# (City Proper) High Density Cities vs. Low Density Cities



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

cello1974 said:


> Well, depends on the city's size. I can easily walk around in Frankfurt's city centre. But if I wanted to walk around in Hamburg, it would be more difficult. But what I mean with walkability is that the city itself has large areas for pedestrians, is not as hustle-bustle and chaotic as a hyper density city. Tokyo, Mexico City, São Paulo and even NYC are in my opion horrible places to live in. They are super dense and even though, everything is far, you depend on cars also!!!! This has nothing to do with density, but yes with the city's size!


All the cities you mentioned have extensive transit systems, they're far less car-dependent than low density cites, as is the case with most dense cities.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

ReddAlert said:


> exactly! I couldnt live in one of those super cities like Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Barcelona..etc. I could be on a ski hill, hiking or climbing in some forest, mountain biking, etc. really in short notice if I wanted.


 then hong kong fits u


----------



## beta29 (Sep 30, 2004)

I also prefer High Density Cities!


----------



## Englishman (May 3, 2003)

IMO London has it about right, plenty of parks, but dense enough for public transport and walking to be viable. It gets progresively less dense as you go further out. Perfect!


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

mad_nick said:


> All the cities you mentioned have extensive transit systems, they're far less car-dependent than low density cites


They are less car-dependent, but unfortunately they have too many stupid people who still buy cars and wait around in traffic all day long shouting at pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ Yes, but there are far fewer cars per capita, and less people drive.
Most of the people taking transit in high density cities would probably drive in a low density city, adding even more cars to the roads, and increase the environmental destruction even further.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

mad_nick said:


> All the cities you mentioned have extensive transit systems, they're far less car-dependent than low density cites, as is the case with most dense cities.


Well, actually, São Paulo has no extensive transit system, 54 km of metro system is somewhat short... :runaway:


----------



## JBOB (Aug 26, 2005)

In my opinion High density = equals real city...


----------



## JBOB (Aug 26, 2005)

Once Again..


----------



## muc (Sep 29, 2005)

I think comparing city densities is always quite problematic because the result depends largely on how the city's boundaries are drawn. And that is handled differently everywhere.

Generally I prefer high density cities but only if they include enough parks and other green and quiet spots. Having a beautiful countryside not too far from the city helps, too.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

I far prefer high density cities. They result in better transit and in more pedestrian friendly streets. 
That said, it is difficult to make direct comparisons as some larger cities amalgamate with their inner suburbs so they seem less dense than they are. The same with cities with large urban parks suchas Vancouver or things like airports as some airports are technically within the city ie EdmontonMuniciple and TorontoDownsview.


----------



## c0kelitr0 (Jul 6, 2005)

i also prefer in a high-density city. i used to live in a small town with a population of only 70,000 but the town's only 11 sq km so it's like 6,363/sq km! and the town has this fast urban feel to it.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

high density

Paris 
63,321 inh. per sq. mile


----------

