, but then you'd be wondering if that really makes a ward to borough comparison sensible if the two are similar in total land area but one is being split into 23 and the other into 5. Or what about the single neighborhood of Chinatown in San Francisco which is less than a square km in size? I've been there and it's very immediately obvious that there are scads of areas of a single square km not just in Manhattan (though of course also in Manhattan including the Chinatown in Manhattan), but in any of the boroughs save for maybe Staten Island that has denser square km blocks. Remember, for areas of such large sizes, there's generally going to be a lot of internal variation in population density if you start sectioning off the densest quarter or so or even less than single digit percentage of the physical area. If you don't know this, then you probably shouldn't be engaging in a conversion about population density in the first place.

Let's even take a look at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The 2019 numbers for that were 12.13 square km of land area with a resident population of 156,129 which works out to 13,000 per square km. Again, Manhattan is more than four times the land area and even with that is 28,873 per square km. By your link, Manhattan should be only 1.43 x that of Kensington and Chelsea. 28,873 / 13,000 does not work out to 1.43--it's 2.21x, and again for emphasis, over a land area over four times in size. And if the area outside of Manhattan isn't so dense, then let's take a look at the Bronx, the next step up in borough size.

The Bronx is 110 square km with a population of 1,472,654 with a population which works out to 13,481.8 people per square km. That's higher than that of Kensington and Chelsea even though we're now looking at 110 square km vs 12.13 square km--nearly an order of magnitude difference in size. You're definitely going to easily find multiple 12.13 square km parcels of the Bronx that are much higher in population density. Is the idea then that Kensington and Chelsea are "not really densely populated" since places outside of Manhattan are supposedly "not really densely populated"?

What about Brooklyn? Even bigger at 183.4 square km and it has a population of 2,736,074 which works out to 14,917 per square km. That's also denser than Kensington and Chelsea and now we're actually just past an order of magnitude greater area than 12.13 square km. If this isn't dense, then what are the dense parts of London supposed to be?

Yea, there exists places in the world that are more densely populated than New York City. I lived in Shanghai for a bit and that is a tangibly different level of density. Puxi's districts (not Puxi District as that report states it since that doesn't exist) include some very dense areas over its 288.7 square km and taking out Changning district from that count means you get Manhattan density levels over a land area that's about four times that of Manhattan's land area--and again, with large variations given that large land area so peak density in neighborhoods get truly wild. If that was the metric you were going to use, then yea, I would agree in that context that only Manhattan is really densely populated in NYC, but it's nonsensical if you're comparing it to London. Is it possible that you're commenting without having ever been to NYC before?
More to the point, have Savills ever been to NYC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2022, 09:09 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker View Post
More to the point, have Savills ever been to NYC?

Or just outside of wherever it is they're from. The comparisons of the central neighborhoods, aside from having *at least* Manhattan being given whackadoodle density numbers that have no basis in reality, are also of such vastly different physical sizes that it renders the comparison useless. Manhattan to the tiny neighborhood of Chinatown, San Francisco? Centro in Madrid to Puxi's districts? The entire city of Chicago?


How does anyone look at this and think this makes any sense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2022, 01:46 AM
Status: "“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”" (set 16 hours ago)
 
Location: Great Britain
27,162 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker View Post
Remind me never to buy or sell a house with Savills. Their Manhattan numbers are way off, and they don't say where they get them, which casts even greater doubt on their numbers for other cities.

They have Manhattan at 188/per hectare. At a conversion rate of 259ha/1sqm that works out at a Manhattan population of 48,692/per sqm or 1,111,151 for the 22.8sqm of Manhattan.

In reality Manhattan has a population of 1.7M and a density of 70,825/sqm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Manhattan
No one was actually claiming that Central London was as densely populated as Manhattan, however outside of Manhattan, NYC's boroughs are not anywhere near as densely populated, and the situation becomes even worse in relation to the MSA and CSA metro areas.

As for Savills, they cite FIGURE 6, as World City population densities and Savills have there North American HQ in NYC, and have acquired a number of US legal and property companies in the US.

Savills North America - Wikipedia

Savills - Wikipedia

Savills - New York

However even a child could see that the smaller London metro area is far more dense than the area NYC claims as it's metro area.

As of 2022, London has a population of 9,540,576 to New York's 8,177,020.

The London Metro Area has a population of 14,372,596 (2019) and covers 3,236 sq mi (8,382 km2)

The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2020 had a population of 20,140,470 and covers a area of 6,720 sq mi (17,405 km2).

The New York Combined Statistical Area (CSA) in 2020 had a population of 23,582,649 and covers an area of area is 13,318 sq mi (34,493 km2).

The NY MSA covers more than twice London's metro area, but only has less than 6 million more people, making it less dense than London.

The New York CSA covers an area four times the London Metro, but only has around 3.4 million people more than the MSA, making it even less densely populated.

The London Metro may not be vast, but it is a lot denser than US metros, such as the MSA and CSA.

The MSA and CSA are the equivalent of London using large parts of the South East and Eastern regions in relation to it's metro area, and this is what was being criticised in terms of US figures and not the density of Manhattan.

The Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC), think tank have even suggested that a Greater South East England region, as is located between Portsmouth in Hampshire and Peterborough in Cambridgeshire already exists. However I don't think there is a need to start developing US type metros.

South East England - Wikipedia

East of England - Wikipedia

Last edited by Brave New World; 10-14-2022 at 03:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2022, 09:06 AM
 
474 posts, read 263,808 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
No one was actually claiming that Central London was as densely populated as Manhattan, however outside of Manhattan, NYC's boroughs are not anywhere near as densely populated, and the situation becomes even worse in relation to the MSA and CSA metro areas.

