|
|
|
|
|
|
by flomo
1632 days ago
|
|
|
I believe this to be complete bullshit, and the infrastructure deficit is far worse in large cities which supposedly have the population density to pay for it. Look at NYC: everything outside of central Manhattan seems like it's about to collapse. San Francisco is billions in the hole for maintaining the water system and so on. It seems to be mostly wishful thinking that the suburbs will go bankrupt to due to routine maintenance. (It is a problem in more sprawled-out exurbs to be sure.) |
|
|
Most Expansive Definition of Population (TriState + Bay Area) — 28M Just the Population (USA) — 330M
Most Expansive Definition of Land area (TriState + Bay Area) — 11K sq mi Just the Land area (USA) — 4000K sq mi
A common bias for non-US folks is to put too much focus on “the biggest” US urban center.
For England, 20% of the population lives in “greater London”. For France, 15% live in the Paris unité urbaine.
It’s different in the US. The population of NYC is almost a rounding error in the total US population (~3%). The population of the NYC “Tri-State” area, in its most expansive definition, is ~6%. They are also the only folks who think NYC is any sort of unique cultural lead for the US.
The population of San Francisco actually is a rounding error for the total US population. The whole Bay Area is bigger, but only at about ~2% of the US population. And again, they are the only folks who think San Francisco is a unique cultural lead.
Both urban regions are actual rounding errors when it comes to US land area.
And divide by a factor of 10 when discussing the dense urban core of NYC or San Francisco, which is what some folks rant about. Just move the decimal point over one to the left. Yes, they are that small.
So don’t read too much into these sorts of (NYC+SF) discussions as a barometric reading on the entire US.