3 ms·
The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968).
by ihodes 9y ago
The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968). Of course, NYC is over 6x the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968).
- losteric 9y agoThanks, I didn't know about that tool. Better than the images I provided. Still, NYC subway is far denser both within Manhattan as well as the surrounding area.
- jacques_chester 9y agoI've heard SF described as a Brooklyn without a Manhattan. Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2, SF's is ~18,500/km^2. By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.
- DerekL 9y agoWhere did you get 18,500/km^2 for San Francisco? 870,887 / 121.46 km^2 = 7170. More like Queens, not Brooklyn.
- jacques_chester 9y agoAh, I got it wrong. Mixed miles and square kilometres.
- surrealize 9y agoYou mixed up some units here: Brooklyn is way denser than SF (about twice as dense). Your SF number is people per square mile, not per square km. Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2 Manhattan ~69,400/m^2 all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
- jacques_chester 9y agoMy figures are based on square kilometres. A square mile is quite different. Edit: bonus round! I got Manhattan right but did the reverse error for SF (quoting km^2 for miles^2).