Do you think NYC is too dense?

(the smaller and redder the census tract the denser)

http://merlot.caliper.com/MaptitudeTempFiles/a4595a15.png

http://barbera.caliper.com/MaptitudeTempFiles/af6b42c8.png

http://merlot.caliper.com/MaptitudeTempFiles/a503227f1.png

i think it is ok. i think they should have more tall building, rather than alot of short, ugly buildings

NY is not dense enough.

Y'all crazy. I'm more partial to Boston's or DC's density. NYC is too dense and unsustainable.

everyone has their own opinion :)

NYC has a lot of room to get more dense, such as the far west side and Long Island City.

NYC is not dense enough.
My type of city is Paris, but in the case of NYC, it has so much room to grow, just look at the gap from DT to Midtown. Also, they should surround the whole Central Park with tall buildings, otherwise there's nothing to watch on the north side (I mean skyline), everyone just turn their heads to the South, but not to the North when making pics. Imagine how good it would look to have the same wall surrounding the park!

Central Park would be insane if it was all surrounded by skyscrapers. It could happen too.

NYC isn't dense enough, no. Outside of Manhattan density drops off considerably. Although the other boros are still pretty dense though. :) If private developers still develop, the area they are developing isn't dense enough. ;)

NYC is not dense enough.
My type of city is Paris, but in the case of NYC, it has so much room to grow, just look at the gap from DT to Midtown. Also, they should surround the whole Central Park with tall buildings, otherwise there's nothing to watch on the north side (I mean skyline), everyone just turn their heads to the South, but not to the North when making pics. Imagine how good it would look to have the same wall surrounding the park!
Actually I think that the gap between DT and MT is nice. It's got loads of unique feel to it, dozens of cool neighborhoods, and I actually don't want that whole place to become a business district (sorry for being a nimby in this case). I also want Harlem to stay gritty cause it would be kind of wrong for me to think of Harlem as a nice place, not a ghetto. But everything else - BUILD THE HELL OUT OF IT!!! Esp Brooklyn and Queens downtowns. And put some more density in DT and MT, cancel all zoning and height restrictions there. I mean what are they aftaid of, building too tall in a CBD?

^well how about along Broadway, or any other avenue, just surround that one, as to give a look of a link from one place to the other.
Anyway, I agree that companies should focus more to Brooklyn and Queens, but what I don't want to see is Staten Island being developed. It should stay as NYC's New Jersey ;)

NY is not dense enough.


thats what I'm talkin' about!

i do want it to be denser, but not denser as in Tokyo. denser as in taLLer buildings

Why, Ellatur, then you can't see the sun, which is already a problem in NYC (Manhattan)?

you can see the sun very well in NYC, I've gotten sunburns just being out riding my bike in the summer.
The really shadowed places are maybe 42nd street and the surroundings, and maybe DT along the little alleys, but otherwise NYC is a pretty open city, large streets and wide avenues. I'm characterizing NYC as just being Manhattan, but the rest of the boroughs are the same, big streets, low buildings.

"you can't see the sun, which is already a problem in NYC (Manhattan)?"

It's not a problem.

"you can't see the sun, which is already a problem in NYC (Manhattan)?"

It's not a problem.
Is that why NYC implemented setback laws a while back?

I think NYC needs to get alot denser. But it is good for now. :)

no it's not,it can get more dense imo ,i wouldn't mind :yes:

Can't get too dense in terms of skyscrapers (population maybe, but not at the moment). Oh yeah, and there's plenty of sunlight. In fact the shadows that skyscrapers cast keep direct sunlight out of your eyes most of the time (in the heavily built up areas), which is nice.

their should be a new WTB in NY but i doubt that would ever happen again with asia rising and rising...anyhow NYC could use more 1000 fters.
i love the new NY times tower,what's up with 1 new york place ??

I've never bin to the USA(New York) but planning to go. I've seen it on tv ect. There's not many city's like New York it's good to have a dense place, it's somewhere different and something else to experience.

