People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

also fwiw paris density can be misleading cause the political body 'paris' is a very tiny part of the agglomeration vs. nyc, where all 5 boroughs are included in the average. manhattan's denser than paris proper and nyc is denser than the paris + the petite couronne (the 3 very built up urban/suburban departments that surround it).

― iatee, Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:16 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if you look at their entire urban areas, Paris is much more dense than NYC.

― the journey you take with bob ross (askance johnson), Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:22 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah this^ metro paris is way denser than metro nyc - nyc city limits vs paris metro is not so meaningful a comparison - they are roughly the same size but that just points to the fact that new york is a much larger city than paris - ie dont quit the dayjob lol

it's not so meaningful a comparison because nyc city limits still don't really reflect its urban boundaries but it's still a stronger comparison than 'paris' vs 'nyc'.

'metro paris' means whatever you want it to mean, and apparently askance thinks it should mean ile de france but that's kinda ridic if you know anything about the geography of the area.

Dude, i don't know, I'm just going by numbers on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population

ya maybe that's your problem

I mean if you want to include 4 states in your 'metro nyc' go for it, but at that point you're not really comparing things that are worth comparing, you're comparing open spaces in connecticut and picardy.

If you expect me to navigate these dense new metropoli, you'll have to pry my car from my cold dead hands.

yr just comparing the things that people who professionally compare these things compare pfft

i mean how could a city exist in more than one state at a time, ridiculous!

92, 93, 94 are the petite couronne - not a perfect measure, but a much more relevant one than including everything on this map.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/611/61164.png

whats the deal w. jersey city tho

and I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to include things outside of political nyc (makes more sense to include lots of jersey than staten island) xp

welp if you made a comparable map of iatees metropolitan new york (the one where citizens are responsable for their own snow removal) paris would still be denser

there are some cute guys in paris

this is sorta a pointless argument, my point was that the political body 'paris' is way less representative of the urban area than the political body 'new york city'.

if you want to compare the small political body in the center of the region, then hey, manhattan is much denser than paris. if you want to compare the 4 dense political bodies in the center of ile de france that are more comparable in size to nyc, then you'll find that 'nyc' is denser than the petite couronne. if you want to compare the extended sprawled out region which can include a bunch of empty land and philadelphia if you want, then I guess the empty land 25 miles from paris is denser.

i met this guy in paris once with the best smile

well, okay, you can compare the densities of urban cores, but I think it's helpful/interesting to also look at the densities of entire agglomerations

though I'm sure trying to define exactly what areas lies in an agglomeration is always going to be problematic

its not if youre iatee, just start w/yr conclusion say 'the petite couronne' a few times and work yr way backward

gee why would I use the name for the extended parisian metro area in an argument about the paris metro area, killer zing.

haha it has nothing to do w/the metro area

are you sure, here's your friend wikipedia:

'The Petite Couronne[3] (Little Crown, i.e. Inner Ring) is the hub of the urban agglomeration of Paris.'

hub of the urban agglomeration of Paris =/ metro area! just look at yr map^

'hub of the urban agglomeration' has 'nothing to do w/ the metro area'

wtf are we even arguing about, I know you're just trolling me

i am not, you are being dumb

you guys!

I think you're confusing the use of 'metropolitan area' on that map (which is really just the best english translation for aire urbaine) w/ it being a term that means one and only one thing

im sry i simply refuse to let iatee make up his own city definitions willy nilly 'jersey city yes staten no s conn not sure penn no wai' will not stand for this amateur tautological urban analysis

just 2 b clear doods

ny: rill big
paris: rill big

fwiw there are better ways to calculate density that help to get rid of the 'empty space in connecticut' pointlessness and the 'LA is denser than NY!' challops:
http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2008/03/weighted-densit.html
http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml

but I don't think anyone has ever worked out the math for paris

so me and my math-y friend who's into this were talking about it and actually decided to ~crunch the numbers~...sorta interesting cause afaik nobody's done weighted density for paris. didn't just do this to prove myself right, we're into this and were curious. (fwiw pretty sure he thought paris would win.)

again, weighted density = density experienced by average resident. regular density = density experienced by average tract of land (which thus gives equal weight to the center of paris and a farm 25 miles away)

instead of census tracts, we used the 1280 communes and 20 arrondissements that make up the greater paris region, got the individual density for each, multiplied that by (% of total region population) and did a sum of those:

http://www.intercarto.com/cms/produits/1473/136/carte-de-l-ile-de-france-en-communes.html

