4 ms·

Paris is one of the densest modern European cities I have ever lived in. My first flat was a 20sqm studio. And my last apartment was 97sqm for a family of 4. Ev

by yardie 7y ago

Paris is one of the densest modern European cities I have ever lived in. My first flat was a 20sqm studio. And my last apartment was 97sqm for a family of 4. Even in NYC the smallest place I could find was 45sqm and even that was considered less than ideal. It costs a lot of fuel to keep a large apartment comfortable. So your typical American, 800sqft, 1/1 simply would not work in Paris. Micro-apartments are just becoming a thing in the US and even then there is a lot of pushback from inhabitants and developers. Finally, Paris sits in a valley. The trees aren't just an aesthetic, they help keep the inhabitants sane and clear the air. New York City on the other hand turns into a miserable, swamp during the summer. It's hot, humid, and with no breeze the air actually feels gross.

Scoundreller 7y ago
That’s because NYC itself gets hotter than Paris. Paris isn’t very breezy at ground level because the streets are all short and keep turning. The air stays stagnant, unlike NYC’s grids. Paris’ density is from the lack of building: instead units just get sub divided ad finitum, instead of building up. Still, density isn’t high, it just feels that way, especially with Paris proper's small size: not even 2 Manhattans. Then you have larger units 95% unoccupied kept as pied-a-terres/investments. Those Haussmann buildings don’t do a good job of insulating or HVAC. Even 1970s multiunit buildings in the burbs are all single-pane windows with cracks to the outside. When you have a weak radiator-based central heating system, you don’t dare turn it down or off when you leave: your unit may never recover and be warm again. Meanwhile in North America, I turn off HVAC whenever I leave for a few hours: I know it can get back to human temperatures quickly. Though the French do a good job in summer: every window has shutters, so you can block out the sun very well. Some of my darkest days have been in Paris in summer because my hosts kept the indoors in total darkness :)
- riquito 7y ago
  Let's put some numbers. Paris has almost double the density then New York (20000/km2 Vs 10700/km2) Source: Wikipedia
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Paris proper: 104km2. Density: 21.5k/km2 Manhattan: 60km2. Density: 26k/km2, and that's with a bias toward commercial buildings. NYC: 783km2. Density 10.7k/km2. Compare apples to apples please.
    - simias 7y ago
      You're right, that wasn't a good comparison. Still, you have 21.5 vs 26 in Manhattan, saying "Paris' density isn't high, just build more skyscrapers" isn't really reasonable IMO. Also Paris is small but it's not like it's rolling fields as soon as you cross the Périphérique. Many of the suburbs have densities as high, and sometimes higher, than the capital itself. I wish I could compare the densities of NYC and Paris+suburbs but I can't find the numbers for that. All I could find was a density of ~1k/km2 for the entire région but that's 12000km2 so it's not a very good "apples to apples" comparison.
      - yardie 7y ago
        Paris has 2 large central parks, Vincennes and Boulogne, that are part of the city. 8.45km^2 10km^2.
    - Rexxar 7y ago
      Paris is 84.45 km² if you remove woods that are outside "Boulevard Périphérique"
  - greggman2 7y ago
    Wikipedia wrong by any meaningful mesasure Most of NYC is 30000/km2 to 20000/km2 https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/10/americas-truly-densest-metros/3450/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/10/americas-truly-denses... Also https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/weighted-density-of-european-and-australian-cities.24635/ https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/weighted-density-of-eu... Also http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-... (this one puts Paris pretty far down but as Hong Kong is not on the list it's pretty suspect) Also see animation showing Hong Kong density dwarfs cities like even Manilla and Mumbai which are clearly much much more dense than Paris https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2019/04/24/population-weighted-densities/ https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2019/04/24/population-w...
- yardie 7y ago
  Paris is less dense now than it was last century. Owners would buy 2 adjacent flats and knock down the walls between. In fact, that is going on now. Friends of ours converted 2 apartments to a duplex (French: an apartment on 2 floors, English: 2 units in 1 building). Those Haussmanns (actually Belle Epoch, most visitors would not recognize an Haussmann) are quite average in efficiency (~C) if they have been maintained and had the glass replaced in the last 20 years. Those same Haussmans are individually heated. Only the modern apartments (60s,70s,80s) have central heating. And they almost all radiators have a mechanical thermostat. So I'm not sure what you mean by turning it off. The building guardian will turn on the central heat and then it's up to you to find a comfortable temperature. > Some of my darkest days have been in Paris in summer because my hosts kept the indoors in total darkness :) Ahh, here we agree. My last flat we left the shutters closed until sunset. Then when we did open them the music, wine, and cigarettes came out :-)