NY is all about density, that's just the unique character of Manhattan; and I really love it, it makes you feel so small between all those skyscrapers, then you really feel you're in the capital of the world.
And dense enough? NOPE, can and must be much denser

Manhattan isn't too dense....it's too expensive.








KGB

^ :lol: lol so true :)

NY is not dense enough.
I second that !

Manhattan isn't too dense....it's too expensive.

Second that too, lol. :colgate:

I just got population density figures for NYC and the five boroughs based on the US Census figures (population figures for June 2003, followed by density in parentheses) It's in our interests to read these numbers before making our final decision about how dense the Big Apple is. It should also be noted that a tenth of the city's land area belongs to the Department of Parks. *wink*.

New York City as a whole: 8,085,742 (26,597 per sq. mi) Area: 304 sq. mi.

Borough Population & Density:
Manhattan: 1,564,798 (68,034 per sq. mi) Area: 23 sq. mi.
Bronx: 1,363,198 (32,457 per sq. mi) Area: 42 sq. mi
Brooklyn: 2,472,523 (34,824 per sq. mi) Area: 81 sq. mi.
Queens: 2,225,486 (20,417 per sq. mi) Area: 109 sq. mi.
Staten Island: 459,737 (7,792 per sq. mi) Area: 59 sq. mi.

It should also be noted that a tenth of the city's land area belongs to the Department of Parks. *wink*.

Actually, about 20% of the city's land area (25.2% of lot area) is parkland according to the dept. of city planning, and only 32% of the land area (41.4% of lot area) is residential.(including mixed use)

The city can never be too dense!!

I've asked this question in a different form but I'll repose it here.

A number of posters on this thread have commented that they really like the fact that downtown and midtown Manhattan are separate skylines, unjoined. The same folks same they would lament any filling in between the two, not only for the effect that it has on the skyline but the effect it would have on the ground in numerous real neighborhoods between the two.

In light of these observations, do you think that the Manhattan skyline (skylines if you count downtown and midtown separately) would be enhanced or detracted by high rise growth along the East River in Brooklyn and Queens?

I don't see any problems with high rise growth there, I don't see why it should be detracted

One thing that makes New York, New York, is it's density that compares to no other city in the country. There's still plenty of room to have energetic, yet comfortable densities in Queens. Staten Island is more like a separate more suburbanish entity. Not sprawl, but not midrise or highrise canyons like the rest of the city. I don't want the gap between downtown and midtown filled in. That's there for a reason. I would like to see more prominent skylines rise in downtown Brooklyn as well as Long Island City. Then the city could form sort of a loop of business districts a lot like Tokyo... centered on a loop rail line. New York certainly has the capability and infrastructure to do that, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a plan like that come into serious consideration. haven't they already zoned those parts of Brooklyn and Queens for higher density and capped off most of the rest of the two boroughs in hopes of that?

Too dense? Is that even possible? Of course it's not too dense.

Well, there are denser areas in the world. Take Hong Kong, where some residential areas at the outer edges exceed 90,000 people per sq. mi.

Manhattan isn't too dense....it's too expensive.








KGB

Density=expensive, doesn't it?
The less space means more expensive. Do you guys think parts of Brooklyn are "Manhattanizing" or will eventually become just as expensive as parts of Manhattan?

Do you think NYC is too dense?

(the smaller and redder the census tract the denser)




WTF!?! How come there is no option to vote for it not being dense enough!!!

New York is great and any extra densities only make it better.

Density=expensive, doesn't it?


Well that's very simplistic...

Well, there are denser areas in the world. Take Hong Kong, where some residential areas at the outer edges exceed 90,000 people per sq. mi.


Some census tracts on the Upper East Side have almost 200,000 people per sq. mi.

Isn't Yorktown the most densely populated place in the world? :dunno:

WTF!?! How come there is no option to vote for it not being dense enough!!!

New York is great and any extra densities only make it better.
Sorry, dude, didn't know you guys were so die-hard about density.

