NEW YORK | Aerial Heaven

[dc_denizen]

The NJ/NY sprawl is insanely large and, for the most part, very dense. Flying over Long Island or north NJ, looking toward Manhattan 50 miles away, you don't feel like you're in Scranton lol. Btw Sao Paolo and Shanghai lack this geographical extent of the core of the NJ/NYC urban area.

Bayonne:



link

Patterson/north NJ





link

Can't find any good ones of Long Island for some reason.

[RumbleFish]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

The NJ/NY sprawl is insanely large and, for the most part, very dense. Flying over Long Island or north NJ, looking toward Manhattan 50 miles away, you don't feel like you're in Scranton lol. Btw Sao Paolo and Shanghai lack this geographical extent of the core of the NJ/NYC urban area.

Bayonne:



link

Patterson/north NJ





link

Can't find any good ones of Long Island for some reason.

You think when you look at aerial pictures of Shanghai or Sao Paulo that NYC urbanity covers more area? I would not argue that NYC has much more suburban sprawl than those cities. Let's be honest those pictures you posted would be considered suburban in most cities outside the US not "urban."

The stats back me up on this:

Urban areas

NYC has 20.6 million people in 11,600 sq km
Tokyo has 37 million people in 8,500 sq km
Sao Paulo has 20.3 million in 2,700 sq km
Shanghai has 23.4 million in 3,200 sq km

[teaser75]

Originally Posted by RumbleFish

No, I am including all five boroughs, New Jersey, Connecticut and Long Island with my analysis. The density level drops off dramatically outside NYC and parts of New Jersey when you look at the aerial shots.

I know NYC is not small. It is the largest the city in the US by far and looks like it. It does not look big compared to other mega cities around the world. The area you described between New York and Philadelphia is nothing compared to many parts of Asia.

The Pearl River Delta (Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou etc) region for example has 120 million people with just slightly more land than the NYC metro area and has exponentially more high rises and density. Basically the region has over five times the population with the same amount of area. Pretty crazy and it like looks it.

Compare pictures of Shanghai or Sao Paulo.....NYC looks small in comparison. Shanghai does have skyscrapers and it covers a MUCH larger area than Manhattan. Insane skyline. I know New York has high rises in all its boroughs, but not like Shanghai.

Sao Paulo generally has just has highrises and not skyscrapers, but it goes forever. I think Sao Paul has like 40,000 high rises. No joke. New York is has around 7,000-8,000 but of course some much taller buildings. That is a big difference though.

NYC does not have the continuous density levels of Paris. I know the NYC metro area is much larger in area and population, but it does not look like it in aerial pictures imho. Maybe your explanation is the reason.

NYC basically looks like Scranton compared to Tokyo. Clearly the largest city in the world.

I don't think you are getting it. I'll use Tokyo for one. Clearly, it is the biggest city in the world. However, more than one fourth of Japan resides there. If one fourth of the United states resided in NYC, NYC would have around 80 million. NYC is not the only very large city in the United States. They have to share the countries population with many more cities including LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, etc. etc. NYC is much more dense than you are giving it credit for. Some of the cities in NJ alone are more dense than the United States second most dense city in San Francisco. NYC, just like San Francisco as well as Tokyo are ultra expensive. Many poor have been priced out, yet they still get yearly gains. Also, you used Paris and London. NYC CSA is hovering around 23 mil. Paris I believe is something like 12. I could be off a few, London is around 14 I believe. Again, my stats might be a bit off. That's close to twice both of those metro's. You mention Sau Paolo. Sao Paolo does give off a huge vibe. However, the spacing is what causes their cluster to look so large. Plus, highrise's are measured by 12 stories. Do you know how many buildings in NYC fall just below that? I don't think that you are taking those facts into account. Small is something that I don't think too many people would ever associate with NYC. Again, between NYC and Philly is continual urbanity. If and when they ever add Philly, NYC's CSA would then hover around thirty million. In a country of over 300 million, what more do you want? You mention China. China is over three times as populated as the United States, yet it's GDP is considerably lower. Go figure. Come on, Scranton a city of seventy thousand? It's hard to take you serious if you are going to use very poor examples.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by RumbleFish

I know NYC is not small. It is the largest the city in the US by far and looks like it. It does not look big compared to other mega cities around the world. The area you described between New York and Philadelphia is nothing compared to many parts of Asia.

