# The amazing density of NYC!!!



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

The density of the New York City area is amazing. Consider the following populations that are located within 25 miles of the New York City border:

Population (Approx) Square Kilometers (Approx)
NYC 8M 780
Hudson Cty/NJ 610,000 162 
Essex Cty/NJ 796,000 336
Union Cty/NJ 530,000 273
Bergen Cty/NJ 897,000 606
Passaic Cty, NJ 498,000 510
Nassau Cty, NY 1.3M 1,200 
Westchester, NY950,00 1,300 

By contrast, in London:

Greater London 7M 1,600
Kent 1.3M 3,700
Essex 1.3M 3,700
Herts 1M 1,600
Buckinghamshire 479,000 1,900
Surrey 1M 1,670


In Tokyo, the figures are:
12,527,115 (8,444,531 in 23 wards) 2,187.08 km²

Shanghai:
10 million 2700/km²

Chicago:
2,896,016 606.1 km²

Mexico City:
8,605,239 (D.F.) 1,547 km² (D.F.)

Singapore:
4,017,700 692.7 km² 

Seoul, however, is dense beyond belief:
10,276,968 607 km²


----------



## EarlyBird (Oct 2, 2004)

Since when has an entire British county been comparable with a US city in terms of population density? Your conclusions are nothing more than a joke as usual.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Mr. Inferiority Complex, the only US city listed is New York City. Everything else listed in the NYC area is a county.


----------



## EarlyBird (Oct 2, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> Mr. Inferiority Complex, the only US city listed is New York City. Everything else listed in the NYC area is a county.


The problem being that UK counties and US counties are completely different. US counties are closer to UK boroughs than they are to UK counties.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

HUH? LOL


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

Who gives a damn? Wow well done for being dense :|


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

Nassau?? funny thats a small town in east-germany.
theres an island in the caribics which has also been named Nassau. It was a german colony and was named after that city.But I had no idea that there is a NY district having that name aswell.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

Not a very scientific way of measuring density...
I put together an area of about 601 square miles, slightly smaller than London's 607 sq miles, in the NYC area.

600.9 square miles, with a population of 10,837,371 (18,035 ppsm)

Including the city and the following county subdivisions:
Guttenberg town, Hudson County, New Jersey
West New York town, Hudson County, New Jersey
Union City city, Hudson County, New Jersey
Hoboken city, Hudson County, New Jersey
Jersey City city, Hudson County, New Jersey
Weehawken township, Hudson County, New Jersey
Mount Vernon city, Westchester County, New York
Fort Lee borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Palisades Park borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Cliffside Park borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Fairview borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
North Bergen township, Hudson County, New Jersey
Bayonne city, Hudson County, New Jersey
Yonkers city, Westchester County, New York
Kearny town, Hudson County, New Jersey
Harrison town, Hudson County, New Jersey
East Newark borough, Hudson County, New Jersey
Newark city, Essex County, New Jersey
Irvington township, Essex County, New Jersey
East Orange city, Essex County, New Jersey
City of Orange township, Essex County, New Jersey
Elizabeth city, Union County, New Jersey
Roselle Park borough, Union County, New Jersey
Edgewater borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Bloomfield township, Essex County, New Jersey
Nutley township, Essex County, New Jersey
Roselle borough, Union County, New Jersey
Hillside township, Union County, New Jersey
Clifton city, Passaic County, New Jersey
Paterson city, Passaic County, New Jersey
Prospect Park borough, Passaic County, New Jersey
Passaic city, Passaic County, New Jersey
Wallington borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Garfield city, Bergen County, New Jersey
Lodi borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Hackensack city, Bergen County, New Jersey
Bogota borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Belleville township, Essex County, New Jersey
Hasbrouck Heights borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Ridgefield Park village, Bergen County, New Jersey
Maywood borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Elmwood Park borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Haledon borough, Passaic County, New Jersey
Little Ferry borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Pelham town, Westchester County, New York
New Rochelle city, Westchester County, New York
Teaneck township, Bergen County, New Jersey
Bergenfield borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
New Milford borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Ridgefield borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Secaucus town, Hudson County, New Jersey
North Arlington borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Leonia borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Fair Lawn borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
North Arlington borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Lyndhurst township, Bergen County, New Jersey
East Rutherford borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Carlstadt borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Moonachie borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Teterboro borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
South Hackensack township, Bergen County, New Jersey
Englewood city, Bergen County, New Jersey
Eastchester town, Westchester County, New York
Perth Amboy city, Middlesex County, New Jersey
Maplewood township, Essex County, New Jersey
South Orange Village township, Essex County, New Jersey
Montclair township, Essex County, New Jersey
Glen Ridge borough, Essex County, New Jersey
River Edge borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Saddle Brook township, Bergen County, New Jersey
Verona township, Essex County, New Jersey
Hawthorne borough, Passaic County, New Jersey
Rutherford borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Wood-Ridge borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Dumont borough, Bergen County, New Jersey
Cranford township, Union County, New Jersey
Essex Fells borough, Essex County, New Jersey
Caldwell borough, Essex County, New Jersey
Rochelle Park township, Bergen County, New Jersey
Mamaroneck town, Westchester County, New York