Well, there are denser areas in the world. Take Hong Kong, where some residential areas at the outer edges exceed 90,000 people per sq. mi.
Yeah, HK is pretty dense. Apparently, it's the densest in the world! You'd think Tokyo is the densest since it's the largest, nonetheless, it's still pretty dense. I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather live in NYC in Tokyo.

Tokyo
http://ci.uofl.edu/tom/photos/Japan/tokyo-shinjuku.jpg

Isn't Yorktown the most densely populated place in the world? :dunno:

I think you ment to say "Yorkville". This hood is centered around the intersection of Second Avenue and 86th street. I once read that the area bounded by 79th, 86th, Lexington Avenue, and the East River is the most densely populated census tract in the country, coming in at around 200,000 people per square mile. This area looks almost like Hong Kong with all of the 30-40 story apartment buildings.

BTW, since someone brought Tokyo up, neither the 23 wards, nor the four core wards taken as a whole, nor any individual ward, are as dense as Manhattan. The 23 wards are denser than the five boroughs but nothing in Tokyo can beat Manhattan.

I'd rather live in NYC in Tokyo.

You're telling me. :D

BTW, since someone brought Tokyo up, neither the 23 wards, nor the four core wards taken as a whole, nor any individual ward, are as dense as Manhattan. The 23 wards are denser than the five boroughs but nothing in Tokyo can beat Manhattan.
Yeah, but downtown Tokyo is inland. Manhattan is literally on the coast.

I think you ment to say "Yorkville". This hood is centered around the intersection of Second Avenue and 86th street. I once read that the area bounded by 79th, 86th, Lexington Avenue, and the East River is the most densely populated census tract in the country, coming in at around 200,000 people per square mile. This area looks almost like Hong Kong with all of the 30-40 story apartment buildings.

BTW, since someone brought Tokyo up, neither the 23 wards, nor the four core wards taken as a whole, nor any individual ward, are as dense as Manhattan. The 23 wards are denser than the five boroughs but nothing in Tokyo can beat Manhattan.

My bad, Yorkville :wallbash:

Yes. Definitely too dense. Mainly having to do with all the tourists. As far as urban density, its just fine. Although there are only a fraction of NYC's population living on the island. Alot of it is made up of office space.

density is what i love about nyc. without it, there wouldn't be such huge clusters of skyscrapers in midtown and downtown. no other city, not even hk, can boast of such great quantity of commercial skyscraper and such huge cbd skyline, and only chicago, i feel, have more diversity in skyscraper architecture (nyc gotta build more postmodern buildings).

and the good thing is that nyc keep its density in check with the 1916 zoning laws that requires setbacks for buildings to allow more sun to reach the street, so you won't feel trapped and constrained by all these big buildings rising straight up from the edge of their plot. many buildings in the city look nice with setbacks added to them (even though i find those white wedding cake int'l style skyscrapers to be ultra ugly). downtown's ultra dense all right, but it really gives a financial district appearance. midtown's much more open, and its density is pretty balanced, very suitable for me...

the only thing i don't like about the skyline growth in the city is all those new tall residential towers that are popping up all over the place. i don't mind them going up in turtle bay, upper east side/yorkville, and upper west side/lincoln square regions. but i believe they should cut down on them in clinton (to keep the midtown skyline clearly visible from the hudson river) and the area between midtown south and financial district should be devoid of tall residential skyscrapers (except near madison square and along the east river).

Why, Ellatur, then you can't see the sun, which is already a problem in NYC (Manhattan)?
Then again, some of us live so far north it's not like we get much sun half the year anyway...
:D

Then again, some of us live so far north it's not like we get much sun half the year anyway...
:D
Very, very good point. Tho, places with little sunshine should be able to enjoy what little they receive. ;)

What? A sun exists? Since when?

;)

Please, the sun hitting the ground argument is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I wonder how we all get tans in the summer?

