3 ms·
I've seen that comparison a few times, and I feel it's a little misleading. Paris is only twice as densely populated as NYC by virtue of it having an administr
by NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
I've seen that comparison a few times, and I feel it's a little misleading.
Paris is only twice as densely populated as NYC by virtue of it having an administrative definition that captures primarily the most-densely populated core of the metropolitan area.
e.g. the borough of Manhattan has 30% higher population density than Paris and is about 60% of the size.
However, because the boundary of the city includes relatively sparsely populated boroughs like Staten Island and Queens (the land area of which contains not one but two major airports), the average density is much lower.
- BeetleB 7y agoUS, but the claim wasn't "selected portions of the most dense cities in the US". It was "Our population density (in the United States) is very high as it is in, most metropolitan regions." I don't doubt Manhattan is very dense. It is far from representative when it comes to "most" metropolitan regions in the US.
- wozniacki 7y agoThe same distinction applies to the population density of various Amsterdam "boroughs" (or satellite districts) whether its Almere or Bos en Lommer. The density & the people you run into varies markedly although they're both accessible by public transit and are only a stone's throw away with what you typically associate with Amsterdam. How is commuting in from Zwolle or Amersfoort to Amsterdam Centraal different than say commuting in from New Canaan, Connecticut to Manhattan? I'm sure the same is the case with any large metropolitan region anywhere in Europe.