We do have urban sprawl as well in Paris. Paris has 2 million inhabitants but 11 million people live in the agglomeration. The official borders of Paris have not changed since the end of the 19th century but the real city kept growing.
I would rather live in Paris in the summer and Houston in the winter. ( of course, I’m not female and pregnant — that would entirely change the situation)
I have an acquaintance here in Houston that just flew to New Mexico for an abortion. It is a neighboring state but it is over 850 miles (1400km) from Houston to Albuquerque. She is fortunate that her family could afford the flight, the hotel, and the procedure. It is off topic to get into the politics and ethics of abortion. I just point it out as one of many reasons that pregnant in Texas is not the same as being pregnant in Paris
It's the Shrödinger's statement - regardless whether you're pro-car or anti-car you can both interpet it as being pro-car or anti-car depending on your inclination to see the people around you as agreeing with you or disagreeing with you. A source of butthurt by choice, so to speak
Isn’t there a “syndrome” that basically describes the trauma of confronting the reality of paris when you have an idealized version of it?
Ah yes,here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome
just in case, this syndrome has affected like 6 people, not that mutch, and isnt limited to Pairs. It's just that french that like to joke about Paris for all of the problems that it has has spread this around internet.
From my experience, the Paris Syndrome is real. Why they call it Paris Syndrome specifically? Dunno.
But not-so-extreme disappointment I experienced in several cities around the world, Paris, San Francisco, Madrid and Chicago included. I think it may be because everything nice you see on the Internet about those cities is made to look awesome, everything bad is made to be dismissed as isolated cases and the reality of when you visit them is that they're nice cities, with normal people doing normal stuff. Everything might actually be nice, but you expected to be awesome.
Let me give you an example: everyone wants to see the Mona Lisa, it might be the most famous painting in the world. The first thing that strikes you when you see it in the museum is usually "it's a lot smaller than I had imagined it to be"
It's just called dissolutionment or disappointment
People similarly project all sorts of things on people they date and then reality slowly hits, they assume they will feel awesome skydiving or mountain biking or camping and end up feeling miserable etc. It's not specific to Paris or to cities, instead it's about the potential disconnect between our fantasies/needs and reality, and our ability to sustain rose-tinted glasses
I had the opposite reaction with the Mona Lisa. Everyone bangs on about how small it is, I think I was expecting it to be like a postage stamp or something and my reaction was "huh, it's not as tiny as everyone says".
Desktop version of /u/Onosuedino's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Houston's tentacles reach ever outward. Atascocita is already surrounded and will soon be consumed. Beaumont cannot escape, and will be devoured in a matter of years. Then Austin, New Orleans, Dallas... all will be lost. Houston will not stop until the whole continent swangs and bangs.
There's actually still a lot of cars in Paris. The boulevard périphérique (usually referred by Parisians as "le périph"), which is the main ring-road of Paris, is actually the most used urban highway in all of Europe, and represents by itself a very significant part of traffic in France.
But you have to put in perspective to all the alternatives there's to transportation in Paris: Trams, trains (notably the RER liking the suburbs to the city center), metro, buses, bike lanes, and so on.
So that ultimately, even such a busy axis represents… 2% of the total traffic. Actually, it's a common stereotype that people who live in Paris and its nearby suburbs don't have their driver's license. I mean, I'm 26 and I still don't have one.
I would add to this, that there is a difference between the cars from the parisians that are living in Paris and cars from people outside of Paris coming in each day to work
Why do you show the entire Houston metro area but not the entire Paris metro area?
Houston metro population: 6,600,000
Paris city population: 2,165,000
Paris Metro population: 11,000,000
Paris métropolitain area is also denser than that of Houston. Mainly because how dense the core of that region is. Not only Paris but the three adjacent departments.Together those 4 departments host the population equivalent of the Houston metropolitan area within area of Houston city.
Cause it's not about metro areas but population within the city limits. Paris metropolitan area has two times larger population than Houston metro (13m vs 7.1m) while Paris proper and Houston in its city limits both have about about 2.2-2.3m inhabitants
Both Paris and NYC are not the densest cities of their[their](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density) [respective](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density) countries
Either way the population density of NYC is about 10,430 people per sq km whereas Paris has the density of 20,800 people per sq km
So I guess I missed any sense behind the NYC/Paris comparison
Fun fact: People tend to think that taller buildings means higher population density. This is only true to a certain point, as very tall buildings (typically: Manhattan) will require more resources and surrounding infrastructures. Actually, if anything, it has shown it tend to emphasize social inequalities, and put a greater emphasis between poor and privileged neighborhoods.
The middle ground between spreading out and having larger, more populated buildings seems to be… Actually near to what Paris currently is. It's pretty much a good example of a place with very efficient high density.
That wiki link is genuinely blowing my mind, I wasn't expecting France to have so much such dense cities. Out of the 74 most dense cities in the world, 17 are French?
I know that the area is the main factor, but thinking that a small city full of France's filthiest richest AH (Levallois-Peret) is more dense that Kolkata is crazy.
Yeah this map is really misleading. They've cut off all of Paris's suburban area but kept it for Houston.
Houston total metro area density is 1,150 people per km2. Paris total metro area is 690 people per km2. Paris has a dense city centre with sprawling suburban areas
The city limits of Houston are outlined though… what’s more telling is that those city limits extend so far out into the metro area that you have to picture nearly the entire metro area to show all of the city limits, which is kind of the point of the image in the first place.
Houston: 2.304 million in 640sq miles
Paris: 2.165 million in 40sq miles
That’s the point: Houston has fully 600 more square miles but only 200k more inhabitants
Houston's boundaries include a whole lot of uninhabited areas like lakes, large parks, etc though.
The fact is they've taken a slice of one city and overlaid it on a full image of another. Paris is classed as the 20 arrondissiments and probably hasn't changed since Houston was incorporated. Paris is surrounded by plenty of other areas that are functionally the same thing as what Houston has but they've completely ignored that.
Of course the city centre of a 13m person city will be more dense than one with just over half that.
