You’re comparing only the cities proper. A better comparison is urban areas, i.e., the contiguous built-up regions, as stats for cities proper are skewed by the arbitrariness of municipal boundaries and stats for metropolitan areas are skewed by often encompassing large amounts of rural areas.
To compare urban area densities:
Tokyo urban area has a population of 39,105,000 and an area of 8,547 km2, for a density of 4,575 people per km2
Paris urban area has a population of 10,859,000 and an area of 2,854 km2, for a density of 3,805 people per km2
The urban area is what people refer to as Paris. A good comparison is Los Angeles. Lots of people say they “live in LA” but in fact live in Santa Monica or Long Beach or Pasadena or any of a million other suburbs that together form the Los Angeles urban area.
When people say they live in Paris, 99% of the time they’re not talking about the arbitrary municipal boundaries; they’re talking about the urban area.
When people say they live in LA, 99% of the time they’re talking about the urban area.
When people say they live in Buenos Aires, 99% of the time they’re talking about the urban area.
When people say they live in Tokyo, 99% of the time they’re talking about the urban area.
“Urban area” is simply a term meant to capture what people mean when they refer to a city, unrestricted by the arbitrariness of municipal boundaries.
What…? The “urban area” is the built area. If you lived in the “non urban area”, you’d live in a park or something. I don’t think you understood what the commenter and the data meant.
People who have never been here confuse Paris and its suburbs.
Paris is one of the few cities that has never grown. It has kept its size of 1860. So there are no places to build stuff on.
There are other cities around Paris, which are part of the urban area, if you like, but which are seen as less desirable by the locals.
Sorry, urban planning isn’t just a one size fits all thing. Each location has its own specificities. Paris grew that way. That led to a specific set of problems that aren’t just solved by just building new stuff.
Just let people build more vertically, prohibit investment into real estate and build more public housing. Expand public transport to areas around Paris and build public housing around it.
Like there are fixes, there are examples of places resolving issues like this.
Look at China for example.
Paris already has pretty good urbanism and city planning. But the REAL solution is decommodifying housing, and the government would never do that as landlords are some of the most powerful people politically everywhere.
Paris has a bit over 22% of social housing at the moment I think. It’s constantly buying real estate to create more. And any new project has to integrate 20% of social housings.
As for the rest, there’s strong reluctance against high buildings because they would change the skyline of the city. There are a few, here and there, but they aren’t liked. Obviously, they would contribute to adding some new dwellings on the market. But apparently, the people prefer a tense market with a “nicer” city. Things may change eventually.
I don’t know why you are saying this. I know areas that are officially part of NYC that are less developed than areas around the city. The line of where a city ends and begins is a government thing not a reflection of where people really live. Just compare say Jersey City to anywhere on Staten Island.
Don’t compare how a random us city works with Paris. Different cities work in different ways and the people who live there don’t necessarily see things the same way.
Tokyo density 6 200 / km²
Paris density 20 000 / km²
Tokyo may be larger, but you’re comparing two very different things.
You’re comparing only the cities proper. A better comparison is urban areas, i.e., the contiguous built-up regions, as stats for cities proper are skewed by the arbitrariness of municipal boundaries and stats for metropolitan areas are skewed by often encompassing large amounts of rural areas.
To compare urban area densities:
Tokyo is more dense.
Maybe, but people want to live in Paris. Not in the urban area.
The urban area is what people refer to as Paris. A good comparison is Los Angeles. Lots of people say they “live in LA” but in fact live in Santa Monica or Long Beach or Pasadena or any of a million other suburbs that together form the Los Angeles urban area.
When people say they live in Paris, 99% of the time they’re not talking about the arbitrary municipal boundaries; they’re talking about the urban area.
When people say they live in LA, 99% of the time they’re talking about the urban area.
When people say they live in Buenos Aires, 99% of the time they’re talking about the urban area.
When people say they live in Tokyo, 99% of the time they’re talking about the urban area.
“Urban area” is simply a term meant to capture what people mean when they refer to a city, unrestricted by the arbitrariness of municipal boundaries.
Those aren’t good comparisons though. You cannot compare cities between them because that’s not how cities work.
What…? The “urban area” is the built area. If you lived in the “non urban area”, you’d live in a park or something. I don’t think you understood what the commenter and the data meant.
People who have never been here confuse Paris and its suburbs.
Paris is one of the few cities that has never grown. It has kept its size of 1860. So there are no places to build stuff on.
There are other cities around Paris, which are part of the urban area, if you like, but which are seen as less desirable by the locals.
Sorry, urban planning isn’t just a one size fits all thing. Each location has its own specificities. Paris grew that way. That led to a specific set of problems that aren’t just solved by just building new stuff.
Just let people build more vertically, prohibit investment into real estate and build more public housing. Expand public transport to areas around Paris and build public housing around it.
Like there are fixes, there are examples of places resolving issues like this.
Look at China for example.
Paris already has pretty good urbanism and city planning. But the REAL solution is decommodifying housing, and the government would never do that as landlords are some of the most powerful people politically everywhere.
Paris has a bit over 22% of social housing at the moment I think. It’s constantly buying real estate to create more. And any new project has to integrate 20% of social housings.
As for the rest, there’s strong reluctance against high buildings because they would change the skyline of the city. There are a few, here and there, but they aren’t liked. Obviously, they would contribute to adding some new dwellings on the market. But apparently, the people prefer a tense market with a “nicer” city. Things may change eventually.
Sounds similar to how San Francisco became completely unaffordable.
I don’t know why you are saying this. I know areas that are officially part of NYC that are less developed than areas around the city. The line of where a city ends and begins is a government thing not a reflection of where people really live. Just compare say Jersey City to anywhere on Staten Island.
Don’t compare how a random us city works with Paris. Different cities work in different ways and the people who live there don’t necessarily see things the same way.