The Pearl River Delta (Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou etc) region for example has 120 million people with just slightly more land than the NYC metro area and has exponentially more high rises and density. Basically the region has over five times the population with the same amount of area. Pretty crazy and it like looks it.

Compare pictures of Shanghai or Sao Paulo.....NYC looks small in comparison. Shanghai does have skyscrapers and it covers a MUCH larger area than Manhattan. Insane skyline. I know New York has high rises in all its boroughs, but not like Shanghai.

Sao Paulo generally has just has highrises and not skyscrapers, but it goes forever. I think Sao Paul has like 40,000 high rises. No joke. New York is has around 7,000-8,000 but of course some much taller buildings. That is a big difference though.

NYC does not have the continuous density levels of Paris. I know the NYC metro area is much larger in area and population, but it does not look like it in aerial pictures imho. Maybe your explanation is the reason.

NYC basically looks like Scranton compared to Tokyo. Clearly the largest city in the world.

You must be judging by some some deceptive pictures. Part of it may be that a lot of the metro is semi suburban although it has a similar population to Shanghai or Sao Paulo, so therefore there are less high rises outside of the city center, leading to a lack of the "endless" effect.

Manhattan itself is 13 miles of basically just high rises plus the worlds largest (or maybe second largest after HK) collection of 200+ meter buildings.

Also, if you're going to count the Pearl River Delta as one city you may as well count the Northeastern USA (Boston- Washington) which has about 90 million or so people.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by RumbleFish

You think when you look at aerial pictures of Shanghai or Sao Paulo that NYC urbanity covers more area? I would not argue that NYC has much more suburban sprawl than those cities. Let's be honest those pictures you posted would be considered suburban in most cities outside the US not "urban."

The stats back me up on this:

Urban areas

NYC has 20.6 million people in 11,600 sq km
Tokyo has 37 million people in 8,500 sq km
Sao Paulo has 20.3 million in 2,700 sq km
Shanghai has 23.4 million in 3,200 sq km

FYI, New York is in a DEVELOPED country. NYC does not have favelas, or shantytowns filled with peasants from the countryside like Brazil, nor are the poor housed in high-rise towers like in Shanghai. Tokyo is very unique due to the extreme population density of Japan and lack of land for cities.

On a weighted density basis, NYC is comparable to Paris and London. Much of this density is small-lot suburbs and sprawl, like in those cities (maybe w/ fewer suburban apartment towers and small midrises, they are all extremely concentrated in the city).

[RumbleFish]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

You must be judging by some some deceptive pictures. Part of it may be that a lot of the metro is semi suburban although it has a similar population to Shanghai or Sao Paulo, so therefore there are less high rises outside of the city center, leading to a lack of the "endless" effect.

Manhattan itself is 13 miles of basically just high rises plus the worlds largest (or maybe second largest after HK) collection of 200+ meter buildings.

Also, if you're going to count the Pearl River Delta as one city you may as well count the Northeastern USA (Boston- Washington) which has about 90 million or so people.

To compare the NE of the US to the Pearl River Delta is ridiculous. The Pearl River Delta I used as an example because it covers just a little more area than the NYC metro area, but has over 5 times more people.

My point has been outside of NYC and parts of New Jersey the density falls off pretty dramatically compared to other cities around the world. You really are not making a point otherwise.

[RumbleFish]

Originally Posted by teaser75

I don't think you are getting it. I'll use Tokyo for one. Clearly, it is the biggest city in the world. However, more than one fourth of Japan resides there. If one fourth of the United states resided in NYC, NYC would have around 80 million. NYC is not the only very large city in the United States. They have to share the countries population with many more cities including LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, etc. etc. .