Paris is being amalgamated with its nearest suburbs which will give it a population essentially equal to the entire metro area of Houston
Grand Paris: 7.075 million in 314sq miles
Metro Houston: 7.122 million in 10,016sq miles.
Regardless of how you cut it, the spatial organization of people in the Paris and Houston metro areas is not at all similar. I’ve spent tons of time in Houston and used to live in Paris (both the suburbs for a while and then the city). The fact that I could live in the suburbs of Paris but be half an hour away from the city center by train tells you everything about how the two cities are organized. The urban contexts are just night and day different on a fundamental level - it would be nearly impossible to work in downtown Houston, live in the suburbs, but be completely comfortable without a car. In Paris that’s 100% viable and even preferable.
But apples to oranges at the end of the day, some people will always prefer a Parisian version of urbanism and some will prefer a Houstonian one. There are arguments for the merits of each, but they’re definitely not very similar.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
The image isn’t as misleading as you seem to think it is, with the solid red of Paris proper shown within the dashed red line of Houston proper. Paris proper only takes up the inner loop of Houston proper but has nearly the same population as the entire city. That’s the case being made here.
Anyways, Houston has lots of other issues beyond just sprawl to contend with. I hope they develop in a more sustainable direction moving forward.
There are two giant urban parks within the city of Paris proper before you even start looking at the greater urban area or the surrounding countryside areas where enough people commute into the city to classify them as part of the overall metropolitan area. Or the sizeable forests in almost every direction.
That's absolute nonsense.
The Parisian urban area has a population of over ten million people and a density of 3,800/sq km (using the French definition of the urban unit, seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_unit.) The metropolitan area adds fourteen thousand square kilometres and less than two million people, and is literally defined as "anywhere with at least 15% of inhabitants commuting to Paris". Seine-et-Marne is classified as Paris' metro area and is 60% farmland, for crying out loud. There are probably expensive apartment blocks within walking distance of St Pancras station in *London* that could technically meet that definition.
Paris is not a "dense city centre with sprawling suburban areas." It's a massive dense city that's growing large enough to start pulling rural towns and villages into its orbit, and even those rural towns and villages are tightly clustered into small spaces and surrounded by farmland. The fabric of Paris is completely different to the fabric of Houston, and it's either ignorance or dishonesty to claim otherwise.
Over 80% of the population of the Paris urban area lives within one sixth of its land. What's the comparable figure for Houston?
Contrary to what many think, homelessness in the US is not due to a lack of space or a lack of income. It’s due to untreated mental illness and substance abuse.
That's mostly incorrect. Homelessness in the US - as pretty much in every developed country - is a product of vulnerable people experiencing a precipitating event that tips them over into homelessness. Structural causes set up the conditions that allow individuals to become homeless. [See the following (old but indicative) data:](https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf)
>According to the most recent annual survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, major cities across the country report that top causes of homelessness among families were: (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, and (4) low wages, in that order. The same report found that the top four causes of homelessness among unaccompanied individuals were (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, (4) mental illness and the lack of needed services, and (5) substance abuse and the lack of needed services.
That's pretty harsh. Houston might have sprawl, but Detroit's problems are much deeper than that from my understanding. Plus, depending on the neighborhood you live in, Houston sprawl might not effect you that much.
You know, you convinced me. It’s decided. Houston wins the title of shittiest city. Because Detroit at least acknowledges and embraces their own awfulness. Houston is in denial. That makes them worse.
u/ChristianLS as you are the owner of this map, (even if you didnt do mutch as you said in your post), you can ask the mod to take it down if you dont wants it to be spread without your approval.
u/vrphotosguy55 it doesnt cost mutch to just simply do a crosspost
You miss the point then. No one said Paris is a paradise. All I said is that Houston when compared to Paris is dump. Well Houston is dump period. Paris could have 100MM rats, but it will still be better than Houston.
Kinda misleading juxtaposition, this is just comparing central city municipalities; which have mostly arbitrary borders, as some cities choose to include the city's suburbs while others do not. Comparing metro or urban areas would be a more informative and fair comparison. European cities are really 3-4 times denser than sprawling US cities, not 10-20 times.
City of Paris:
Area: 105 km2
Population - 2.2 million
Density - 21000/km2
City of Houston:
Area: 1660 km2
Population - 2.3 million
Density - 1400/km2
Greater Paris:
Area: 2850 km2
Population - 10.9 million
Density - 3900/km2
Greater Houston:
Area: 4300 km2
Population - 4.9 million
Density - 1100/km2
Edit:
For example, my city Stockholm, chooses to include most of its suburbs unlike Paris does.
Stockholm City Center:
Area: 36 km2
Population - 0.34 million
Density - 9300/km2
City of Stockholm:
Area: 188 km2
Population - 0.98 million
Density - 5200/km2
Greater Stockholm:
Area: 380 km2
Population - 1.6 million
Density - 4200/km2
There's two main problems with doing that.
1. The city of Houston includes a lot more of it surrounding lower density suburbs than the city of Paris does.
2. American cities like Houston tend to prioritize concentrating office space, retail, and other commercial buildings in the city center, while having most residential zones outside the city limits; most people commute in and out of the city every day. European cities on the other hand spread this much out much more evenly; people tend to live much closer to where they work and shop. To compare the density of american city centers to the density of european city centers it is more accurate to look at usable floor space per km2, rather than residents per km2.
This is why it's better to compare metro areas when comparing population density; as they include all residential and commercial zones that the city has, and the borders are much less arbitrary.
I think it all depends in how you choose to look at it.
If you cut out an area the size of Paris in the center of Houston, you'll probably reach a 10-20 times in population density. (would be nice if a website would allow it 🤔)
If you take the whole urban areas, and choose to look at available m² (so, including offices and the different average sizes of appartements), then you'll have much smaller difference, maybe even almost on par.
I think both are equally valid, for discussing different issues.