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

It's a county on Long Island. I think that it's named after a place in England.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

London-B , lighten up, whats up with that.
Checker.. yep there is. Nassau County , which is on Long Island , right next to Queens.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

london-b said:


> Who gives a damn? Wow well done for being dense :|


You needn't take it as an insult. I don't see why you would.


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

Too dense for me to live in but that's cool.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Yeah, New York IS a bit dense. Nothing gets through to those people.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Actually the Los Angeles area is denser than the New York City area. It may seem funny but the Los Angeles area is the densest urban area in the U.S. The entire metro has an average of about 7,000 peepz per sq. mi


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> Actually the Los Angeles area is denser than the New York City area. It may seem funny but the Los Angeles area is the densest urban area in the U.S. The entire metro has an average of about 7,000 peepz per sq. mi



I don't find that funny, really. More like "huh?"


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

nygirl said:


> London-B , lighten up, whats up with that.
> Checker.. yep there is. Nassau County , which is on Long Island , right next to Queens.


Ah, sorry about that, I've had my coffee now


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> Actually the Los Angeles area is denser than the New York City area. It may seem funny but the Los Angeles area is the densest urban area in the U.S. The entire metro has an average of about 7,000 peepz per sq. mi


Define LA metro, because the one wikipedia is telling me about is bigger than the country of Panama.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

New York is dense! But Hong Kong is denser!


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

Is it really? Because I tried to figure this out. NYC calculates Density without water area, HK does (even if only 5% water). When I tried to calculate HK with water it was these were the results.

Hong Kong: 6556/km²
NYC: 10,292/km²



With water (New york City is 51% water):

Hong Kong: 6,254/km²
NYC: 6673.319/km²


Uhhh thought to compare:

Manhattan: 28,949/km² 
Hong Kong Island: 18,000/km²


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

JayeTheOnly said:


> Is it really? Because I tried to figure this out. NYC calculates Density without water area, HK does (even if only 5% water). When I tried to calculate HK with water it was these were the results.
> 
> Hong Kong: 6556/km²
> NYC: 10,292/km²
> ...



Only about 20% of the total area of HK is usable. The other 80% are hills.

Quite a number of areas in HK reach a population density of 150,000/km^2.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

Hmmmmm, never knew that. That's why you can't just work with numbers. Like Toronto is something like 20% Ravine, Creek, Park, and Forest. Making Toronto's Population Density 5000/km². But then you have to keep in mind Toronto is only 37% Residential...


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ That's actually not that uncommon, only about 100 sq miles (33% of the total area, 41.4% of the total lot area) of NYC is residential, and 60 sq miles (20%, 25% of lot area) is open space.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> The density of the New York City area is amazing. Consider the following populations that are located within 25 miles of the New York City border:
> 
> Population (Approx) Square Kilometers (Approx)
> NYC 8M 780
> ...


Sorry Mike you're not comparing like for like, most of the populations of those english counties are clustered next to the main bulk of London, not spread over the whole area.

I've shown a map before that shows that 20 million of Englands population live in a much smaller area of land with london at the centre, than do the equivalent 20 million with New york at the centre.
It will be the same for most european countries.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ Could you please post a link? There are those of us who don't exactly take everything you say at face value...

BTW, check out the data I posted above, the New York area has 10.8 million people in 600 square miles(1554 sq km), the size of Greater London, which has 7 million people. The part outside the city proper has a population density only slightly lower than Greater London as a whole (9,500 ppsm vs. 11,500 ppsm) and the city proper has a population density of 26,000 ppsm, denser than inner London (23,000), an area almost three times smaller.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

spxy said:


> Sorry Mike you're not comparing like for like, most of the populations of those english counties are clustered next to the main bulk of London, not spread over the whole area.
> 
> I've shown a map before that shows that 20 million of Englands population live in a much smaller area of land with london at the centre, than do the equivalent 20 million with New york at the centre.
> It will be the same for most european countries.