As for Savills, they cite FIGURE 6, as World City population densities and Savills have there North American HQ in NYC, and have acquired a number of US legal and property companies in the US.

Savills North America - Wikipedia

Savills - Wikipedia

Savills - New York

However even a child could see that the smaller London metro area is far more dense than the area NYC claims as it's metro area.

As of 2022, London has a population of 9,540,576 to New York's 8,177,020.

The London Metro Area has a population of 14,372,596 (2019) and covers 3,236 sq mi (8,382 km2)

The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2020 had a population of 20,140,470 and covers a area of 6,720 sq mi (17,405 km2).

The New York Combined Statistical Area (CSA) in 2020 had a population of 23,582,649 and covers an area of area is 13,318 sq mi (34,493 km2).

The NY MSA covers more than twice London's metro area, but only has less than 6 million more people, making it less dense than London.

The New York CSA covers an area four times the London Metro, but only has around 3.4 million people more than the MSA, making it even less densely populated.

The London Metro may not be vast, but it is a lot denser than US metros, such as the MSA and CSA.

The MSA and CSA are the equivalent of London using large parts of the South East and Eastern regions in relation to it's metro area, and this is what was being criticised in terms of US figures and not the density of Manhattan.

The Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC), think tank have even suggested that a Greater South East England region, as is located between Portsmouth in Hampshire and Peterborough in Cambridgeshire already exists. However I don't think there is a need to start developing US type metros.

South East England - Wikipedia

East of England - Wikipedia
Bluster, bluster, bluster............
All that was pointed out was that Savills got their Manhattan population numbers wrong by a factor of about 50%. Nothing more. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. That Savills has an office in midtown makes it all the worse. Do you have anything to say about the wrong number?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2022, 11:54 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
No one was actually claiming that Central London was as densely populated as Manhattan, however outside of Manhattan, NYC's boroughs are not anywhere near as densely populated, and the situation becomes even worse in relation to the MSA and CSA metro areas.

As for Savills, they cite FIGURE 6, as World City population densities and Savills have there North American HQ in NYC, and have acquired a number of US legal and property companies in the US.

Savills North America - Wikipedia

Savills - Wikipedia

Savills - New York

However even a child could see that the smaller London metro area is far more dense than the area NYC claims as it's metro area.

As of 2022, London has a population of 9,540,576 to New York's 8,177,020.

The London Metro Area has a population of 14,372,596 (2019) and covers 3,236 sq mi (8,382 km2)

The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2020 had a population of 20,140,470 and covers a area of 6,720 sq mi (17,405 km2).

The New York Combined Statistical Area (CSA) in 2020 had a population of 23,582,649 and covers an area of area is 13,318 sq mi (34,493 km2).

The NY MSA covers more than twice London's metro area, but only has less than 6 million more people, making it less dense than London.

The New York CSA covers an area four times the London Metro, but only has around 3.4 million people more than the MSA, making it even less densely populated.

The London Metro may not be vast, but it is a lot denser than US metros, such as the MSA and CSA.

The MSA and CSA are the equivalent of London using large parts of the South East and Eastern regions in relation to it's metro area, and this is what was being criticised in terms of US figures and not the density of Manhattan.

The Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC), think tank have even suggested that a Greater South East England region, as is located between Portsmouth in Hampshire and Peterborough in Cambridgeshire already exists. However I don't think there is a need to start developing US type metros.

South East England - Wikipedia

East of England - Wikipedia
No one is saying that you or Savillis said Central London is denser than Manhattan.

The problems are that Savillis somehow didn't even manage to get the right numbers for Manhattan in the first place in a pretty massive and obvious error and that its smaller central unit comparisons are ridiculous because they vary massively in size. The top of their list of central neighborhood densities is a single small neighborhood in San Francisco that is less than a square km and then compares it to Manhattan which is 59 square km and Shangha's central districts in Puxi that are 288 square km. Do you understand that there was an actual error in the Manhattan numbers? Do you understand how using vastly different physical land areas that take in up to three orders of magnitude difference can yield meaningless density comparisons? This isn't even a London vs NYC subject anymore--it's whether or not there is even a basic grasp of math and statistics.

And again, if you think NYC isn't that dense outside of Manhattan, then no place in Central London is dense because NYC outside of Manhattan has hundreds of square km of about the same density as Central London.

You're again going back to a MSA/CSA comparison which we already discussed and you agreed is silly. Those are meant as ways for the US political system to disperse funding. They do not necessarily conform to actual human geography. As such, it would seem only a child would think it makes sense to use that as a base unit to compare densities of metropolitan areas within radically different systems. One metric that hews closer to that would be US urban areas which do not strictly follow the county level municipal definitions, but instead follows contiguous density of human settlement. Those don't come out for the 2020 census until late this year. If you want to get a whiff of it, then there are 2010 census numbers was 18,351,295 people in 3,450.2 square miles--that is 27% more people than the London Metro Area in just 7% more land area. Think about those numbers and how numerators and denominators work--which is denser?

Again, it's not a multiples difference and obviously not an orders of magnitude difference, but by any kind of apples to apples comparison I've seen, NYC and its metropolitan area is more populous and more densely populated for contiguous urban area of any arbitrary size than London is.

Have you been to NYC before? If you have, have you been to any part of it outside of Manhattan?

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-14-2022 at 12:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2022, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,470 posts, read 4,071,063 times
Reputation: 4522
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.
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 > 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