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Maybe we have a difference in terminology? By central heating, I mean a boiler for the building, not district heating. Are those 'Haussmanns' running electric heaters, (maybe mini-split systems nowadays), or fitting a ?gaz? ?oil? burner in a closet for heat? My experience was that the radiators could maintain a temperature (with some prayer), but don't pump out a lot of heat. I still disdain the mechanical thermostats: you have to turn them up and down as the outside temperatures/sun/winds change. It didn't help that my hosts put things in front of the radiators, preventing them from radiating. > Then when we did open them the music, wine, and cigarettes came out That didn't stop my hosts!
    - throwaway744678 7y ago
      One gas burner per flat, yes.
    - yardie 7y ago
      Central heating was more common in buildings built in the 50s-80s. The only places I know of with district heating are university and government campuses. It was popular then because it was more efficient than wood burning fireplaces. But has since been replaced with in-unit gas boilers. Our apartment, a 60s era building, had central heating. It put out plenty of heat. I would say far too much heat. We ran into the problem that central heating isn't distributed evenly. Some apartments get lots of heat and some get far too little. Apartments at the top and near the bottom floors were the worst. We've actually had to crack the windows during the winter or we would have roasted. > It didn't help that my hosts put things in front of the radiators, I assume they were using them to dry clothes? If that is the case we are also guilty of this as well. Clothes dryers still aren't common in the city. It appears the problem wasn't central heating but your hosts. Radiators don't pump out heat they radiate it. I would bet the building pipes weren't being maintained nor were the radiators. Paris water is really hard. If you don't descale them regularly the pipes will get blocked with lime. And it is really evident when water comes out in a trickle.
- simias 7y ago
  >Still, density isn’t high, it just feels that way That's factually incorrect. And even assuming that it isn't how do you propose to deal with even more people in the capital when all the streets are gridlocked at rush hour and the public transportation is more than saturated? Are you seriously proposing that we raze the city and rebuild it New York style? I mean I suppose Haussmann sort of did that but I think it would be quite a loss to do it again now. I think it's much better to work on decentralization and developing other French cities. We're not Singapore, Monaco or Honk Kong, we don't need to fit everybody in the same metropolis. >Paris isn’t very breezy at ground level because the streets are all short and keep turning. I don't even feel like digging into this frankly absurd take (and again, are you proposing that we simply rebuild the city as a grid?) but it's also clearly not the only factor at play. Yew York is near the ocean, meanwhile Paris is in an inland basin which usually gets very little wind. Maybe very high rises could get above the smog at the top levels but would that really solve the problem? >Those Haussmann buildings don’t do a good job of insulating or HVAC. Even 1970s multiunit buildings in the burbs are all single-pane windows with cracks to the outside. >When you have a weak radiator-based central heating system, you don’t dare turn it down or off when you leave: your unit may never recover and be warm again. That much is true, many buildings in Paris are very old and have terrible isolation (on every level).
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    > And even assuming that it isn't how do you propose to deal with even more people in the capital when all the streets are gridlocked at rush hour and the public transportation is more than saturated? Maybe the metro/RER is saturated at rush hour, but I can assure you there is plenty of capacity left when you look at the whole picture. And you can always run more buses and create an environment that makes them fast through signal pre-emption, bus-only lanes/roads/hours, frequent runs, express buses, etc. A bus system can never be saturated unless they're running bumper to bumper. And work on the demand side: Work-From-Home, compressed work weeks, staggered schedules and not forcing people to take vacation in the same month. If you won't change supply, the goal should be to reduce transit demand, not increase it. Finally, tabulate how much a new metro line costs. Send inspectors to every workplace with more than X employees. If it appears that any of the above could be done but isn't, send them a bill for their proportionate costs for a new metro line. Could also send bills to employers for each employee-day they compel to arrive between 8 and 9. And/or give a discount to businesses that don't. You could achieve similar with dynamic pricing.