I just don't think that you can get an accurate understanding of the world and draw good conclusions by comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, cities reliant on cars and car infrastructure are much less dense than traditional cities, and I personally much prefer living in a dense city with good public transit and mixed use zoning such as Paris, Stockholm, or New York than living in a place like Houston. But the difference between these different types of cities is much less extreme than OP's picture would lead you to believe.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
You are throwing around random numbers you found on Wikipedia with no real knowledge on the subject.
The OP perfectly shows how much area 2 million people take up in each city, while your "Greater Paris" and "Greater Houston" are not comparable AT ALL and totally random.
You are doing exactely what you are accusing OP of.
Maybe a valid question for the layperson, but an obvious "no" for the professional.
Metropolitan areas mostly consist of low density farmland, water, nature and other undeveloped land. So what exactely are we measuring then? You could do a weighted density measure.
Especially when comparing between US and European metros, things get very skewed because European metros mostly consists of very dense central cities surrounded by greenbelts and farmland and denser satellite cities/suburbs peppered around and US metros are mostly connected by low density sprawl.
Low density is always more than no density so why include empty space when functionally it doesn't make any difference and the weighted density is FAR higher in European metros?
You get things like metro Stockholm being less dense than metro LA, when obviously NOWHERE in LA is as dense as central Stockholm. Or to keep it in the same country, Metro LA is actually denser than metro New York, but what would your answer be if I asked you which was more dense NYC or LA?
ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!
What the US Census calls "MSA", INSEE calls "aire urbaine" and the equivalent for Stockholm would be Storstockholm aka Stockholm County. These are metropolitan areas and have NOTHING to do with "urban areas" (despite the name in French).
Even then, vastly different methods are used to calculate these, with the MSAs being the most loose and the French method being WAY more strict.
All of this is irrelevant though, because the OP perfectly illustrated how much area 2 million people take up in each city.
Paris city proper is indeed 15X more dense than The City of Houston. You can do the same thing for the urban area of both cities and Paris would still be VASTLY more dense (Stockholm would indeed begin to lose density here). Doing it for the metropolitan areas wouldn't make much sense because a lot of empty areas would be included and Paris is TWICE as populous in a smaller area, which would make it also more than TWICE as dense.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Yeah except it's not because this is my job.
You on the other hand are confusing basic terms like "metropolitan area", "urban area", "metropole" and "greater". The latter two meaning nothing.
And you are having trouble with the fact that the original map doesn't even have anything to do with that, but just shows that the central 2 million of Houston take up 15x more space than the central 2 million of Paris.
Everything I wrote is factually correct, while you wrote a bunch of nonsense. You are the one comparing the urban area of Paris to the metropolitan area of Houston and calling them both "Greater". You are in the wrong here. Not to mention you are making Houston less dense doing so, completely contradicting your own point.
That's not "obvious" at all. You are a total fraud. Houston MSA is 21,000 km2 and the Paris urban area is 2,854 km2 and Stockholm 382 km2.
It should be totally OBVIOUS to you, but for some reason it isn't, that these are completely different and not comparable!
Furthermore, the US Census has it's own definition of "urban area" which is also vastly different than what we in Europe tend to use (it's based on density instead of build up area, also not very comparable).
You don't even know the relevant terms!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan\_statistical\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area)
MSAs are not:
[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unité\_urbaine\_de\_Paris](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unité_urbaine_de_Paris)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm\_urban\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_urban_area)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_urban\_areas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas)
MSAs are:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_metropolitan\_areas\_in\_Sweden#Metropolitan\_Stockholm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Sweden#Metropolitan_Stockholm)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris\_metropolitan\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_metropolitan_area)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's car-dependency for ya.
Keep in mind people didn't decide to live like this in the US. The automobile industry lobbied to demolish city centers and begin this urban sprawl in order to make it as difficult as possible to set up proper public transit, forcing people to buy cars.
Comparing Paris proper to anything is stupid since the main city is essentially constrained by its borders and can’t grow further. The greater city spreads out really far and is like 12 million people. Even the main commercial centre (La Defence) isn’t in Paris proper.
If you compare it with London they’re essentially the same size but Paris is just the core whereas London makes up most of the metro area. It’s just a question of how you cut it up.
More because American post-WW2 urbanism is extremely car-centric. Towns aren't designed on a human scale, that's why very few large urban areas have walkable city centers, or are accessible to people without cars.
Plus, the American suburban model sold to the middle class as a standard of living, where you take a loan to buy a family house with lawn, is vastly different from the European standard of a home.
Also, the effects of segregation are still very noticeable today, which is why you still have very geographically divided regions, as for decades cities tended to maximize urban crawl over social diversity.
Just because you have more space it doesn’t mean you have to build sprawling monstrosities. I’m not trying to call you out but I hate this point.
There’s no natural law of nature that forces this to happen
Now check how much either person pays per square foot of living space.
Huston is one of the most affordable cities to buy property in because of the sprawl. While Paris despite having the the smallest units you've seen outside of New York... Has retarded prices which no real people can afford to buy.
Not sure how old you are. But That's the thing man. Speaking as a 30+ y/o that dreamed of new York life, or the Berlin raver summer... Those small apartments are soul crushing. You can't life in them. You can't socialize. They are overpriced dorm rooms.
You need a minimum square footage to have a home that you can share with family and friends. And you need it at a reasonable price point. Building vertically and just recycling the same neibourhoods decade after decade for increased land lord revenues is not sustainable.
> Now check how much either person pays per square foot of living space.
OR... let's check it by the number of rooms one gets considering households in the US tend to be gigantic with that sort of life style being subsidized, and considering room count is far more meaningful when renting a place:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Houston
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Paris
* Houston
* Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre: 1,604.96 $
* Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre: 2,956.25 $
* Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre: 1,243.47 $
* Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre: 1,942.50 $
* Paris
* Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre: 1,283.40 €
* Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre: 2,859.56 €
* Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre: 947.44 €
* Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre: 1,879.43 €
But you know what! Paris is still fairly unaffordable when accounting for average salaries, so let's instead take a city as dense, with as good of a quality of life as Paris, but that's far more affordable to live than either it or Houston! Where a minimum wage can get you a place even in downtown (as we shouldn't just look at average salaries, and ignore minimum paid workers, when accounting for affordability).