What does this have to do with anything I said? You think I am unaware that the US has other cities? Whatever the reason, Tokyo looks much larger than NYC from the air and that was my only point really. When I said NYC look like Scranton that was not to be taken literally.

[RumbleFish]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

FYI, New York is in a DEVELOPED country. NYC does not have favelas, or shantytowns filled with peasants from the countryside like Brazil, nor are the poor housed in high-rise towers like in Shanghai. Tokyo is very unique due to the extreme population density of Japan and lack of land for cities.

On a weighted density basis, NYC is comparable to Paris and London. Much of this density is small-lot suburbs and sprawl, like in those cities (maybe w/ fewer suburban apartment towers and small midrises, they are all extremely concentrated in the city).

I don't disagree with any of this.

[teaser75]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

You must be judging by some some deceptive pictures. Part of it may be that a lot of the metro is semi suburban although it has a similar population to Shanghai or Sao Paulo, so therefore there are less high rises outside of the city center, leading to a lack of the "endless" effect.

Manhattan itself is 13 miles of basically just high rises plus the worlds largest (or maybe second largest after HK) collection of 200+ meter buildings.

Also, if you're going to count the Pearl River Delta as one city you may as well count the Northeastern USA (Boston- Washington) which has about 90 million or so people.

Just fixing a correction. The island of Manhattan is 21 square miles, almost 22. Just thought I would add that. Good post otherwise.

[teaser75]

Originally Posted by RumbleFish

What does this have to do with anything I said? You think I am unaware that the US has other cities? Whatever the reason, Tokyo looks much larger than NYC from the air and that was my only point really. When I said NYC look like Scranton that was not to be taken literally.

My point was that Japan doesn't have a lot of land. They have 120 something million people to be put in just a small amount of land. Of course their biggest city is going to be very populous. That was my only point regarding Tokyo.

Also, you really don't get the total feel of NYC's CSA through the air. It combines three states. Usually Connecticut isn't shown. Hope that makes more sense.

[chris08876]

High density is only good if it functions well. NYC metro and the city function well, even with all of the traffic and pedestrian flow. Theres a fine line between a city or metro thats crowded but works, and one thats crowded and is a cesspool of delays and hassle.

We should be glad our cities are not overcrowded to the point of extreme density. When our cities start to have the crowding issues of Lagos, Mumbai, or Delhi, then we messed up.

While it might look cool on paper, such densities can actually be a hinderance to how a population conducts their daily routines.

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

On a weighted density basis, NYC is comparable to Paris and London. Much of this density is small-lot suburbs and sprawl, like in those cities (maybe w/ fewer suburban apartment towers and small midrises, they are all extremely concentrated in the city).

Actually, those cities have much less sprawl and much less density in the center (well, at least in the case of London).

London's densest borough is about as dense as Brooklyn, and it's much smaller than Brooklyn (6 square miles vs. 71 square miles). The four most central cities and boroughs in London (i.e., the City of London, City of Westminster, and boroughs of Islington and Hackney) cover 23 square miles with 680,000 people, compared to 1.6 million people in Manhattan's 23 square miles. Of course very few people live in the City of London (though it's only 1 square mile), but it doesn't make sense to exclude that but include Wall Street.

However there is nothing equivalent to the sprawl one finds in NY's outer suburbs in London's metro area. There are places that are much closer by train than some of NY's suburbs, but it's not continuously developed and these are not considered part of London's metro area.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by RumbleFish

My point has been outside of NYC and parts of New Jersey the density falls off pretty dramatically compared to other cities around the world. You really are not making a point otherwise.

Obviously the suburban parts of the NYC region aren't dense, at all. That's true almost everywhere. But most of the NYC region lives in the urban parts, and those urban parts are very comparable to any city, anywhere. You have maybe 12-14 million people living at high density. You have a couple of million living in extreme density.

