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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2022, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,154 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
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.

Queens is dense, but not as dense as areas over 10,000 per km2 is probably a better statement to make.

Staten Island is also still dense but is also less dense than other areas.

Queens may be diverse, however so are parts of London, and London is a reasonable dense city, even by international standards.

In terms of density, it can be both an indicator of high property prices, high rise living, skyscraper etc, but can equally be an indicator of slums and poverty, which is why so many third world cities have such high density rates.

I find the density of cities such as London and New York to be far more comfortable than the density in some Chinese and Asian cities.

Whilst even Tokyo which has a density of 6,158 persons per km2 Tokyo. seems to be a rather depressing never ending urban sprawl, especially when viewed from the air. At least London, Paris and NYC have a lot of greenery to break up the urban sprawl.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxUZK-BPiTE&t=195s

Last edited by Yac; 10-18-2022 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2022, 12:37 PM
 
474 posts, read 263,558 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Queens is dense, but not as dense as areas over 10,000 per km2 is probably a better statement to make.

Staten Island is also still dense but is also less dense than other areas.

Queens may be diverse, however so are parts of London, and London is a reasonable dense city, even by international standards.

In terms of density, it can be both an indicator of high property prices, high rise living, skyscraper etc, but can equally be an indicator of slums and poverty, which is why so many third world cities have such high density rates.

I find the density of cities such as London and New York to be far more comfortable than the density in some Chinese and Asian cities.

Whilst even Tokyo which has a density of 6,158 persons per km2 Tokyo. seems to be a rather depressing never ending urban sprawl, especially when viewed from the air. At least London, Paris and NYC have a lot of greenery to break up the urban sprawl.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxUZK-BPiTE&t=195s
By that measure only three of London's 33 boroughs qualify as dense. I thought miles were preferred over Kms in the UK?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2022, 03:37 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,127 posts, read 39,357,090 times
Reputation: 21212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker View Post
By that measure only three of London's 33 boroughs qualify as dense. I thought miles were preferred over Kms in the UK?

Right, and you can say that London and its 32 boroughs + the City of London at 14,500/sq mi isn't as dense as Queens which is 22,124.5/sq mi. While that's technically true, it ignores that London statistic covers a ground of 607 square miles versus Queens at 109 square miles. That's the whole thing about how much density can vary internally over a larger area and that it can be pretty misleading to not talk about the physical areas being compared and what is and isn't an apples to apples comparison. There's a lot of misleading or misunderstanding go on in this topic. That gets compounded even worse with sometimes just flat out incorrect statements like the density numbers for Manhattan that was posted earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2022, 05:07 AM
 
Location: SE UK
14,820 posts, read 12,017,825 times
Reputation: 9813
Is the original question asked here about the size of the population or the size of the city? I don't see what density has to do with 'size'?

By simply Googling I have

London population - 8.982 million
New York population - 8.419 million
London 'size' - 1.569 km2
New York 'size' - 783.8 km2

This suggests that London is (overall) a bigger city with a bigger population and New York has a higher population density. Isn't density a separate question?

Apparently Tokyo is 2,194 km2 with a population of 13.96 million, Tokyo is bigger than both no? Size is no indication of the 'quality' of any city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2022, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,154 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker View Post
By that measure only three of London's 33 boroughs qualify as dense. I thought miles were preferred over Kms in the UK?
The UK often uses kms in terms of international comparisons, as metric is the dominant global measurement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2022, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,154 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Right, and you can say that London and its 32 boroughs + the City of London at 14,500/sq mi isn't as dense as Queens which is 22,124.5/sq mi. While that's technically true, it ignores that London statistic covers a ground of 607 square miles versus Queens at 109 square miles. That's the whole thing about how much density can vary internally over a larger area and that it can be pretty misleading to not talk about the physical areas being compared and what is and isn't an apples to apples comparison. There's a lot of misleading or misunderstanding go on in this topic. That gets compounded even worse with sometimes just flat out incorrect statements like the density numbers for Manhattan that was posted earlier.
It's also made worse, when the population of NYC is given as the MSA or CSA figure, which is often the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2022, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,154 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
Is the original question asked here about the size of the population or the size of the city? I don't see what density has to do with 'size'?

By simply Googling I have

London population - 8.982 million
New York population - 8.419 million
London 'size' - 1.569 km2
New York 'size' - 783.8 km2

This suggests that London is (overall) a bigger city with a bigger population and New York has a higher population density. Isn't density a separate question?

Apparently Tokyo is 2,194 km2 with a population of 13.96 million, Tokyo is bigger than both no? Size is no indication of the 'quality' of any city.


Exactly, and density can be as much a negative force as a positive one.

There are plenty of places in the world that are densely populated but have extreme poverty.

Density is therefore no indicator of quality of life.

Whilst in terms of London, it feels bigger because it is actually bigger, and you can travel across a vast array of different areas, districts and boroughs in London, whilst there is even two vast financial districts, and as such you do feel like you are in a very big city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2022, 08:55 AM
 
474 posts, read 263,558 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
Is the original question asked here about the size of the population or the size of the city? I don't see what density has to do with 'size'?

By simply Googling I have

London population - 8.982 million
New York population - 8.419 million
London 'size' - 1.569 km2
New York 'size' - 783.8 km2

This suggests that London is (overall) a bigger city with a bigger population and New York has a higher population density. Isn't density a separate question?

Apparently Tokyo is 2,194 km2 with a population of 13.96 million, Tokyo is bigger than both no? Size is no indication of the 'quality' of any city.
A thread search of "density" returned 55 results, the first at post #9. BNW used Savills numbers to support a contention that London was denser. Some of Savills numbers were off by a factor of 50%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2022, 08:58 AM
 
474 posts, read 263,558 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
The UK often uses kms in terms of international comparisons, as metric is the dominant global measurement.
But both the US and UK mostly use miles.....seemed an odd choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2022, 12:34 PM
 
Location: SE UK
14,820 posts, read 12,017,825 times
Reputation: 9813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post


Exactly, and density can be as much a negative force as a positive one.

There are plenty of places in the world that are densely populated but have extreme poverty.

Density is therefore no indicator of quality of life.

Whilst in terms of London, it feels bigger because it is actually bigger, and you can travel across a vast array of different areas, districts and boroughs in London, whilst there is even two vast financial districts, and as such you do feel like you are in a very big city.
If anything being 'more densely populated' means its more likely to have a lower quality of life, the 'less' densely populated parts of cities tend to be the 'better' parts of town while the high density parts of cities tend to be where the 'poorer' people live (for obvious reasons I would think).
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