4 ms·
Berlin is half as population dense as SF, and has more surface area to spread out. SF is stuck in a single 49 mi^2 peninsula. That's not to say issues can't be
by bpicolo 9y ago
Berlin is half as population dense as SF, and has more surface area to spread out. SF is stuck in a single 49 mi^2 peninsula. That's not to say issues can't be solved in a variety of ways, it just doesn't seem like Berlin is a good point of comparison.
https://www.google.de/maps/@52.5351488,13.4089075,266a,35y,223.57h,44.91t/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.de/maps/@52.5351488,13.4089075,266a,35y,2...
This sort of layout in Berlin is something common in Europe that I kinda of wish existed in US cities. (Barcelona is similar too?)
- adrianN 9y agoI don't like comparing cities' density numbers as given by Wikipedia because many cities, Berlin included, include large areas that have really low density. Berlin for example has more than 4000 hectares of forest inside its city limits where nobody lives. If you go by these numbers, SF is denser than Tokyo.
- bpicolo 9y agoYeah, was trying to get at that with `has more surface area to spread out`. Suburban sprawl doesn't work as well in SF.
- pwinnski 9y agoThat seems like double-counting, then. The density numbers are based on the total area divided by the total residents. If the residents are squeezed into half the area, it should not be said that there is lower density and more space to spread out. The lower density is already because of the space.
- bpicolo 9y agoI don't think so, the point there is that SF physically has no room for suburban sprawl because it's a single stranded peninsula. Berlin is both currently less dense, and also has further room to expand geographically. One might disagree but it makes sense that way to me