There aren't 20 million people in all of those enormous counties surrounding London. Moreover, the English counties are enormous compared to the ones surrounding NY, and like-sized counties around NY would engulf Philadelphia.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> There aren't 20 million people in all of those enormous counties surrounding London. Moreover, the English counties are enormous compared to the ones surrounding NY, and like-sized counties around NY would engulf Philadelphia.


Yes there are, you haven't counted all the counties of South East England.

There are three main population areas accounting for most of Englands 49 million population. North from Liverpool-Manchester-leeds-Shefield.Midlands
Birmingham-Coventry and then London and around.

Here is the map of South East England and an area populated by around 20 million, scaled using google maps.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

manhattan is denser than paris. and paris is really dense. manhattan is denser than london center.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

PhillyPhilly90 said:


> Actually the Los Angeles area is denser than the New York City area. It may seem funny but the Los Angeles area is the densest urban area in the U.S. The entire metro has an average of about 7,000 peepz per sq. mi


The whole LA metropolitan area is denser than the whole NYC metropolitan area. That's because LA's core city is not dense but the suburbs are relatively dense for American standards. NYC has a very dense core but the outher suburbs have very low densities. Those outher suburbs are take a lot of land and take the average metropolitan densety lower.
One of the reasons for the bigger LA density are the S.Bernardino Mounts limiting the sprawl to the West and north.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

spxy said:


> There are three main population areas accounting for most of Englands 49 million population. North from Liverpool-Manchester-leeds-Shefield.Midlands
> Birmingham-Coventry and then London and around.


Englands Population is now 50 million!


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

I think it's fucking obvious New York is denser then London I mean London is a bigger city almost 2.5 times bigger but it has 7.2 million compared to New York's 8 mill. So what? That's good for London because I'd hate to live like a caged rat in a box stacked on on top of each like in NY. We have lots of luscious space and greenland WITHIN this city, loads of beautiful parks far more then NY. You can actually breath here, I'd rather have that thankyou very much.

PS, comparing those areas of New York with counties surrounding London is laughable. Everyone knows those counties in England are filled with wonderful countryside, the population of those areas are contained within the small in size cities and towns like Watford in Hertfordshire or Rochester in Kent. And these towns are dense, much more dense that those crappy suburban sprawls in the US that are an eyesore.

Thankyou and Goodnight.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

Sitback said:


> I think it's fucking obvious New York is denser then London I mean London is a bigger city almost 2.5 times bigger but it has 7.2 million compared to New York's 8 mill. So what? That's good for London because I'd hate to live like a caged rat in a box stacked on on top of each like in NY. We have lots of luscious space and greenland WITHIN this city, loads of beautiful parks far more then NY. You can actually breath here, I'd rather have that thankyou very much.
> 
> PS, comparing those areas of New York with counties surrounding London is laughable. Everyone knows those counties in England are filled with wonderful countryside, the population of those areas are contained within the small in size cities and towns like Watford in Hertfordshire or Rochester in Kent. And these towns are dense, much more dense that those crappy suburban sprawls in the US that are an eyesore.
> 
> Thankyou and Goodnight.


wrong side of bed?
:runaway:


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

No I'm just tired of MikeHunt trying to make out New York is better then London by posting stupid figures about population density.

'Cos no matter what he says. We all know how he is thinking behind his computer monitor he has become that predictable.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Sitback said:


> I think it's fucking obvious New York is denser then London I mean London is a bigger city almost 2.5 times bigger but it has 7.2 million compared to New York's 8 mill. So what? That's good for London because I'd hate to live like a caged rat in a box stacked on on top of each like in NY. We have lots of luscious space and greenland WITHIN this city, loads of beautiful parks far more then NY. You can actually breath here, I'd rather have that thankyou very much.
> 
> PS, comparing those areas of New York with counties surrounding London is laughable. Everyone knows those counties in England are filled with wonderful countryside, the population of those areas are contained within the small in size cities and towns like Watford in Hertfordshire or Rochester in Kent. And these towns are dense, much more dense that those crappy suburban sprawls in the US that are an eyesore.
> 
> Thankyou and Goodnight.


Take it easy, buddy. I love London and did not say that NY is better. I think that NY and London are equally great. Nonetheless, I did say (and have said) that London is a much smaller city than NY is. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to accept that. Moreover, its smaller size does not denigrate it. 