^1300 communes/arrondissements

result:

3 state new york metro area - 36,369 /mi^2
paris metro area (ile de france) - 25,323 /mi^2

others, for reference:
5 County SF Bay Area - 11,956 /mi^2
11 County SF Bay Area - 10,188 /mi^2
5 County LA - 10,200 /mi^2
LA+OC - 12,208/mi^2.
manhattan - 113,534/mi^2
bronx - 69,164/mi^2
brooklyn - 57,181 /mi^2
queens - 44,446/mi^2
SI - 13,000 /mi^2

basically ile de france (paris and the 7 departments that surround it) is 'more dense' than the NYC metro area in the same way that LA is more dense than NYC - the total built up area is more evenly distributed. looking at the density numbers like that isn't completely pointless - it tells you something about the sprawl/land-use. but it doesn't really tell you anything about what it's like there, which is why 'LA is the densest city in america seems like an absurdist statement'. the average 'francilien' (resident of the paris metropolitan area) lives in a considerably less dense environment than the average NYC resident. and paris is 'more dense' in the city-boundary calculation (which is pretty pointless w/ paris...in 2011 the city's political boundary doesn't even cover the central business district. that was my only real point at the start of this argument.)

but as a whole the 'average citizen' lives in an area less dense than the average metro new yorker (but way, way denser than the average bay area resident.) the experienced density gap is similar to the gap between brooklyn and queens.

paris' banlieue is a lot more complicated than a lot of people (esp. french people) give it credit for - includes super dense urban regions, castles, la haine-style gigantic housing projects, boring american sprawl, tiny medieval towns, super rural areas, etc...so there are limits to comparing it to LA sprawl. it's crazy dense. way more dense than any region in the united states.

except nyc.

er, http://www.intercarto.com/produits_image/image_1473_image_idf-communes.jpg

anyway http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/images/2008/02/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg

'LA is the densest city in america seems like an absurdist statement'. should be 'LA is the densest city in america' seems like an absurdist statement.

londoners:

w/r/t greater london, what's the smallest unit for which area + population data would exist? is there a division smaller than borough?

yeah, there are also "wards", about a dozen per borough.

greater london data super easy to find and use wtg uk

20569.71061 in miles

iatee or other mass transit bros, what is your opinion of rapid bus transit as an alternative to rail? My backward ass burg is getting one of these next year and I'm wondering if this is a worthy venture to be cheerleading on a bigger scale.

iatee is better on this stuff than i am but one of the nice things about bus transit is that it doesnt require a lot of expensive new infrastructure

(though it obv does require some new infrastructure)

generally it's a worthy venture to be cheerleading...but it depends on the cost and the location and the ridership projections etc. if it's a 'good project' then it's worth cheerleading for - and but that depends on the specifics, like where the stops will be, what kind of BRT it is (whether there will be timed lights, prepaid fares, dedicated bus lane etc.) a super well-planned rapid bus system is better than a light-rail system w/ stops in the middle of nowhere. but it's a bummer to get BRT as a light-rail consolation prize. still, dedicated bus lanes can be converted to light-rail in the future (is what people say.)

there's definitely a psychological comfort margin for lots of people w/r/t buses vs. trains and building actual transit infrastructure is always better than painting a bus but in the end it's all in the details.

m bise is your burg getting something like this

http://www.geekosystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/china-giant-bus-550x205.jpg

haha I said 'and but'

I think I was trying to decide which one to go w/

http://www.viabrt.net/Content/BRTMain.aspx

def the best corridor in sa to try it on...connects our biggest public university, downtown, and medical center

They put a BRT in on the most traveled non-freeway corridor in my suburban county with dedicated lanes for about half the length, prioritized signals, fares paid at station, stops every mile or so, and 10-minute headways. It's great. King County, the next county over and home of Seattle, is building BRT in several corridors that by all accounts is laughable compared to the one in my county. But they are getting light rail online that will take another 15 years to reach up here so I'm still envious.

yeah tbh light-rail would be nice (and would prob improve your life substantially) until enough people *want* light-rail in san antonio and until the city is ready to develop around it, it would likely be really underperforming like dallas'. I don't know a lot about san antonio but transit people seem to think that the brt route is good. xp

light rail is boss imo, I love spending an afternoon just riding the light rail, looking out the window and thinking baout things

http://www.mtr.com.hk/images/LR_routemap.jpg

that's a really pretty map

yah if you go to the original image its like 2400 pix long, it's greeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaattttttt

light rail is boss imo

otm