4 ms·
I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only
by woodruffw 4y ago
I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only the southern part of the island is flat). The parts that flat are filled-in salt marsh.
There's a reason the top 8[1] most dense municipalities are in the NYC area: there's limited developable land.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
- whimsicalism 4y agoSF is the second densest city in America outside of NYC.
- woodruffw 4y agoSecond densest large city. But if you do it by municipality, SF is the 21st most dense in the country. Four of NYC's five boroughs (coextensive with counties, the way SF is coextensive with SF county) are individually denser than SF.
- pmonks 4y agoBriefly: * NYC is a lot more than Manhattan. * NYC is a substantially larger area than SF. * SF is also substantially built on top of reclaimed mud flats. * NYC is tectonically stable. All of these things mean that comparisons between the two cities approach to land use are basically meaningless. [edit] to fight HN’s formatting
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- woodruffw 4y agoRight, that's why it's still apples-to-oranges. My only claim was that "surrounded by water" and "has hills" are not the reasons why comparisons between NYC and SF are invalid.
- dreamcompiler 4y agoPlus Manhattan is schist that never moves, so you can build as high as you want without worrying about your building falling over.