PS: You have no idea what you're talking about with respect to parks. NY has loads of park space including the following huge ones: Central Park, Prospect Park, Van Cortland Park and Flushing Meadows Park.


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

rocky said:


> manhattan is denser than paris. and paris is really dense. manhattan is denser than london center.


Comparing Manhattan to Paris is apples or oranges. Comparing NYC to Paris is apples to apples.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ Comparing NYC to Paris is no more apples to apples than comparing Manhattan to Paris.
A fair comparison would take into account the area, so to compare Paris to the city of New York, you would have to include surrounding areas so the total area is about 300 sq miles. The same thing applies when comparing Manhattan to Paris, you would either have to compare it to a smaller area than Paris city proper, or compare Paris with Manhattan and areas surrouding Manhattan that add up to the area of Paris city proper.

@spxy, could you post a key for that map? It doesn't appear to be counties, so it's a bit hard to verify or refute your claim.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> Take it easy, buddy. I love London and did not say that NY is better. I think that NY and London are equally great. Nonetheless, I did say (and have said) that London is a much smaller city than NY is. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to accept that. Moreover, its smaller size does not denigrate it.
> 
> PS: You have no idea what you're talking about with respect to parks. NY has loads of park space including the following huge ones: Central Park, Prospect Park, Van Cortland Park and Flushing Meadows Park.


Oh yeah ok yeah right.

No. You always make threads about New York saying "Wow wow wow New York has these figures... and here are London's by comparisons."

You do it allthetime. You really are on a mission to try and make out NY is the better of the two, it's getting tiresome and it's bleedin' obvious and you should stop trying to deny it and just come clean. PS, yeah New York is bigger in Population density and pop but as a city against city in physical size, London in bigger. It feels bigger too, I know I lived in Jersey City for 6 months. So you can give that NY is MUCH bigger then London rubbish a rest straight away.

Oh yeah and I'm aware of these big parks in NYC but what about in and between, nowhere near as much parkland as London. Nowhere near.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

London is actually a much smaller city than New York is, notwithstanding the fact that Greater London (which includes suburban areas in Kent and elsewhere) is larger than the 5 boroughs. NY could absorb suburbs in NJ, southern Westchester and Nassau County and call itself greater NY as London did. Nonetheless, the urban core of NYC is much larger than the urban core of London.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> London is actually a much smaller city than New York is, notwithstanding the fact that Greater London (which includes suburban areas in Kent and elsewhere) is larger than the 5 boroughs. NY could absorb suburbs in NJ, southern Westchester and Nassau County and call itself greater NY as London did. Nonetheless, the urban core of NYC is much larger than the urban core of London.


Errrr... WTF?

No you are just wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong I don't even need to explain but I will. The real London City only has a population of 7,000, but don't let legal terms full you (you've quite clearly been had). Greater London is the boundaries of the 32 boroughs of London. Like the 5 boroughs of New York but split up into smaller areas. All of them are governed by the Mayor of London, all of them policed by the London Met, all of them using the same London infrustructure, same taxis, buses, underground services, all of them using the same two regional phone codes etc etc etc ALL THE THINGS OF A CITY.

And no Greater London does not include areas in suburban Kent, Hertfordshire and other adjacent counties. Places like Harrow have the Hertfordshire postcode but are officially part of Greater London which is a county in it's own right and has nothing to do with being in Hertfordshire at all. I live in Hendon, right next to Hertfordshire but we are very much part of London, for I know I can drive to Central London in a continous urban sprawl.

Now pipe down and stop talking nonsense.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

You are wrong. Chislehurst, Bexley, Croydon and other places in Kent and Surrey are included in the geographic and population figures for Greater London.

City of London † 
City of Westminster 
Kensington and Chelsea 
Hammersmith and Fulham 
Wandsworth 
Lambeth 
Southwark 
Tower Hamlets 
Hackney 
Islington 
Camden 
Brent 
Ealing 
Hounslow 
Richmond 
Kingston upon Thames 
Merton 
Sutton 
Croydon 
Bromley 
Lewisham 
Greenwich 
Bexley 
Havering 
Barking and Dagenham 
Redbridge 
Newham 
Waltham Forest 
Haringey 
Enfield 
Barnet 
Harrow 
Hillingdon


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

No. They are all part of Greater London and in fact have nothing to do with being 'places in Kent or Surrey.'

End of story, They are part of Greater London, a county in it's own right and the boundaries of the 7,300,000 pop of London. Everyone in Britain knows the deal, I don't care for your dilusional yank view.


----------