Hong Kong is ultra-dense, even denser than NYC, but over a tiny area. Sao Paulo and Mexico City have high density over huge areas, but are poor, and don't have comparable peak density. London is nowhere close in terms of density. Paris is probably comparable, but NYC still feels bigger. The Asian cities with comparable density over large areas are almost all poor, except for Tokyo and Seoul.

Tokyo is probably the only city on earth that overall feels bigger, and even Tokyo doesn't have comparable peak density nor a comparable sense of grandeur.

[RumbleFish]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Obviously the suburban parts of the NYC region aren't dense, at all. That's true almost everywhere. But most of the NYC region lives in the urban parts, and those urban parts are very comparable to any city, anywhere. You have maybe 12-14 million people living at high density. You have a couple of million living in extreme density.

Hong Kong is ultra-dense, even denser than NYC, but over a tiny area. Sao Paulo and Mexico City have high density over huge areas, but are poor, and don't have comparable peak density. London is nowhere close in terms of density. Paris is probably comparable, but NYC still feels bigger. The Asian cities with comparable density over large areas are almost all poor, except for Tokyo and Seoul.

Tokyo is probably the only city on earth that overall feels bigger, and even Tokyo doesn't have comparable peak density nor a comparable sense of grandeur.

I love New York so I do not want people to think I am knocking it, but some of these statements I feel are not very accurate. There are a ton of cities around the world that have comparable if not higher "peak density" than Manhattan and the fact they are poor does not take away that they may have a large feel to them.

I guess we will have to disagree what "feels large", but if there is a city that has a urban area of 20 million people and the density of NYC proper, that feels larger to me than NYC's density dramatically dropping off after 11 million people or so with other half of the urban area feeling suburban.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Taken by me months ago. Was I believe Spring of 2014.

I love this pic. Great shot! How many floors up were you?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by teaser75

Just fixing a correction. The island of Manhattan is 21 square miles, almost 22. Just thought I would add that. Good post otherwise.

Right... I just meant 13 miles North to South.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I love this pic. Great shot! How many floors up were you?

I was doing some business at the Consulado de España. Trying to finalize papers so I could purchase property in the EU. I was on the 30th floor. East 58th street I believe.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by RumbleFish

I love New York and how it looks from the air, but if you look at a lot of aerial photos of large cities around the world (Sao Paulo, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong even Paris) New York really does not look that big in comparison.

Maybe some scaled maps will help you understand the size of NYC.







HERE is the link to a whole bunch of comparisons (including Paris, Hong Kong, etc - I don't want to derail this thread).

[RumbleFish]

Originally Posted by sbarn

Maybe some scaled maps will help you understand the size of NYC.







HERE is the link to a whole bunch of comparisons (including Paris, Hong Kong, etc - I don't want to derail this thread).

Cool link. I generally do not argue with stats, but it is hard for me to believe that New york is denser than Hong Kong or Tokyo.

[chris08876]

I tend to watch a lot of videos of helicopter rides as its enjoyable, and I encountered this one of NYC right after watching one of Shanghai.

I have to say, this is probably the best one I've seen so far, and I've seen several of the same route. What this guy does is also cover the Bronx, and the Jersey side which is unique as most tend to focus just on Manhattan. 1st part starts off from the South Seaport, goes to the harbor, follow the Hudson North, into the Bronx, and on the way back, covers the Jersey side. Great quality, and its worth the 20 minutes. Some nice music, with this muted, and it makes for a enjoyable video.

Its from fall of 2012, but it beats many of the more recent ones.

• Video Link

Originally Posted by RumbleFish

Cool link. I generally do not argue with stats, but it is hard for me to believe that New york is denser than Hong Kong or Tokyo.

Your right, Hong Kong is denser. While it might have a larger land mass, a lot of it is unbuildable due to the mountains. Hence the insane number of skinny towers which house 1000's. Peak density is also much higher. In terms of units, the ones in HK are not spacious. 900 sq ft is massive in that city. New Yorkers might have small apartments (most of them), but its nothing compared to the pods that they have in HK or Tokyo.