by yardie 7y ago

Scoundreller 7y ago

That’s because NYC itself gets hotter than Paris. Paris isn’t very breezy at ground level because the streets are all short and keep turning. The air stays stagnant, unlike NYC’s grids. Paris’ density is from the lack of building: instead units just get sub divided ad finitum, instead of building up. Still, density isn’t high, it just feels that way, especially with Paris proper's small size: not even 2 Manhattans. Then you have larger units 95% unoccupied kept as pied-a-terres/investments. Those Haussmann buildings don’t do a good job of insulating or HVAC. Even 1970s multiunit buildings in the burbs are all single-pane windows with cracks to the outside. When you have a weak radiator-based central heating system, you don’t dare turn it down or off when you leave: your unit may never recover and be warm again. Meanwhile in North America, I turn off HVAC whenever I leave for a few hours: I know it can get back to human temperatures quickly. Though the French do a good job in summer: every window has shutters, so you can block out the sun very well. Some of my darkest days have been in Paris in summer because my hosts kept the indoors in total darkness :)

riquito 7y ago
Let's put some numbers. Paris has almost double the density then New York (20000/km2 Vs 10700/km2) Source: Wikipedia
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Paris proper: 104km2. Density: 21.5k/km2 Manhattan: 60km2. Density: 26k/km2, and that's with a bias toward commercial buildings. NYC: 783km2. Density 10.7k/km2. Compare apples to apples please.
  - simias 7y ago
    You're right, that wasn't a good comparison. Still, you have 21.5 vs 26 in Manhattan, saying "Paris' density isn't high, just build more skyscrapers" isn't really reasonable IMO. Also Paris is small but it's not like it's rolling fields as soon as you cross the Périphérique. Many of the suburbs have densities as high, and sometimes higher, than the capital itself. I wish I could compare the densities of NYC and Paris+suburbs but I can't find the numbers for that. All I could find was a density of ~1k/km2 for the entire région but that's 12000km2 so it's not a very good "apples to apples" comparison.
    - yardie 7y ago
      Paris has 2 large central parks, Vincennes and Boulogne, that are part of the city. 8.45km^2 10km^2.
  - Rexxar 7y ago
    Paris is 84.45 km² if you remove woods that are outside "Boulevard Périphérique"
- greggman2 7y ago
  Wikipedia wrong by any meaningful mesasure Most of NYC is 30000/km2 to 20000/km2 https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/10/americas-truly-densest-metros/3450/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/10/americas-truly-denses... Also https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/weighted-density-of-european-and-australian-cities.24635/ https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/weighted-density-of-eu... Also http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-... (this one puts Paris pretty far down but as Hong Kong is not on the list it's pretty suspect) Also see animation showing Hong Kong density dwarfs cities like even Manilla and Mumbai which are clearly much much more dense than Paris https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2019/04/24/population-weighted-densities/ https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2019/04/24/population-w...
yardie 7y ago
Paris is less dense now than it was last century. Owners would buy 2 adjacent flats and knock down the walls between. In fact, that is going on now. Friends of ours converted 2 apartments to a duplex (French: an apartment on 2 floors, English: 2 units in 1 building). Those Haussmanns (actually Belle Epoch, most visitors would not recognize an Haussmann) are quite average in efficiency (~C) if they have been maintained and had the glass replaced in the last 20 years. Those same Haussmans are individually heated. Only the modern apartments (60s,70s,80s) have central heating. And they almost all radiators have a mechanical thermostat. So I'm not sure what you mean by turning it off. The building guardian will turn on the central heat and then it's up to you to find a comfortable temperature. > Some of my darkest days have been in Paris in summer because my hosts kept the indoors in total darkness :) Ahh, here we agree. My last flat we left the shutters closed until sunset. Then when we did open them the music, wine, and cigarettes came out :-)