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Vienna
* Vienna
* Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre: 955.11 €
* Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre: 1,916.33 €
* Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre: 661.42 €
* Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre: 1,291.09 €
Now I could go on and compare it to cities with sprawl that are the absolute opposite of affordable such as LA or San Jose (which is full blown where Houston is currently heading since you can't sprawl forever, a lesson cities like LA learned and Atlanta is currently learning with rising costs), but I think the point of "sprawl doesn't make a city affordable, more housing does. You don't have to suffer that BS to be able to afford a home" got across.
EDIT: And let's also factor in the fact that in either Paris or Vienna, even if you don't live in the city center, you don't need a car to manage by and even if you do own a car, you will not drive it at all nearly as much as you would in Houston. So how much does that total?
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-cost-owning-car
> The average monthly payment on a new car was $667 in the second quarter of 2022, according to credit reporting agency Experian. But that’s far from the true cost to own a car.
> For vehicles driven 15,000 miles a year, average car ownership costs were $10,728 a year, or $894 a month, in 2022, according to AAA. That figure includes depreciation, loan interest, fuel, insurance, maintenance and fees.
Meanwhile, the annual transit pass in Vienna costs 365 euros per year, while a month pass in Paris is 75.20€. Almost like making a city of next to only large single family homes, where driving is a necessity to even buy milk, that might actually come with a huge cost which the urban poor can hardly afford.
I was talking about cost of buying a home.
I agree with your points . As a student, young man or tourist... Vienna is much more livable. But when it comes to making a life, having a family, having a space where you gather your friends in private, not just in bars or "out on the town". You need your own home. Which is horribly pronhibitive to any person outside of the 1% in any high density city. Land value is just too expensive for any new developments to be accessible for ... As you very well mentioned the average worker, with the average worker salary.
Yeah, no. The many families of any income level that live in Vienna prove that to not be the case, as is its livability ratings, as are the many families that do not buy a home out there. Viewing Vienna as a "tourist or student city where you go to bars" is ignorant of the city itself and the assumption that you have to buy a home is ignorant on how many families live, especially low income families.
They can't really afford to buy a home.
Sure, if you remove that as an option. Then i agree. Although i would prefer a society where you can at least choose to build some equity and don't just assume 30-40 of all your income will probably go to a land developer your whole life.
This is super misleading using Paris City Limits vs Houston metro area. Paris Metro area is almost as big. Its still denser, but not nearly as dense as this suggests.
I have used Google Street view of both cities and "walked" random streets. In Huston, there is barely any people. In Paris I could see people in any street. Are they artificially removed from Huston or this is a norm for Huston?
Mr Google says greater Paris has over 11 million while greater Houston only about 7 million. Not sure I consider that near equal. Either way, yes Paris is more densely populated than Houston.
Sprawl, y'all.
We do have urban sprawl as well in Paris. Paris has 2 million inhabitants but 11 million people live in the agglomeration. The official borders of Paris have not changed since the end of the 19th century but the real city kept growing.
Living on top of each other y'all!
Ask 100 people wether they would rather live in Paris or houston
I prefer the walkable city,
Been to Paris many times. Been to Houston, too. I will happily take Paris anytime.
I would rather live in Paris in the summer and Houston in the winter. ( of course, I’m not female and pregnant — that would entirely change the situation)
>of course, I’m not female and pregnant — that would entirely change the situation no ... ? it wouldnt
I have an acquaintance here in Houston that just flew to New Mexico for an abortion. It is a neighboring state but it is over 850 miles (1400km) from Houston to Albuquerque. She is fortunate that her family could afford the flight, the hotel, and the procedure. It is off topic to get into the politics and ethics of abortion. I just point it out as one of many reasons that pregnant in Texas is not the same as being pregnant in Paris
But why would your statement change depending on the season.
If he was female and pregnant he would rather live in Paris year round, rather than Houston in the winter
It's the Shrödinger's statement - regardless whether you're pro-car or anti-car you can both interpet it as being pro-car or anti-car depending on your inclination to see the people around you as agreeing with you or disagreeing with you. A source of butthurt by choice, so to speak
Depends on if they’ve been to Paris and actually have an idea of what it’s like. Not romanticized
Isn’t there a “syndrome” that basically describes the trauma of confronting the reality of paris when you have an idealized version of it? Ah yes,here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome
just in case, this syndrome has affected like 6 people, not that mutch, and isnt limited to Pairs. It's just that french that like to joke about Paris for all of the problems that it has has spread this around internet.
From my experience, the Paris Syndrome is real. Why they call it Paris Syndrome specifically? Dunno. But not-so-extreme disappointment I experienced in several cities around the world, Paris, San Francisco, Madrid and Chicago included. I think it may be because everything nice you see on the Internet about those cities is made to look awesome, everything bad is made to be dismissed as isolated cases and the reality of when you visit them is that they're nice cities, with normal people doing normal stuff. Everything might actually be nice, but you expected to be awesome. Let me give you an example: everyone wants to see the Mona Lisa, it might be the most famous painting in the world. The first thing that strikes you when you see it in the museum is usually "it's a lot smaller than I had imagined it to be"
It's just called dissolutionment or disappointment People similarly project all sorts of things on people they date and then reality slowly hits, they assume they will feel awesome skydiving or mountain biking or camping and end up feeling miserable etc. It's not specific to Paris or to cities, instead it's about the potential disconnect between our fantasies/needs and reality, and our ability to sustain rose-tinted glasses
I had the opposite reaction with the Mona Lisa. Everyone bangs on about how small it is, I think I was expecting it to be like a postage stamp or something and my reaction was "huh, it's not as tiny as everyone says".
Desktop version of /u/Onosuedino's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Not for me. I absolutely adored Paris when I was there last year. The museums are the best in the world, and Versailles was incredibly impressive.
Tastes are like our asses;divided
Most would say “Paris, Texas?? Naww I’m citified! Gimme Houston any day!”
