Quote:
Originally Posted by RumbleFish
No, I am including all five boroughs, New Jersey, Connecticut and Long Island with my analysis. The density level drops off dramatically outside NYC and parts of New Jersey when you look at the aerial shots.
I know NYC is not small. It is the largest the city in the US by far and looks like it. It does not look big compared to other mega cities around the world. The area you described between New York and Philadelphia is nothing compared to many parts of Asia.
The Pearl River Delta (Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou etc) region for example has 120 million people with just slightly more land than the NYC metro area and has exponentially more high rises and density. Basically the region has over five times the population with the same amount of area. Pretty crazy and it like looks it.
Compare pictures of Shanghai or Sao Paulo.....NYC looks small in comparison. Shanghai does have skyscrapers and it covers a MUCH larger area than Manhattan. Insane skyline. I know New York has high rises in all its boroughs, but not like Shanghai.
Sao Paulo generally has just has highrises and not skyscrapers, but it goes forever. I think Sao Paul has like 40,000 high rises. No joke. New York is has around 7,000-8,000 but of course some much taller buildings. That is a big difference though.
NYC does not have the continuous density levels of Paris. I know the NYC metro area is much larger in area and population, but it does not look like it in aerial pictures imho. Maybe your explanation is the reason.
NYC basically looks like Scranton compared to Tokyo. Clearly the largest city in the world.
|
I don't think you are getting it. I'll use Tokyo for one. Clearly, it is the biggest city in the world. However, more than one fourth of Japan resides there. If one fourth of the United states resided in NYC, NYC would have around 80 million. NYC is not the only very large city in the United States. They have to share the countries population with many more cities including LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, etc. etc. NYC is much more dense than you are giving it credit for. Some of the cities in NJ alone are more dense than the United States second most dense city in San Francisco. NYC, just like San Francisco as well as Tokyo are ultra expensive. Many poor have been priced out, yet they still get yearly gains. Also, you used Paris and London. NYC CSA is hovering around 23 mil. Paris I believe is something like 12. I could be off a few, London is around 14 I believe. Again, my stats might be a bit off. That's close to twice both of those metro's. You mention Sau Paolo. Sao Paolo does give off a huge vibe. However, the spacing is what causes their cluster to look so large. Plus, highrise's are measured by 12 stories. Do you know how many buildings in NYC fall just below that? I don't think that you are taking those facts into account. Small is something that I don't think too many people would ever associate with NYC. Again, between NYC and Philly is continual urbanity. If and when they ever add Philly, NYC's CSA would then hover around thirty million. In a country of over 300 million, what more do you want? You mention China. China is over three times as populated as the United States, yet it's GDP is considerably lower. Go figure. Come on, Scranton a city of seventy thousand? It's hard to take you serious if you are going to use very poor examples.