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Maybe we have a difference in terminology? By central heating, I mean a boiler for the building, not district heating. Are those 'Haussmanns' running electric heaters, (maybe mini-split systems nowadays), or fitting a ?gaz? ?oil? burner in a closet for heat? My experience was that the radiators could maintain a temperature (with some prayer), but don't pump out a lot of heat. I still disdain the mechanical thermostats: you have to turn them up and down as the outside temperatures/sun/winds change. It didn't help that my hosts put things in front of the radiators, preventing them from radiating. > Then when we did open them the music, wine, and cigarettes came out That didn't stop my hosts!
  - throwaway744678 7y ago
    One gas burner per flat, yes.
  - yardie 7y ago
    Central heating was more common in buildings built in the 50s-80s. The only places I know of with district heating are university and government campuses. It was popular then because it was more efficient than wood burning fireplaces. But has since been replaced with in-unit gas boilers. Our apartment, a 60s era building, had central heating. It put out plenty of heat. I would say far too much heat. We ran into the problem that central heating isn't distributed evenly. Some apartments get lots of heat and some get far too little. Apartments at the top and near the bottom floors were the worst. We've actually had to crack the windows during the winter or we would have roasted. > It didn't help that my hosts put things in front of the radiators, I assume they were using them to dry clothes? If that is the case we are also guilty of this as well. Clothes dryers still aren't common in the city. It appears the problem wasn't central heating but your hosts. Radiators don't pump out heat they radiate it. I would bet the building pipes weren't being maintained nor were the radiators. Paris water is really hard. If you don't descale them regularly the pipes will get blocked with lime. And it is really evident when water comes out in a trickle.
simias 7y ago
>Still, density isn’t high, it just feels that way That's factually incorrect. And even assuming that it isn't how do you propose to deal with even more people in the capital when all the streets are gridlocked at rush hour and the public transportation is more than saturated? Are you seriously proposing that we raze the city and rebuild it New York style? I mean I suppose Haussmann sort of did that but I think it would be quite a loss to do it again now. I think it's much better to work on decentralization and developing other French cities. We're not Singapore, Monaco or Honk Kong, we don't need to fit everybody in the same metropolis. >Paris isn’t very breezy at ground level because the streets are all short and keep turning. I don't even feel like digging into this frankly absurd take (and again, are you proposing that we simply rebuild the city as a grid?) but it's also clearly not the only factor at play. Yew York is near the ocean, meanwhile Paris is in an inland basin which usually gets very little wind. Maybe very high rises could get above the smog at the top levels but would that really solve the problem? >Those Haussmann buildings don’t do a good job of insulating or HVAC. Even 1970s multiunit buildings in the burbs are all single-pane windows with cracks to the outside. >When you have a weak radiator-based central heating system, you don’t dare turn it down or off when you leave: your unit may never recover and be warm again. That much is true, many buildings in Paris are very old and have terrible isolation (on every level).
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  > And even assuming that it isn't how do you propose to deal with even more people in the capital when all the streets are gridlocked at rush hour and the public transportation is more than saturated? Maybe the metro/RER is saturated at rush hour, but I can assure you there is plenty of capacity left when you look at the whole picture. And you can always run more buses and create an environment that makes them fast through signal pre-emption, bus-only lanes/roads/hours, frequent runs, express buses, etc. A bus system can never be saturated unless they're running bumper to bumper. And work on the demand side: Work-From-Home, compressed work weeks, staggered schedules and not forcing people to take vacation in the same month. If you won't change supply, the goal should be to reduce transit demand, not increase it. Finally, tabulate how much a new metro line costs. Send inspectors to every workplace with more than X employees. If it appears that any of the above could be done but isn't, send them a bill for their proportionate costs for a new metro line. Could also send bills to employers for each employee-day they compel to arrive between 8 and 9. And/or give a discount to businesses that don't. You could achieve similar with dynamic pricing.