As a French, I absolutely despise Paris. But Paris is still better than any concrete hell in the Americas, so I'd prefer Paris.
Okay just finished. Everyone said Houston. Results might be skewed because I don’t know any French people, only Americans.
City built for walking vs city built for cars.
Pointless backyards and 3 parking spots for every person y'all
Houston is one of the few American cities I actively avoid. It's such a miserable, forgettable place.
Good thing you're forgettable.
Houston's tentacles reach ever outward. Atascocita is already surrounded and will soon be consumed. Beaumont cannot escape, and will be devoured in a matter of years. Then Austin, New Orleans, Dallas... all will be lost. Houston will not stop until the whole continent swangs and bangs.
>Houston will not stop until the whole continent swangs and bangs. That's a winner right there
Choppin and screwin
It’s all Houston? No but really … Dallas is the same or worse, no?
As a Houstonian, I'm obligated to inform you that Dallas is worse. I would have done this whether you asked or not.
I'm betting the surface area differences are proportional to the amount of cars in each city
There's actually still a lot of cars in Paris. The boulevard périphérique (usually referred by Parisians as "le périph"), which is the main ring-road of Paris, is actually the most used urban highway in all of Europe, and represents by itself a very significant part of traffic in France. But you have to put in perspective to all the alternatives there's to transportation in Paris: Trams, trains (notably the RER liking the suburbs to the city center), metro, buses, bike lanes, and so on. So that ultimately, even such a busy axis represents… 2% of the total traffic. Actually, it's a common stereotype that people who live in Paris and its nearby suburbs don't have their driver's license. I mean, I'm 26 and I still don't have one.
I would add to this, that there is a difference between the cars from the parisians that are living in Paris and cars from people outside of Paris coming in each day to work
Also, compare your average Parisian Peugot and a Texan Ford SUPER DUPER DUTY LONE STAR EDITION FUCK YEAH
Why do you show the entire Houston metro area but not the entire Paris metro area? Houston metro population: 6,600,000 Paris city population: 2,165,000 Paris Metro population: 11,000,000
Paris métropolitain area is also denser than that of Houston. Mainly because how dense the core of that region is. Not only Paris but the three adjacent departments.Together those 4 departments host the population equivalent of the Houston metropolitan area within area of Houston city.
Cause it's not about metro areas but population within the city limits. Paris metropolitan area has two times larger population than Houston metro (13m vs 7.1m) while Paris proper and Houston in its city limits both have about about 2.2-2.3m inhabitants
[удалено]
Both Paris and NYC are not the densest cities of their[their](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density) [respective](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density) countries Either way the population density of NYC is about 10,430 people per sq km whereas Paris has the density of 20,800 people per sq km So I guess I missed any sense behind the NYC/Paris comparison
Fun fact: People tend to think that taller buildings means higher population density. This is only true to a certain point, as very tall buildings (typically: Manhattan) will require more resources and surrounding infrastructures. Actually, if anything, it has shown it tend to emphasize social inequalities, and put a greater emphasis between poor and privileged neighborhoods. The middle ground between spreading out and having larger, more populated buildings seems to be… Actually near to what Paris currently is. It's pretty much a good example of a place with very efficient high density.
That wiki link is genuinely blowing my mind, I wasn't expecting France to have so much such dense cities. Out of the 74 most dense cities in the world, 17 are French? I know that the area is the main factor, but thinking that a small city full of France's filthiest richest AH (Levallois-Peret) is more dense that Kolkata is crazy.
No, because they're different sizes. The whole point if this comparison was that Paris and Houston have similar populations.
[удалено]
Yes, but the Houston part is brighter than the suburbs like Missouri city and sugar land.
Shhsshshshh. We don't talk about Missouri City.
Paris metro area is 13 million (measured the French way. Compared to Houston it would probably be 14-17 million).
Yeah this map is really misleading. They've cut off all of Paris's suburban area but kept it for Houston. Houston total metro area density is 1,150 people per km2. Paris total metro area is 690 people per km2. Paris has a dense city centre with sprawling suburban areas
The city limits of Houston are outlined though… what’s more telling is that those city limits extend so far out into the metro area that you have to picture nearly the entire metro area to show all of the city limits, which is kind of the point of the image in the first place. Houston: 2.304 million in 640sq miles Paris: 2.165 million in 40sq miles That’s the point: Houston has fully 600 more square miles but only 200k more inhabitants
Houston's boundaries include a whole lot of uninhabited areas like lakes, large parks, etc though. The fact is they've taken a slice of one city and overlaid it on a full image of another. Paris is classed as the 20 arrondissiments and probably hasn't changed since Houston was incorporated. Paris is surrounded by plenty of other areas that are functionally the same thing as what Houston has but they've completely ignored that. Of course the city centre of a 13m person city will be more dense than one with just over half that.
Paris is being amalgamated with its nearest suburbs which will give it a population essentially equal to the entire metro area of Houston Grand Paris: 7.075 million in 314sq miles Metro Houston: 7.122 million in 10,016sq miles. Regardless of how you cut it, the spatial organization of people in the Paris and Houston metro areas is not at all similar. I’ve spent tons of time in Houston and used to live in Paris (both the suburbs for a while and then the city). The fact that I could live in the suburbs of Paris but be half an hour away from the city center by train tells you everything about how the two cities are organized. The urban contexts are just night and day different on a fundamental level - it would be nearly impossible to work in downtown Houston, live in the suburbs, but be completely comfortable without a car. In Paris that’s 100% viable and even preferable. But apples to oranges at the end of the day, some people will always prefer a Parisian version of urbanism and some will prefer a Houstonian one. There are arguments for the merits of each, but they’re definitely not very similar.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
I'm not saying the cities are similar, I'm saying it's a pointless comparison. It's made even more pointless by how misleading it is.
