Urban Analogues

[dubu]

It looks like the cities would be a lot less expensive to build if you had wider buildings and they were spaced apart and there was elevated rail. Cities take hundreds of years to build though and smaller buildings close together makes more sense I guess. People like to be able to look out the window and have view too. With tv’s and stuff these days I don’t think it matters as much. I’d be fine in the middle of a building as long as I get light from the sun.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I like Paris, but I don't know about that.

Why not? Could you qualify your post?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by JManc

Visit Tokyo. That place is nuts. Paris has analogues in New York and London. Tokyo is off the charts...

Those four cities are urban beasts in their own special ways. Each has bragging rights over the other three, so there really aren't any 'losers' in this discussion.

I maintain my position regarding Paris. Show me another city that consistently maintains such high quality density and urban design -- urban design that is unequivocally both pedestrian-friendly and auto-unfriendly -- over such a large geographic area with equal or better rail coverage.

There is none.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Why not? Could you qualify your post?

The measure of "urban" is extremely subjective, but Paris really doesn't seem unique in any measure of what makes an urban environment (density, walkability, transit ubiquity). It does urban well, but it's not a far and away winner of any category, IMO. Also, are you only speaking of inside La Peripherique? Or Paris Metro? If just inside La Peripherique then it seems unfair to compare that to most other cities, since that is not analogous to the entire city of New York.

In terms of transit connectivity, I don't think any city can quite match Tokyo. I was there for a week last month, and the train system has such broad coverage that I don't recall even seeing a bus. For a city as huge as Tokyo, it also seems to have no issues with gridlock.

But even still, I'm not ready to say that Tokyo is the most urban city on the planet. The label is too subjective for me to feel comfortable saying any city is it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I maintain my position regarding Paris. Show me another city that consistently maintains such high quality density and urban design -- urban design that is unequivocally both pedestrian-friendly and auto-unfriendly -- over such a large geographic area with equal or better rail coverage.

I think you could argue NYC, Barcelona, Madrid, Tokyo and Osaka. All have similar(ish) density, urban form and transit quality over a roughly equivalent area.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The measure of "urban" is extremely subjective, but Paris really doesn't seem unique in any measure of what makes an urban environment (density, walkability, transit ubiquity). It does urban well, but it's not a far and away winner of any category, IMO. Also, are you only speaking of inside La Peripherique? Or Paris Metro? If just inside La Peripherique then it seems unfair to compare that to most other cities, since that is not analogous to the entire city of New York.

In terms of transit connectivity, I don't think any city can quite match Tokyo. I was there for a week last month, and the train system has such broad coverage that I don't recall even seeing a bus. For a city as huge as Tokyo, it also seems to have no issues with gridlock.

But even still, I'm not ready to say that Tokyo is the most urban city on the planet. The label is too subjective for me to feel comfortable saying any city is it.

Of course it's subjective; I'm merely presenting an argument, not stating a fact. Although I admit that my use of the word 'indisputably' does make it seem that way.

There's no like comparison to be made between the four cities because they vary considerably in terms of size (population and geography) and distribution (population and density). Whether you go by urban core or full metropolitan area has little effect on the premise of my argument. If it's the latter, then NYC and London take a huge hit and Tokyo inches closer to Paris.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

There's no like comparison to be made between the four cities because they vary considerably in terms of size (population and geography) and distribution (population and density).

Not really. Density is roughly similar among these cities, at least the Western ones.

NYC is the densest and over the largest area, but NYC, Paris, Barcelona and Madrid all have a huge geography of high density tracts, with roughly similar peak densities.

Tokyo and Osaka have considerably lower density, but they maintain this density over a HUGE area in Tokyo's case, and have probably unparallelled transit.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think you could argue NYC, Barcelona, Madrid, Tokyo and Osaka. All have similar(ish) density, urban form and transit quality over a roughly equivalent area.

I really disagree. I'll preface what I'm about to say by mentioning that, all things considered, I still think NYC is the greatest city on the planet.

But let's be honest, the NYC worth bragging about is limited to basically Manhattan, ten or so square miles of Brooklyn, and a few square miles of the Bronx. The rest is either too generic (nothing that distinguishes it from Philadelphia, Montreal, or the outskirts of DC) or just pure crap (hi Staten Island). Even Manhattan isn't perfect, as there are some parts of the island that aren't well-served by the subway. All of Paris, which is twice the size of Manhattan, is within walking distance of the Metro.