My emotions will forever vote for NYC to be increasingly dense, but my sanity thinks I'd be better off living in somewhere scaled down. It all depends on what side you're talking about. ;)

New York get more dense?! are you crazy? They have hundreds of thousands of people living per sq mile. there are 8.2 million people living in that city. Far more than any other city in America.

Not at all, I wish Chicago was as dense as NYC.

i think it is awesome just the way it is

who said new york city is the densest city in the world?
dont be ignorant, hong kong has higher population and skyscraper density than any other city in the world, when i come to nyc, i think street in manhattan is extremely wide compare wity hk,it might denser than other american city, but its still far away from hk ,and tokyo in density(although tokyo has less hoigh rise than ny) . try to have a look at hk photo and population density data in some website, nyc isnt that level. its grand, but not density. are more 90% new yorker live in high rise? because of density? hk does..

new york might be the greatest city in the earth. but it dont have all best and no.1 in every categories, every city has weak point.

^ Sure NY has its weak points (crime?) and nobody said that it's perfect, but I get your point.
Yeah, more people live in brick walk-ups than in high-rises....that's because most people live in the outer boros rather than Manhattan. There's nothing wrong with that, they'll get to Manhattan's level someday....a LONG time from now lol :lol:

HK is definetely more dense because of the mountains....but Tokyo? Maybe in some places....numbers can be spinned in anyone's favor....


KBG said it best- "New York isn't too dense, it's too expensive!" :lolL

who said new york city is the densest city in the world?
dont be ignorant, hong kong has higher population and skyscraper density than any other city in the world, when i come to nyc, i think street in manhattan is extremely wide compare wity hk,it might denser than other american city, but its still far away from hk ,and tokyo in density(although tokyo has less hoigh rise than ny) . try to have a look at hk photo and population density data in some website, nyc isnt that level. its grand, but not density. are more 90% new yorker live in high rise? because of density? hk does..

new york might be the greatest city in the earth. but it dont have all best and no.1 in every categories, every city has weak point.

What a hater. :weirdo:

did we say that we have all bests and no1s? stfu. seoul's density beats the shit out ot hk's, so be humble and keep your mouth shut. shall we all go to hongkong forums and bitch about how great we are?

Tokyo only beats NYC for metropolitan area density. Going by municipal bounderies, NYC is actually a lot denser than Tokyo. Also, Manhattan is a lot denser than Tokyo's comparable central area, the Yamanote cirlce.

michigan avenure:
i hate nyc?? so what, whats wrong, i only said the fact of density of nyc, so what, any problems? :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

NYC too dense?!? It's not DENSE ENOUGH!!!

ellatur:
seoul has higher density than hk?
dont be silly, check some accurate informaytion first
London can have higher density than nyc, just joking like you...

New York get more dense?! are you crazy? They have hundreds of thousands of people living per sq mile. there are 8.2 million people living in that city. Far more than any other city in America.

So... It's not dense ENOUGH!!?!

I would like to see every last parking lot developed into a 90 storey residential tower... actually... it does not have to be skyscraper... just anything but a parking lot.. maybe that extra supply will help reduce the price of renting.

^ I wish :D

Some census tracts on the Upper East Side have almost 200,000 people per sq. mi.

A typical residential area in Hong Kong has a population density of 160,000 people per sq km (or 410,000 people per sq. mi). The densest spot on Earth is officially in Hong Kong (Mongkok).

New York's density is far too low. How could Hong Kong have higher densities than NY? This is an outrage! New York should have census tracks twice as dense as anything in HK BUT it must be done NY style, and not Hong Kong style which is frankly kinda bland IMHO.

michigan avenure:
i hate nyc?? so what, whats wrong, i only said the fact of density of nyc, so what, any problems? :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

The majority of the posts you make in this forum portray your hatred for NY, so yeah it is a problem.

the problem is what?
should you tell the forumer to remove?? :runaway:
hate is my freedom, i can say ny is great but not perfect
some inperfect thing is agruable, but most people dont want to discuss them, and said everything is best, only talk to best thing to said this city is best in everything, like talk ESB, but never talk its ugly buiding and said this is a style, but bash other city which has this same thing.too naive, if forumer alarm me, i will respect, i dont want to hear any shit and whats incredible problem by michigan,.....

i think this forum might be controlled by communist, no objective opinion allowed, it this forum managed by china, is it really new york forum, are you truly american? :eek2: :eek2:

mr. man
check some information first, hk is famous in highest density in world, nyc has everything best for american , but not this one. dont be ignorant, ny might be highest density in usa only..