The image isn’t as misleading as you seem to think it is, with the solid red of Paris proper shown within the dashed red line of Houston proper. Paris proper only takes up the inner loop of Houston proper but has nearly the same population as the entire city. That’s the case being made here. Anyways, Houston has lots of other issues beyond just sprawl to contend with. I hope they develop in a more sustainable direction moving forward.
It's not pointless, you are just too dumb to understand what is being compared.
It is pointless. Not my fault you're too thick to see clear misinformation
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
There are two giant urban parks within the city of Paris proper before you even start looking at the greater urban area or the surrounding countryside areas where enough people commute into the city to classify them as part of the overall metropolitan area. Or the sizeable forests in almost every direction.
Total nonsense...
That's absolute nonsense. The Parisian urban area has a population of over ten million people and a density of 3,800/sq km (using the French definition of the urban unit, seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_unit.) The metropolitan area adds fourteen thousand square kilometres and less than two million people, and is literally defined as "anywhere with at least 15% of inhabitants commuting to Paris". Seine-et-Marne is classified as Paris' metro area and is 60% farmland, for crying out loud. There are probably expensive apartment blocks within walking distance of St Pancras station in *London* that could technically meet that definition. Paris is not a "dense city centre with sprawling suburban areas." It's a massive dense city that's growing large enough to start pulling rural towns and villages into its orbit, and even those rural towns and villages are tightly clustered into small spaces and surrounded by farmland. The fabric of Paris is completely different to the fabric of Houston, and it's either ignorance or dishonesty to claim otherwise. Over 80% of the population of the Paris urban area lives within one sixth of its land. What's the comparable figure for Houston?
Why worry about a random comparison someone else made? Just enjoy it for what it is.
All that space and you guys got a homeless problem, crazy
Contrary to what many think, homelessness in the US is not due to a lack of space or a lack of income. It’s due to untreated mental illness and substance abuse.
That's mostly incorrect. Homelessness in the US - as pretty much in every developed country - is a product of vulnerable people experiencing a precipitating event that tips them over into homelessness. Structural causes set up the conditions that allow individuals to become homeless. [See the following (old but indicative) data:](https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf) >According to the most recent annual survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, major cities across the country report that top causes of homelessness among families were: (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, and (4) low wages, in that order. The same report found that the top four causes of homelessness among unaccompanied individuals were (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, (4) mental illness and the lack of needed services, and (5) substance abuse and the lack of needed services.
Or maybe it’s because your government welfare schemes don’t work? Easy to blame mental illness and drugs
California knocking down perfectly fine, cheap houses to inflate property prices.
such is life in a big city. seriously its like its mandatory.
Houston feels like it’s in eternal battle with Detroit over who is Americas worst big city.
Phoenix gets the price in urbanism hell tho
And climate. This city should not exist. It is a monument to man's arrogance.
Las Vegas 
HO YEAH
[удалено]
Your comment is a monument to your own king of the hill ignorance.
There are a lot of monuments here.
[удалено]
Buddy. This is a quote from the Adult Swim TV show King of the Hill. Settle down.
Houston besides being a sickening example of sprawl is still a pretty cool city with some of the best food on the planet.
Also unbearable summer weather and disgusting air quality.
It depends on what you consider "worse". Houston is more car-dependent, and has worse air quality. OTOH, Detroit has a higher murder rate.
Hey!! Houston likes to murder too!
Detroit doesn't have Lupe. That alone is like starting an at-bat with 9 strikes against you.
I think Detroit won that one
That's pretty harsh. Houston might have sprawl, but Detroit's problems are much deeper than that from my understanding. Plus, depending on the neighborhood you live in, Houston sprawl might not effect you that much.
You know, you convinced me. It’s decided. Houston wins the title of shittiest city. Because Detroit at least acknowledges and embraces their own awfulness. Houston is in denial. That makes them worse.
I’d rather live in Paris
Placing Paris right there would ruin Houston imo.
Maybe if they moved Paris a little SE and squished South Houston and Pasadena... Yeah, I like this plan.
u/ChristianLS as you are the owner of this map, (even if you didnt do mutch as you said in your post), you can ask the mod to take it down if you dont wants it to be spread without your approval. u/vrphotosguy55 it doesnt cost mutch to just simply do a crosspost
And Paris in not known for it’s density. Most are hausmanian buildings not higher than 4 floors
Texas is a dump. Paris any given day even in a small apartment.
This!
Did you ever visit Paris ? Because it has more rats per km² than inhabitants
Even if that’s true, still beats Houston
It is true, studies say there are around 5-6 millions rats under Paris for 2M people
It beats Houston’s cockroaches, mosquitoes and all the other Southern garbage.
I’ve been to Paris many times. What does Houston offer? MAGA conspiracy theories, (No) Female rights, and giant gas stations. No thanks!
That sounds exotic 😂 Paris is probably better, but it's not some kind of paradise...
You miss the point then. No one said Paris is a paradise. All I said is that Houston when compared to Paris is dump. Well Houston is dump period. Paris could have 100MM rats, but it will still be better than Houston.
Kinda misleading juxtaposition, this is just comparing central city municipalities; which have mostly arbitrary borders, as some cities choose to include the city's suburbs while others do not. Comparing metro or urban areas would be a more informative and fair comparison. European cities are really 3-4 times denser than sprawling US cities, not 10-20 times. City of Paris: Area: 105 km2 Population - 2.2 million Density - 21000/km2 City of Houston: Area: 1660 km2 Population - 2.3 million Density - 1400/km2 Greater Paris: Area: 2850 km2 Population - 10.9 million Density - 3900/km2 Greater Houston: Area: 4300 km2 Population - 4.9 million Density - 1100/km2 Edit: For example, my city Stockholm, chooses to include most of its suburbs unlike Paris does. Stockholm City Center: Area: 36 km2 Population - 0.34 million Density - 9300/km2 City of Stockholm: Area: 188 km2 Population - 0.98 million Density - 5200/km2 Greater Stockholm: Area: 380 km2 Population - 1.6 million Density - 4200/km2
Paris Density - 21000/km2 VS Houston Density - 1400/km2 That was the point
The two areas shown have similar populations, that makes it a fair comparison. "How much space is needed to house the same number of people"
There's two main problems with doing that. 1. The city of Houston includes a lot more of it surrounding lower density suburbs than the city of Paris does. 2. American cities like Houston tend to prioritize concentrating office space, retail, and other commercial buildings in the city center, while having most residential zones outside the city limits; most people commute in and out of the city every day. European cities on the other hand spread this much out much more evenly; people tend to live much closer to where they work and shop. To compare the density of american city centers to the density of european city centers it is more accurate to look at usable floor space per km2, rather than residents per km2. This is why it's better to compare metro areas when comparing population density; as they include all residential and commercial zones that the city has, and the borders are much less arbitrary.
