5 ms·

As a counterpoint to the comments about how very dense cities are unlivable, I'd like to offer the example of Paris. I think many people will agree that it's a

by Jacqued 11y ago

As a counterpoint to the comments about how very dense cities are unlivable, I'd like to offer the example of Paris. I think many people will agree that it's a really nice first-world city, with great culture, transportation, no sanitation troubles, etc (as opposed to Dhaka, which many take issue with). Well, that's a city with 55000 per square mile inside city limits. Some of the suburbs (the richer ones, mind you) even have up to 65-69000 per sqmi. Dhaka has about 50000. Of course, a lot of suburbs are less dense than this, but those tend to be the impoverished & forsaken ones you definitely don't want to live in. High density does not necessarily mean Manhattan or Hong Kong, in fact, closely built, dual use 7-story buildings with offices & shops & restaurants on the ground floor are a more balanced and less costly way to achieve it. And it offers a real opportunity to finally get rid of the cars, something that will be impossible to achieve in low-density cities because those could not support decent public transportation.

erispoe 11y ago
Paris is slightly smaller in area than San Francisco, yet has three times the population. As you said, Paris is a very livable city. Yet, a lot of people would describe San Francisco as "full". It is nowhere near "full" if the city updates its infrastructure to accomodate the incoming population, and it puts the housing crisis into perspective: there is room for a lot of housing in San Francisco.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I don't live in SF and haven't for a long time, but this seems essentially correct to me. My experience of SF is of a lot of small, low-slung buildings; the Mission seems like it consists almost entirely of wood-frame 2-flats.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Paris is slightly smaller in area than San Francisco Its either much smaller (if you count the city proper: less than 1/4 the size of the City and County of San Francisco; given your 3:1 population ratio, this seems most likely to be the comparison you were making) or much bigger (if you count the continuous stretch of urbanized land area within any given radius of the city center) or slightly bigger (if you count by a larger region -- the Ile-de-France is slightly larger than the 9-county Bay Area and has similar population density.) I can't find any kind of like-for-like comparison by which Paris is "slightly smaller" than SF. > It is nowhere near "full" if the city updates its infrastructure to accomodate the incoming population Which isn't an argument that SF isn't "full" (at its current limit of support), but that it wouldn't be full in a hypothetical situation which doesn't exist and which doesn't show any prospects of existing, since the money to change would have to come from somewhere, and even those proposing more aggressive development don't usually propose concrete major infrastructure improvements to support the increased population (and even when they wave their hands in the direction of the idea of such improvements, don't propose a concrete funding mechanisms.)
TillE 11y ago
> closely built, dual use 7-story buildings with offices & shops & restaurants on the ground floor This also describes much of Berlin. The effect is a lively city that rarely feels overly crowded.
sampo 11y ago
Or the Eixample neighborhood in Barcelona. Population density 92000/sq mi (36,000/km²). A photo: http://lh5.ggpht.com/-zHv1hczQcD4/UdgqTs1G3cI/AAAAAAAAqCI/leM5NgaGsx4/eixample-barcelona7%25255B6%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800 http://lh5.ggpht.com/-zHv1hczQcD4/UdgqTs1G3cI/AAAAAAAAqCI/le... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample
- zensavona 11y ago
  What a great Eixample
hugh4 11y ago
Paris, as they say, is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Come to think of it, I'm not even that fond of visiting. I am very grateful that my parents brought me up in a decent-size house with a nice biggish backyard. I can't imagine growing up in an apartment. Particularly in today's world where kids don't play in the park unsupervised. It must be even worse for the parents, who can't say "go play outside!" whenever the kids get rowdy and annoying. I don't think indoor living is good for kids. For people without children apartments are fine of course, which is why I think the ideal city consists of a combination of a higher-density centre with surrounding low density areas. People need to quit it with the desire to make everyone else live like a single twenty-something professional.
- turar 11y ago
  I think it's precisely the opposite. In a high-density, pedestrian-friendly apartment environment, parents can actually say "go play outside", with kids free to roam around the neighborhood or larger city by public transit, without worrying too much about being run over by cars. In a typical American suburban environment, "play outside" means play alone in the confines of the backyard, or be shuttled in cars by parents to "play dates", with most roads lacking even sidewalks.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    Play where? Even if you're happy letting your kid play unsupervised in the park across the street in a high-density area, in the Paris style cities we're talking about the nearest park is still usually blocks away. You gonna send a five year old strolling through the city alone? Even then, I live in a high-density area with a park across the street and I'd be hesitant to let kids below ten at least go there unsupervised, if I had them. Whereas if I had a backyard I could tell them hey, go nuts, and peek out the window every fifteen minutes. Of course I'm not defending streets without sidewalks. I'm defending the sort of place I grew up, which combines quarter-acre blocks and trees and parks with having shops and schools and libraries within walking distance.
    - turar 11y ago
rhino369 11y ago
Also, what cities like DC have happen is an artificial density. In the desirable parts of DC, no space is wasted. People don't live in big units. A lot of the housing is tightly packed low rises and tiny rowhouse-which are often chopped up into several condos. It feels more cramped in DC than when I lived in a 45 story highrise building in Chicago, even though the DC neighborhoods have fewer people per sqft. Building up relieves prices and more efficiently uses the land. It also lets young, childless people live together leaving the less dense areas for families who may appreciate more space. Instead the DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) are running minorities out of their neighborhoods by bidding up the price of the land. And they end up in neighbourhoods that aren't even dense enough to support local bars and restaurants. DC should be zoning Shaw, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, Admo, etc for 60 story high rises.
- a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
  Instead the DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) are running minorities out of their neighborhoods by bidding up the price of the land. Uhh, that's pretty much the plan. The landowners in places like SF and DC want to watch their holdings achieve lower Manhattan valuations. The history of NYC through the 90s proved the way you do that is demographic transformation.
pathsjs 11y ago
I have lived in Paris, and it was the most crowded place I have been. The price of housing has gone through the roof and the municipality has passed at least two regulations in the past few years - the first one putting bounds on the rents of apartments up to 13m^2 and the other one banning the rental of apartments below 9m^2! I live in Milan now and the density seems close to optimal for my taste
- xixi77 11y ago
  er, what is exactly a 9m^2 apartment?!
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Hong Kong at least happened much because of Georgist taxation of land rents. When people can commute ten more miles and divide the cost of living there by a factor of ten, they will. So don't hold your breath on "getting rid of cars" any time soon without some incentive for capturing land rents. For now, we use cars for that. And it's interesting that we still talk about "shops & restaurants". Other than craft/fine dining, those can eventually be highly virtualized in terms of logistics and depend much less on place.