The other cities ... yeah, no. If it wasn't for urban design, Tokyo would take the cake and there wouldn't even be a discussion. But since most of Tokyo looks like this ...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Os...!4d135.5021651

... there is a discussion worth having.

[ThePhun1]

I'm pretty sure that all cities are limited to their primary tourist and population areas as far as what gets people to visit and brag about it. What's wrong with New York only having a quarter of its city proper worth visiting? That's better than the majority of places which just has one or two tourist traps that make them internationally famous. Besides, Manhattan basically is New York, Brooklyn is Brooklyn and the rest are just there to bump up the numbers and serve as neighborhoods people live in as they try to be around Manhattan.

Like I said, New York is fine. There's pretty much nothing worth visiting in New Orleans outside the general Downtown area for example.

[spidey7312]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The other cities ... yeah, no. If it wasn't for urban design, Tokyo would take the cake and there wouldn't even be a discussion. But since most of Tokyo looks like this ...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Os...!4d135.5021651

... there is a discussion worth having.

That's Osaka shown in the map, not Tokyo.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

But let's be honest, the NYC worth bragging about is limited to basically Manhattan, ten or so square miles of Brooklyn, and a few square miles of the Bronx. The rest is either too generic (nothing that distinguishes it from Philadelphia, Montreal, or the outskirts of DC) or just pure crap (hi Staten Island). Even Manhattan isn't perfect, as there are some parts of the island that aren't well-served by the subway. All of Paris, which is twice the size of Manhattan, is within walking distance of the Metro.

There are few (if any) places in all of Manhattan that are more than a 10 minute walk (which is 0.5 miles) from a subway station. The other side to that is there are far more people living in the 5 boroughs who are within a 10 minute walk of a subway than in Paris metro. Also, only 5% of the city's population actually lives on Staten Island. Including the borough in a discussion about New York's urbanity would be irrelevant.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

But let's be honest, the NYC worth bragging about is limited to basically Manhattan, ten or so square miles of Brooklyn, and a few square miles of the Bronx.

No. Most New Yorkers live in extreme high density tracts. It's all of Manhattan, most of Brooklyn and Bronx, maybe 1/3 of Queens and a bit of Jersey. There are like 5 million people living in extreme high density tracts, which is the most in the Western world.

If you removed Manhattan, there would still be about as many New Yorkers living in high density Census tracts as in any other city in the Western world.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Even Manhattan isn't perfect, as there are some parts of the island that aren't well-served by the subway. All of Paris, which is twice the size of Manhattan, is within walking distance of the Metro.

Yes, Manhattan is far from perfect, but putting aside the oddity of the point there is no section of Manhattan that's a particularly long walk to the subway. The shittiest subway access would be the Lower East Side, but that's being remediated.

Have you been to these cities? Paris has tiny subway stops, half or one-third the size of those in NYC, and much more closely placed. The trains are a fraction of the size. Obviously residents are closer to a subway stop because the Paris Metro is built to stop every couple hundred ft. In NYC they removed the small intermediary stops as they lengthened platforms and trains in the 40's and 50's. I don't think you'll have too many people agree that this was a mistake; that NYC should continue to have 4-car trains stopping every 200 ft.

Also, Manhattan is roughly 2/3 the size of Paris. And it doesn't even make sense as a density comparison, since most of the high density Census tracts in the NYC area aren't in Manhattan (or Paris, for that matter).

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by JManc

Visit Tokyo. That place is nuts. Paris has analogues in New York and London. Tokyo is off the charts...

i was just going to put in a plug in for tokyo, so plus one to that.

the pan pacific coastal mega cities are quite something and tokyo the most so of all them (ok hk too). its interesting to compare them among themselves. like tokyo and los angeles. they all seem to have plenty in common, whereas cities around the atlantic seem to be more different from each other, like rio and dublin.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by spidey7312

That's Osaka shown in the map, not Tokyo.

Tokyo looks similar.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There are few (if any) places in all of Manhattan that are more than a 10 minute walk (which is 0.5 miles) from a subway station.

This is true now with the Second Avenue Subway and 7 Subway Extension. I still think Hells Kitchen and the outer fringes of, say, Yorkville and the LES are a bit out of reach. But you're right, it's a small area.

The other side to that is there are far more people living in the 5 boroughs who are within a 10 minute walk of a subway than in Paris metro. Also, only 5% of the city's population actually lives on Staten Island. Including the borough in a discussion about New York's urbanity would be irrelevant.