New York's density is far too low. How could Hong Kong have higher densities than NY? This is an outrage! New York should have census tracks twice as dense as anything in HK BUT it must be done NY style, and not Hong Kong style which is frankly kinda bland IMHO.

Hong Kong is by far much denser than NYC. If you have been to both cities, you would be able to see the difference.

FYI, the 400,000/sq mi number is actually for the suburbs in Hong Kong. Now find a suburb in NYC that is as dense.

It is official that HK is much denser than NYC so there shouldn't be an argument here.

A typical residential area in Hong Kong has a population density of 160,000 people per sq km (or 410,000 people per sq. mi). The densest spot on Earth is officially in Hong Kong (Mongkok).
Both Central Hong Kong and Midtown/Downtown Manhattan greatly exceed 160,000/km² during the day.

According to my calculations, Midtown's daytime population may approach 473,751/km² across 4.24 km². If you think that's high, the WTC exceeded 772,201/km² across 16 acres. It shouldn't be hard to imagine that the rest of Manhattan's Financial District has similarly high population densities.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=3275230#post3275230

New York city should be denser!!!! There should not be places like the Brooklyn Navy Yard, for example. Or those wasted real estates along the FDR in lower Manhattan...

Y'all crazy. I'm more partial to Boston's or DC's density. NYC is too dense and unsustainable.
It is absolutely sustainable, but most important of all, environmentally friendly. DC's and Boston's sprawling city type is a killer for the environment, the more we live in apts and forget about the house in the prairie, the longer we will have this beautiful globe.

^well how about along Broadway, or any other avenue, just surround that one, as to give a look of a link from one place to the other.
Anyway, I agree that companies should focus more to Brooklyn and Queens, but what I don't want to see is Staten Island being developed. It should stay as NYC's New Jersey ;)
Agree that Brooklyn and Queens need to have the same density as Manhattan.

There is no gap between midtown and downtown!!! It's filled with a very dense city. That part of the city is mostly residential and residential buildings aren't usually tall.
I think what you guys are scared of is that part of Manhattan becoming 6th avenue in midtown... but that is an extreme, and not an ideal. The ideal is to combine residential and commercial to keep people in the neighborhoods at all times... eyes on the street keep criminality down.

^^^^^I may be wierd but I love 6th Aveue in Midtown (not that I would want other areas outside of Midtown to look like that). 6th Avenue in Midtown feels so grand and monumental, it just screams out corporate power. It is such a jaw dropping canyon.

It is absolutely sustainable, but most important of all, environmentally friendly. DC's and Boston's sprawling city type is a killer for the environment, the more we live in apts and forget about the house in the prairie, the longer we will have this beautiful globe.
What about socially sustainable?

I don't know socially, but it may be economically more effective. Just think about snow removal. While a snow plow cleans my street now, I can guess about 200 families just in my building are being serviced, however, in the suburbs, when a street gets plowed, only 4 to 10 families get serviced. Now apply the same thought to sewage piping, trash removal, use of cement, etc.

There will be other maintenance costs though. It's all personal preference. I don't like too much sprawl, but I've seen many of the places that the normal people in Tokyo live, and I don't like it very much. I don't think there's anything wrong with have space and a yard or something. I mean, I think it's fine the way it is, it's diverse enough in it's density. So whether in a rowhouse with a yard or a 60th floor apt. it really doesn't matter, I like how there are places with skyscrapers and places without them.

there is no such thing as too dense

Yeah im all for a denser, especially taller, New York. Theres plenty of room for it (at least veritcally) and Urban sprawl is happening so fast so we might as well build taller to slow it down.