by Jacqued 11y ago

erispoe 11y ago

Paris is slightly smaller in area than San Francisco, yet has three times the population. As you said, Paris is a very livable city. Yet, a lot of people would describe San Francisco as "full". It is nowhere near "full" if the city updates its infrastructure to accomodate the incoming population, and it puts the housing crisis into perspective: there is room for a lot of housing in San Francisco.

tptacek 11y ago
I don't live in SF and haven't for a long time, but this seems essentially correct to me. My experience of SF is of a lot of small, low-slung buildings; the Mission seems like it consists almost entirely of wood-frame 2-flats.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Paris is slightly smaller in area than San Francisco Its either much smaller (if you count the city proper: less than 1/4 the size of the City and County of San Francisco; given your 3:1 population ratio, this seems most likely to be the comparison you were making) or much bigger (if you count the continuous stretch of urbanized land area within any given radius of the city center) or slightly bigger (if you count by a larger region -- the Ile-de-France is slightly larger than the 9-county Bay Area and has similar population density.) I can't find any kind of like-for-like comparison by which Paris is "slightly smaller" than SF. > It is nowhere near "full" if the city updates its infrastructure to accomodate the incoming population Which isn't an argument that SF isn't "full" (at its current limit of support), but that it wouldn't be full in a hypothetical situation which doesn't exist and which doesn't show any prospects of existing, since the money to change would have to come from somewhere, and even those proposing more aggressive development don't usually propose concrete major infrastructure improvements to support the increased population (and even when they wave their hands in the direction of the idea of such improvements, don't propose a concrete funding mechanisms.)

