I'm generally in favour of this, but "build more tall buildings in a World Heritage Site to satisfy the temporary demand of tourists" isn't going to be popular. Japan of course is already full of high-density housing.
(Edinburgh is building housing, but lots of it is suburban low-density)
Technically correct but misleading; the thing that most people mean when they say Tokyo is "the 23 wards" (compare: the five burroughs; the canonical definition of New York which even kids growing up in Chicago learn the names of by sheer osmosis).
^^ They're the green part of this map. The non-green part of this map is, technically correct is the best kind of correct, also Tokyo (administered under Tokyo-to as opposed to any other prefecture), but it's not core Tokyo.
Hm, I thought I was careful of getting the numbers for the 23 wards (I live there too ;) ), but looks like I made a mistake indeed.
With the correct numbers, Tokyo "23 wards" becomes 40 % higher than NY metropolis, and approximately the same as Brooklyn (~15000 / km2). I would still argue it is not as dense as many people think (e.g. people often don't think of Paris as super dense, even tough it is itself ~40 % higher density that Tokyo). Yes, the houses are small, but except for within the few central wards, there are not that many high rise buildings.
HN people who talk about the "density" of Tokyo are picturing skyscrapers and block housing, but it's not an accurate picture. Having spent plenty of time in both cities, Tokyo is about as dense as the outer boroughs of New York, on average.
(Edinburgh is building housing, but lots of it is suburban low-density)
reply