I think you guys are forgeting a major factor though: transportation. I was in a car trying to get from one point to another in Manhattan today and it was completely hopeless. I think the biggest obstacle of building more higher is the congestetion that all that extra density will cause. The streets are bad enough.

I think mass transit is key, phase out the automobile some more. I dont know much about the subways but im sure NYC can greatly improve its system. Make even better than Londons or Tokyo's. I think it will greatly help the city grow especially in further on in the future. If your not gonna build improve the subway system i guess you could always just widen the streets :)

What about socially sustainable?

:wtf:

You need to get out of North Carolina more often and visit the city before your criticize it.

Your last statement made no sense.

I'm guessing you're not too familiar with our city. There are setback laws and public squares and parks on nearly every block. There is plenty of sunlight in this city, I just got a nice tan in Madison Square Park at lunch.

I think that Nyc is pretty dense compared to cities like Los Angeles or Houston which they have destroyed their downtown's historic buildings in order to make space for parking lots. Also, keep in mind that Manhattan was the densest area in the world during the 20s, as Lower East Side had the bigger density in the world!

Is New York too dense? That's a hard question to answer. One thing, however, seems evident to me. When New York developed its unique form of density, based on high rise towers with areas between also very dense, there was no place like it in the world.

New York, let's say in the 1950's, was unique. A celebration of density at a time when so much of the culture of the US was centralized in the Big Apple.

When looking at NYC density today, one has to keep in mind that there are other cities with similiar high rise density and many, many more with similiar of greater density than NYC in residential density.

With such desnity out there globally now, New York's sense of being dense loses much of its uniqueness....and perhaps some of its appeal. If you're not sure what I mean: think Central Park. Can you imagine what a vision from hell NYC would have been if people did not have the foresight to back the park project?

NY needs to think in terms of protecting the lower portions of its envirnoment, even if it builds to the sky in other areas.

Is New York too dense? That's a hard question to answer. One thing, however, seems evident to me. When New York developed its unique form of density, based on high rise towers with areas between also very dense, there was no place like it in the world.

New York, let's say in the 1950's, was unique. A celebration of density at a time when so much of the culture of the US was centralized in the Big Apple.

When looking at NYC density today, one has to keep in mind that there are other cities with similiar high rise density and many, many more with similiar of greater density than NYC in residential density.

With such desnity out there globally now, New York's sense of being dense loses much of its uniqueness....and perhaps some of its appeal. If you're not sure what I mean: think Central Park. Can you imagine what a vision from hell NYC would have been if people did not have the foresight to back the park project?

NY needs to think in terms of protecting the lower portions of its envirnoment, even if it builds to the sky in other areas.

What makes NY's density so unique in my opinion are the dense skyscraper canyons in contrast to the lowrise neighborhoods and parks. Parks like Central Park, Riverside Park, Batery Park, and the forests way uptown preserver a sense of human scale. It is this very reason why Minori Yamasaki, when designing the tallest buildings in the worls at the time, surrounded them by 10 story lowrise buildings. These lowrise areas and parks emphasize the skyscraper areas even more, and create human scale - something that I think has ben lost in a city like Hong Kong.

New York is not dense enough! We should be cramming nearly 3 million people into Manhattan. Do not say it can't handle it, as we have before, in 1910 of all times.

What makes NY's density so unique in my opinion are the dense skyscraper canyons in contrast to the lowrise neighborhoods and parks. Parks like Central Park, Riverside Park, Batery Park, and the forests way uptown preserver a sense of human scale. It is this very reason why Minori Yamasaki, when designing the tallest buildings in the worls at the time, surrounded them by 10 story lowrise buildings. These lowrise areas and parks emphasize the skyscraper areas even more, and create human scale - something that I think has ben lost in a city like Hong Kong.


very true!

Yes, too dense, I prefer post-WWII cities.