TillE 11y ago

> closely built, dual use 7-story buildings with offices & shops & restaurants on the ground floor This also describes much of Berlin. The effect is a lively city that rarely feels overly crowded.

sampo 11y ago

Or the Eixample neighborhood in Barcelona. Population density 92000/sq mi (36,000/km²). A photo: http://lh5.ggpht.com/-zHv1hczQcD4/UdgqTs1G3cI/AAAAAAAAqCI/leM5NgaGsx4/eixample-barcelona7%25255B6%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800 http://lh5.ggpht.com/-zHv1hczQcD4/UdgqTs1G3cI/AAAAAAAAqCI/le... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample

zensavona 11y ago
What a great Eixample

hugh4 11y ago

Paris, as they say, is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Come to think of it, I'm not even that fond of visiting. I am very grateful that my parents brought me up in a decent-size house with a nice biggish backyard. I can't imagine growing up in an apartment. Particularly in today's world where kids don't play in the park unsupervised. It must be even worse for the parents, who can't say "go play outside!" whenever the kids get rowdy and annoying. I don't think indoor living is good for kids. For people without children apartments are fine of course, which is why I think the ideal city consists of a combination of a higher-density centre with surrounding low density areas. People need to quit it with the desire to make everyone else live like a single twenty-something professional.

turar 11y ago
I think it's precisely the opposite. In a high-density, pedestrian-friendly apartment environment, parents can actually say "go play outside", with kids free to roam around the neighborhood or larger city by public transit, without worrying too much about being run over by cars. In a typical American suburban environment, "play outside" means play alone in the confines of the backyard, or be shuttled in cars by parents to "play dates", with most roads lacking even sidewalks.
- hugh4 11y ago
  Play where? Even if you're happy letting your kid play unsupervised in the park across the street in a high-density area, in the Paris style cities we're talking about the nearest park is still usually blocks away. You gonna send a five year old strolling through the city alone? Even then, I live in a high-density area with a park across the street and I'd be hesitant to let kids below ten at least go there unsupervised, if I had them. Whereas if I had a backyard I could tell them hey, go nuts, and peek out the window every fifteen minutes. Of course I'm not defending streets without sidewalks. I'm defending the sort of place I grew up, which combines quarter-acre blocks and trees and parks with having shops and schools and libraries within walking distance.
  - turar 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago

Also, what cities like DC have happen is an artificial density. In the desirable parts of DC, no space is wasted. People don't live in big units. A lot of the housing is tightly packed low rises and tiny rowhouse-which are often chopped up into several condos. It feels more cramped in DC than when I lived in a 45 story highrise building in Chicago, even though the DC neighborhoods have fewer people per sqft. Building up relieves prices and more efficiently uses the land. It also lets young, childless people live together leaving the less dense areas for families who may appreciate more space. Instead the DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) are running minorities out of their neighborhoods by bidding up the price of the land. And they end up in neighbourhoods that aren't even dense enough to support local bars and restaurants. DC should be zoning Shaw, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, Admo, etc for 60 story high rises.

a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
Instead the DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) are running minorities out of their neighborhoods by bidding up the price of the land. Uhh, that's pretty much the plan. The landowners in places like SF and DC want to watch their holdings achieve lower Manhattan valuations. The history of NYC through the 90s proved the way you do that is demographic transformation.

pathsjs 11y ago

I have lived in Paris, and it was the most crowded place I have been. The price of housing has gone through the roof and the municipality has passed at least two regulations in the past few years - the first one putting bounds on the rents of apartments up to 13m^2 and the other one banning the rental of apartments below 9m^2! I live in Milan now and the density seems close to optimal for my taste

xixi77 11y ago
er, what is exactly a 9m^2 apartment?!

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Hong Kong at least happened much because of Georgist taxation of land rents. When people can commute ten more miles and divide the cost of living there by a factor of ten, they will. So don't hold your breath on "getting rid of cars" any time soon without some incentive for capturing land rents. For now, we use cars for that. And it's interesting that we still talk about "shops & restaurants". Other than craft/fine dining, those can eventually be highly virtualized in terms of logistics and depend much less on place.