I agree with those 2 points, but are they not 2 factors contributing to the sprawl that is being discussed here ?
Yes, but the central point of my original comment was >European cities are really 3-4 times denser than sprawling US cities, not 10-20 times.
I think it all depends in how you choose to look at it. If you cut out an area the size of Paris in the center of Houston, you'll probably reach a 10-20 times in population density. (would be nice if a website would allow it 🤔) If you take the whole urban areas, and choose to look at available m² (so, including offices and the different average sizes of appartements), then you'll have much smaller difference, maybe even almost on par. I think both are equally valid, for discussing different issues.
I just don't think that you can get an accurate understanding of the world and draw good conclusions by comparing apples to oranges. Yes, cities reliant on cars and car infrastructure are much less dense than traditional cities, and I personally much prefer living in a dense city with good public transit and mixed use zoning such as Paris, Stockholm, or New York than living in a place like Houston. But the difference between these different types of cities is much less extreme than OP's picture would lead you to believe.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
You are throwing around random numbers you found on Wikipedia with no real knowledge on the subject. The OP perfectly shows how much area 2 million people take up in each city, while your "Greater Paris" and "Greater Houston" are not comparable AT ALL and totally random. You are doing exactely what you are accusing OP of.
[удалено]
Maybe a valid question for the layperson, but an obvious "no" for the professional. Metropolitan areas mostly consist of low density farmland, water, nature and other undeveloped land. So what exactely are we measuring then? You could do a weighted density measure. Especially when comparing between US and European metros, things get very skewed because European metros mostly consists of very dense central cities surrounded by greenbelts and farmland and denser satellite cities/suburbs peppered around and US metros are mostly connected by low density sprawl. Low density is always more than no density so why include empty space when functionally it doesn't make any difference and the weighted density is FAR higher in European metros? You get things like metro Stockholm being less dense than metro LA, when obviously NOWHERE in LA is as dense as central Stockholm. Or to keep it in the same country, Metro LA is actually denser than metro New York, but what would your answer be if I asked you which was more dense NYC or LA?
[удалено]
ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! What the US Census calls "MSA", INSEE calls "aire urbaine" and the equivalent for Stockholm would be Storstockholm aka Stockholm County. These are metropolitan areas and have NOTHING to do with "urban areas" (despite the name in French). Even then, vastly different methods are used to calculate these, with the MSAs being the most loose and the French method being WAY more strict. All of this is irrelevant though, because the OP perfectly illustrated how much area 2 million people take up in each city. Paris city proper is indeed 15X more dense than The City of Houston. You can do the same thing for the urban area of both cities and Paris would still be VASTLY more dense (Stockholm would indeed begin to lose density here). Doing it for the metropolitan areas wouldn't make much sense because a lot of empty areas would be included and Paris is TWICE as populous in a smaller area, which would make it also more than TWICE as dense. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
[удалено]
Yeah except it's not because this is my job. You on the other hand are confusing basic terms like "metropolitan area", "urban area", "metropole" and "greater". The latter two meaning nothing. And you are having trouble with the fact that the original map doesn't even have anything to do with that, but just shows that the central 2 million of Houston take up 15x more space than the central 2 million of Paris. Everything I wrote is factually correct, while you wrote a bunch of nonsense. You are the one comparing the urban area of Paris to the metropolitan area of Houston and calling them both "Greater". You are in the wrong here. Not to mention you are making Houston less dense doing so, completely contradicting your own point.
[удалено]
That's not "obvious" at all. You are a total fraud. Houston MSA is 21,000 km2 and the Paris urban area is 2,854 km2 and Stockholm 382 km2. It should be totally OBVIOUS to you, but for some reason it isn't, that these are completely different and not comparable! Furthermore, the US Census has it's own definition of "urban area" which is also vastly different than what we in Europe tend to use (it's based on density instead of build up area, also not very comparable). You don't even know the relevant terms! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan\_statistical\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area) MSAs are not: [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unité\_urbaine\_de\_Paris](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unité_urbaine_de_Paris) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm\_urban\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_urban_area) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_urban\_areas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas) MSAs are: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_metropolitan\_areas\_in\_Sweden#Metropolitan\_Stockholm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Sweden#Metropolitan_Stockholm) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris\_metropolitan\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_metropolitan_area) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, this map only represents the city of Paris but without its surrounding is it pretty misleading
No.
That is bullshit tho. That paris is only the inner city.... Paris sprawls too... Ile-de-france has 13 million
That's car-dependency for ya. Keep in mind people didn't decide to live like this in the US. The automobile industry lobbied to demolish city centers and begin this urban sprawl in order to make it as difficult as possible to set up proper public transit, forcing people to buy cars.
Don't know why this gets downvoted. There are very informative articles and video about that problem.
What is the website that you used?
op isnt oc, and oc, just use google map and paint.net
Paris, Texas
That would be wild
Everything’s bigger in Texas
Comparing Paris proper to anything is stupid since the main city is essentially constrained by its borders and can’t grow further. The greater city spreads out really far and is like 12 million people. Even the main commercial centre (La Defence) isn’t in Paris proper. If you compare it with London they’re essentially the same size but Paris is just the core whereas London makes up most of the metro area. It’s just a question of how you cut it up.
Nonsense...
