What is the fixation with suburbia?
I am not confusing anything. I have said numerous times that Manhattan is NYC's core and it is denser than anything in Tokyo. I have also stated that Tokyo's metro area is denser than the New York metro area.
So? What's the big deal with dense as opposed to lightly-settled suburbs? I don't go to a big city to visit its suburbs. When I go to New York I go to visit Manhattan and the other boroughs.. not Long Island or Westchester.
I never said that Tokyo's suburbs weren't denser than New York's suburbs. But my point always have been and always will be that Manhattan is as dense and probably denser than anything in Tokyo. But anyhow... 7000/sq. km is not "dense." Jersey City and Newark both have densities over that. Where I am from, that is still considered low density development. That is still well below NYC densities of over 10,000. And when you include tourists and illegal aliens (which for all practical purposes don't exist in Tokyo) this number it is considerably higher than 10,000 per sq. km. Maybe more like 11-12,000 per sq. km.
It is notable to add that that 10,000+ per sq. km number includes suburban Staten Island through which the subway doesn't even go through. Staten Island is not considered to be one of the "urbanized" boroughs. If you just include the 4 main boroughs, the density is over 12,000 per sq. km not including aliens or illegals. Seeing as Staten Island is an outlier and doesn't really figure much into the rest of NYC, this is a better estimate for NYC density.
Besides, Your original point was that Tokyo metropolitan area was as dense as Manhattan except spread over a large area. Obviously this is not true as 7,000 is much less than 27,000/sq.km.
Tokyo is not Hong Kong. Show me proof that states there are areas in Tokyo exceeding 50,000 people/sq. km. Maybe 50,000 people/sq MILE but not per sq. km.
I don't follow here. You were talking about how much denser Greater Tokyo is over the CSA and then you turn around to say that Manhattan is only the shnizzit in NA. I fail to see why Manhattan's hyperdensity of 27,000/sq. km has anything to do with the low density of the CSA? The CSA can be low density and sprawl all it wants as long as it continues providing the commuters that help New York maintain its hyperdense city core. Metro area density is not really that important, but city density sure is. That is all that really matters.
It seems like the only factor you wish to equate to a city's "coolness" is density. If that's the case Manhattan automatically wins because it is the seat of the most dense financial district in the world. But density isn't everything. Aside from having the 2 largest stock exchanges in the world, and being an international capital in terms of finance, clout, arts, literature, fashion,journalism, Wall Street ,the world's best museums,.....etc , It is arguably the worlds most ethnically diverse, cosmopolitan city and acts as a true melting pot representing virtually every nationality and cuisine from the entire globe. I can speak Spanish in the morning while having a pastelito, Farsi in the afternoon over stuffed cabbage, and fine-dine in an obscure Turkmenistan restaurant at night. Can I easily do that in Tokyo?
Not to mention that NYC has the closest thing we got to a world government in the form of the United Nations.. If there is anything approaching a "Capital of the World" it would be New York. Tokyo, while vibrant and interesting and has an advanced rail system(though the subway is behind compared to NYC)-- is just light years behind in these other arenas.
This is why Manhattan is the global shnizzit.
Let me make it clear that density isn't the only thing that makes a city, well, a global city. Even though the Tokyo metropolitan area has more people overall than the New York metropolitan area, Tokyo has a long ways to go before it catches up to New York City in pure international clout. Although Tokyo is considered a global city it still lags behind both London and New York City in global influence, finance, art, culture, and cosmopolitanism. And I don't see Tokyo overtaking NYC in importance anytime soon.
The only thing Tokyo has on New York is electronics with its awesome Akhibara district.
And? Why do you care so much about the suburbs? Why would I go to Fujisawa instead of Tokyo?Just to see how crowded the suburbs can get? The function of suburbs is to provide much of the commuter base for the main city. As long as that happens whether the suburbs have 22M in 30,000 sq. km or in 3,000 sq. km it doesn't really have any significance.
And it doesn't have any significance because the rail lines still go to those suburbs, pick up the same commuters, and bring them into the main city. As a result, population density really only matters when referring to the city proper.
Man. You have no idea. I have seen trains in Queens busier than this. This is nothing new. This is actually a very run-of-the-mill scene. You obviously have not been to Manhattan in a long time.
BTW, this is the reason why Manhattan trains are on the whole not quite as crowded as those in Shinjuku or Shibuya:
http://www.nycsubway...perl/show?40315
Now tell me WHERE in CENTRAL Tokyo would you have not 1, 2, 3, 4, but THIRTEEN subway transit lines in ONE station? In fact this number of lines exceeds the number of lines in the entire Tokyo subway system (Toei + Tokyo metro subways combined only have 12). Get the picture?
Sign In
Register
Help
moonshield, on Nov 30 2005, 02:48 PM, said:
MultiQuote
Yes, yes, I can see why your daughter would say that! Agreed, for better or worse, there is no place like the USA. 
