3 ms·

To all people scared of density on here: Paris is one of the highest density cities in the world [1], and we're doing just fine. We even have a lot of room for

To all people scared of density on here: Paris is one of the highest density cities in the world [1], and we're doing just fine. We even have a lot of room for tourists. A large portion of us don't even have a car, and don't need one. We can rent one for vacation, and the public transportation complements well our walkable and bikeable city. It doesn't have to be Karachi or Manila. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_population_density https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_popu...

GauntletWizard 4y ago
The city of Paris is tiny and covers just a small portion of the total "Paris metropolitan area". The metropolitan density of Paris is lower than most US suburbs. The city of Paris would not work at all without the significant "Regional Natural Parks" right outside, but also without the significant suburbs. The chart you cite is flat out wrong. It claims to be "metropolitan areas", but Paris' entry is only for the City of Paris. The comparable wouldn't even be New York city, which is very nearly as dense - It would be Manhattan Island. Paris' metropolitan area density is 690/km2, which is less than the not-dense King County[1] that I live in, and comparable to the mostly-rural Snohomish just to our north. People need room. A very dense city center is a great place to be for a few days, a few months, a few years, and it's not as if nobody ends up living their their whole life, but most people move to places with space because they want space. Paris is significantly less dense than it was 100 years ago[2]... for precisely that reason. A strong city core with suburbs is a good way to live. We need more of them - More large cities with a 10^9 people surrounded by a suburb of 10^10, not megacities with 10^11 people cramped in endless rows of tenements. [1] https://archive.ph/20200213233400/http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_SF1/GCTPH1.CY07/0500000US53033#selection-691.0-691.5 https://archive.ph/20200213233400/http://factfinder.census.g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Demographics

GauntletWizard 4y ago

The city of Paris is tiny and covers just a small portion of the total "Paris metropolitan area". The metropolitan density of Paris is lower than most US suburbs. The city of Paris would not work at all without the significant "Regional Natural Parks" right outside, but also without the significant suburbs. The chart you cite is flat out wrong. It claims to be "metropolitan areas", but Paris' entry is only for the City of Paris. The comparable wouldn't even be New York city, which is very nearly as dense - It would be Manhattan Island. Paris' metropolitan area density is 690/km2, which is less than the not-dense King County[1] that I live in, and comparable to the mostly-rural Snohomish just to our north. People need room. A very dense city center is a great place to be for a few days, a few months, a few years, and it's not as if nobody ends up living their their whole life, but most people move to places with space because they want space. Paris is significantly less dense than it was 100 years ago[2]... for precisely that reason. A strong city core with suburbs is a good way to live. We need more of them - More large cities with a 10^9 people surrounded by a suburb of 10^10, not megacities with 10^11 people cramped in endless rows of tenements. [1] https://archive.ph/20200213233400/http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_SF1/GCTPH1.CY07/0500000US53033#selection-691.0-691.5 https://archive.ph/20200213233400/http://factfinder.census.g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Demographics