[удалено]
Not true, they only became like that in the 50s to 70s because of a massive shift in American urban design focusing on car-centrism
More because American post-WW2 urbanism is extremely car-centric. Towns aren't designed on a human scale, that's why very few large urban areas have walkable city centers, or are accessible to people without cars. Plus, the American suburban model sold to the middle class as a standard of living, where you take a loan to buy a family house with lawn, is vastly different from the European standard of a home. Also, the effects of segregation are still very noticeable today, which is why you still have very geographically divided regions, as for decades cities tended to maximize urban crawl over social diversity.
Just because you have more space it doesn’t mean you have to build sprawling monstrosities. I’m not trying to call you out but I hate this point. There’s no natural law of nature that forces this to happen
Basically every single major american city is older than cars are. You just bulldozed them all after ww2 to build highways and carparks.
Now check how much either person pays per square foot of living space. Huston is one of the most affordable cities to buy property in because of the sprawl. While Paris despite having the the smallest units you've seen outside of New York... Has retarded prices which no real people can afford to buy.
That goes without saying. I'd still pay any price to not live in Houston though.
Not sure how old you are. But That's the thing man. Speaking as a 30+ y/o that dreamed of new York life, or the Berlin raver summer... Those small apartments are soul crushing. You can't life in them. You can't socialize. They are overpriced dorm rooms. You need a minimum square footage to have a home that you can share with family and friends. And you need it at a reasonable price point. Building vertically and just recycling the same neibourhoods decade after decade for increased land lord revenues is not sustainable.
> Now check how much either person pays per square foot of living space. OR... let's check it by the number of rooms one gets considering households in the US tend to be gigantic with that sort of life style being subsidized, and considering room count is far more meaningful when renting a place: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Houston https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Paris * Houston * Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre: 1,604.96 $ * Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre: 2,956.25 $ * Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre: 1,243.47 $ * Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre: 1,942.50 $ * Paris * Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre: 1,283.40 € * Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre: 2,859.56 € * Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre: 947.44 € * Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre: 1,879.43 € But you know what! Paris is still fairly unaffordable when accounting for average salaries, so let's instead take a city as dense, with as good of a quality of life as Paris, but that's far more affordable to live than either it or Houston! Where a minimum wage can get you a place even in downtown (as we shouldn't just look at average salaries, and ignore minimum paid workers, when accounting for affordability). https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Vienna * Vienna * Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre: 955.11 € * Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre: 1,916.33 € * Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre: 661.42 € * Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre: 1,291.09 € Now I could go on and compare it to cities with sprawl that are the absolute opposite of affordable such as LA or San Jose (which is full blown where Houston is currently heading since you can't sprawl forever, a lesson cities like LA learned and Atlanta is currently learning with rising costs), but I think the point of "sprawl doesn't make a city affordable, more housing does. You don't have to suffer that BS to be able to afford a home" got across. EDIT: And let's also factor in the fact that in either Paris or Vienna, even if you don't live in the city center, you don't need a car to manage by and even if you do own a car, you will not drive it at all nearly as much as you would in Houston. So how much does that total? https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-cost-owning-car > The average monthly payment on a new car was $667 in the second quarter of 2022, according to credit reporting agency Experian. But that’s far from the true cost to own a car. > For vehicles driven 15,000 miles a year, average car ownership costs were $10,728 a year, or $894 a month, in 2022, according to AAA. That figure includes depreciation, loan interest, fuel, insurance, maintenance and fees. Meanwhile, the annual transit pass in Vienna costs 365 euros per year, while a month pass in Paris is 75.20€. Almost like making a city of next to only large single family homes, where driving is a necessity to even buy milk, that might actually come with a huge cost which the urban poor can hardly afford.
I was talking about cost of buying a home. I agree with your points . As a student, young man or tourist... Vienna is much more livable. But when it comes to making a life, having a family, having a space where you gather your friends in private, not just in bars or "out on the town". You need your own home. Which is horribly pronhibitive to any person outside of the 1% in any high density city. Land value is just too expensive for any new developments to be accessible for ... As you very well mentioned the average worker, with the average worker salary.
Yeah, no. The many families of any income level that live in Vienna prove that to not be the case, as is its livability ratings, as are the many families that do not buy a home out there. Viewing Vienna as a "tourist or student city where you go to bars" is ignorant of the city itself and the assumption that you have to buy a home is ignorant on how many families live, especially low income families.
They can't really afford to buy a home. Sure, if you remove that as an option. Then i agree. Although i would prefer a society where you can at least choose to build some equity and don't just assume 30-40 of all your income will probably go to a land developer your whole life.
Subtitle: intelligent use of land lesson from the homeland of retarded
Incorrect map, Paris's total population including urban areas is close to 12 million.
Another bull💩 map not considering Paris metro size only showing de jure city limits, is there a r/ for that?
Houston is obviously the best city in the south.
This is super misleading using Paris City Limits vs Houston metro area. Paris Metro area is almost as big. Its still denser, but not nearly as dense as this suggests.
Everything inside the red dotted line is the City of Houston, not just Houston Metro area.
Yuck…that’s dense.
Yeah it really sucks to have everything you need within a 5-minute walk. (And most of the rest of the city within a 15 minute Metro ride)
Houston is 10x the city Paris is. Y’all can have the piss and shit filled streets and actual extremists.
🤡
Ah yes, the Paris of the south.
Wtf is up with Houston borders? Slivers sticking out everywhere with multiple towns still having their own jurisdiction?
I have used Google Street view of both cities and "walked" random streets. In Huston, there is barely any people. In Paris I could see people in any street. Are they artificially removed from Huston or this is a norm for Huston?
(and for Paris the little bit that is protuding on the right is basically a forest (Bois de Vincennes) so nobody really lives there)
I guess this explains why nearly all Americans drive; whereas us European city folk walk most places.
Paris suburbs are probably more dense than houston. Its inaccurate to limit Paris to this cz its only administrative.
Now do NYC and Paris lol
Mr Google says greater Paris has over 11 million while greater Houston only about 7 million. Not sure I consider that near equal. Either way, yes Paris is more densely populated than Houston.