Take note that the original premise laid forth by me included the phrase "pound for pound."

The outer boroughs are what hurt NYC against Paris, actually. That's essentially what I was hinting at from the beginning and what I was referring to when I mentioned distribution. Yes, it's true that NYC spans a much greater area and has about 3.5 times the population of Paris. But most New Yorkers don't live in Manhattan or the best parts of Brooklyn. In fact, Manhattan and the "best parts of Brooklyn" together might not even match Paris' population of 2.2 million, all of whom live within more or less the same high quality mid-rise vernacular. The vast majority of New Yorkers live in generic looking row house neighborhoods that by Parisian standards could be considered suburban-like.

And I'm not so sure that there are "far more people living in the 5 boroughs who are within a 10 minute walk of a subway than in Paris metro." Half of Queens isn't even served by the NYC Subway, let alone within walking distance of it. I also mentioned urban design as one of my considerations. It's much easier to make the case that Queens is car-unfriendly more than it is pedestrian-friendly (one doesn't necessarily beget the other by default if that's where you plan on shooting back).

Let's also not forget that the Paris Metro extends beyond the city limits, so inner communes like Clichy, Levallois-Perret, Boulogne-Billancourt, and the like represent another 250,000-500,000 people.

[dubu]

Japan suburbs are even more nuts. You dont see people but a lot of people live there. The more people you see the less crazy it is imo. Tokyo is nuts though

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No. Most New Yorkers live in extreme high density tracts. It's all of Manhattan, most of Brooklyn and Bronx, maybe 1/3 of Queens and a bit of Jersey. There are like 5 million people living in extreme high density tracts, which is the most in the Western world.

If you removed Manhattan, there would still be about as many New Yorkers living in high density Census tracts as in any other city in the Western world.

My comment had to do with structural density, urban design, transit accessibility, and to a lesser extent, architectural value. In that context, only 10 or so square miles of Brooklyn and a few square miles of the Bronx are really worth bragging about. What about generic looking Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, Canarsie, Jackson Heights, or Astoria is truly special and not just another dense, urban residential neighborhood of a Northeast corridor city, other than the fact that it's 'New York'?

[dubu]

I don't know why but I can't stand cities that look real nice and expensive. If it historical and nice then it's kinda cool other then that it doesn't feel like a place to live and reminds you you live in a zoo.

[10023]

Originally Posted by dubu

I don't know why but I can't stand cities that look real nice and expensive. If it historical and nice then it's kinda cool other then that it doesn't feel like a place to live and reminds you you live in a zoo.

What does this even mean?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Tokyo looks similar.



This is true now with the Second Avenue Subway and 7 Subway Extension. I still think Hells Kitchen and the outer fringes of, say, Yorkville and the LES are a bit out of reach. But you're right, it's a small area.



Take note that the original premise laid forth by me included the phrase "pound for pound."

The outer boroughs are what hurt NYC against Paris, actually. That's essentially what I was hinting at from the beginning and what I was referring to when I mentioned distribution. Yes, it's true that NYC spans a much greater area and has about 3.5 times the population of Paris. But most New Yorkers don't live in Manhattan or the best parts of Brooklyn. In fact, Manhattan and the "best parts of Brooklyn" together might not even match Paris' population of 2.2 million, all of whom live within more or less the same high quality mid-rise vernacular. The vast majority of New Yorkers live in generic looking row house neighborhoods that by Parisian standards could be considered suburban-like.

And I'm not so sure that there are "far more people living in the 5 boroughs who are within a 10 minute walk of a subway than in Paris metro." Half of Queens isn't even served by the NYC Subway, let alone within walking distance of it. I also mentioned urban design as one of my considerations. It's much easier to make the case that Queens is car-unfriendly more than it is pedestrian-friendly (one doesn't necessarily beget the other by default if that's where you plan on shooting back).

Let's also not forget that the Paris Metro extends beyond the city limits, so inner communes like Clichy, Levallois-Perret, Boulogne-Billancourt, and the like represent another 250,000-500,000 people.

Have you been to Japan? I say this not to mean " IF YA AINT BEEN THERE SHUT UP" but to point out a view like the one you posted of Osaka does in fact look bad. However, in person Japan's neighborhood urbanity is an absolute treat, even in the burbs for the most part.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by 10023

What does this even mean?

It means I’m not going to talk about it on this forum because I don’t know you guys.