As a born and bred country person, I've always found pretty much all cities claustrophobic for me. My son, I guess as part of his youthful rebellion, told me at the age of five that he was going to go to school in NYC, and he followed through on the threat. This past summer we drove down to the Bronx a few times in preparation for his attending Fordham University, and I found the Bronx very uncomfortably busy and loud. Well, this past weekend I went down to parent's weekend at the school, and stayed in Manhattan, which I hadn't been to in at least 25 years. After an evening in Manhattan, I took the train up to the Bronx and suddenly thought, "wow, this is so quiet and nice!" Clearly perspective is very important.
I've been living in Brooklyn for just shy of 20 years and I'm very comfortable in dense cities. After spending about a month in India, primarily in Delhi and a bit in Jaipur, I remember getting back to Manhattan and thinking "wow, look at all this space, there's no people here! What a peaceful, relaxed city".
What amazes me is that people did not flee. I assume the hand-to-mouth existence they had in these slums was apparently a little better than their prospects elsewhere. Or perhaps they were moving out but immigration and reproduction was more than making up for it…
You have no money, very little skills, you don't speak English. Even if you cobbled together money to take the train to some small town in Ohio or Iowa or something, what are you going to do as a complete social outsider who doesn't speak the language?
The idea was to stick around in the LES where you had an actual community. Try to make some money, learn English, develop some skills, and then move out. Which is exactly what people did. And the new immigrants took their places.
Also -- they had already fled. This was the fleeing. From Ireland, from Italy, from Poland, etc.
Sure, my point is that - no matter how bad this looks, it was approximately better than their alternatives. So it's a testament to human resilience.
That aside, that there was literally no going back, given the travel to get to NY. I had an ancestor come to NYC in the 19th c. and return back to Sweden, but he was not in the desperate straits that many were. I'm sure some would have returned, given the opportunity.
A lot of these people were in immigrant enclaves. Their neighborhoods may have been the only place in the country people spoke their language or shared their religion, so serving that community was their best bet for employment.
They have a population of 6 to 7 million people in an area of 700 square kilometers, resulting in a population density of 8300 people / km^2. Substantially more than that if you account for the fact that a large percentage of the island is still tropical jungle.
Despite that fact, their city planning is so good with large open spaces everywhere interspersed with greenery, that you almost never feel claustrophobic. Even the so-called "hearland" neighbourhoods with rows after rows of high-rise residential HDB buildings are quite pleasant.
The most claustrophobic place I've been in Singapore are the few squares in the center of CBD filled with skyscrapers that almost obscure you the view of the sky.
Depends where in San Francisco. A lot of business travelers in particular perceptions of SF are probably colored by the areas near the Moscone (and Fishermans Wharf). Though most of SF is relatively sane in general--certainly not like the Times Square area in NYC.
quick funny story, my family and i were in Times Square last year for New Year's. Thousands of people everywhere as you can imagine. We're walking down the sidewalk and right as rain my wife runs into someone she knows from all the way back in Texas. Among all those people from all over the world she still manages to run into someone she knows. My wife and her talk while me and the boys hang around waiting just like we've had to do at our local grocery store back home. My kids and I still laugh at that story.
I’ve read about the “international airport paradox” which says you’ll likely see someone you know at an international airport - because if you’re in the group to use them, you’re already in a pretty small group.
I live in a US city with a higher population density than SF that has barely any structures taller than 3-4 storeys. Most of SF is low density for a city of global importance. The Richmond, Sunset have essentially not changed since the early post-war era.
You can argue the global importance of Silicon Valley or even California generally. I'm not sure I get the "global importance" of the city of San Francisco specifically, which besides an attractive location and relatively easy access to Silicon Valley isn't especially unique among medium to large US cities.
Honestly, I feel like Paris does a great job. I know it's relatively small population wise for a major international city (~2 million), but it's population density is about 50% more than NYC without ever feeling overwhelming. Just having those 6-story Haussmann style buildings everywhere with wide boulevards makes it feel very human scale.
When I have been in NYC recently, it's seemed remarkably quiet to me. In particular, I don't see many cars.
(Only the subway is loud. But that doesn't stress me out, because I don't have to do anything. You get on, you let your mind wander, you get off, you take a little walk.)
When I was a child, I saw movies set in New York, and the streets were always choked with traffic. The sound of a car horn was almost a shorthand for the city. You'd hear it in music. They'd use it in establishing shots in films. Always yellow cabs.
Even a decade or two ago, you'd stand, as a pedestrian, at the crosswalk, waiting for the light to change.
Now, often you look both ways and the street is clear for a whole block. You don't wait, you just cross.
Sure, there's a rhythm to it. Even decades ago, the Financial District, choked during rush hour, was spookily-empty on the weekends. So maybe I have more recently walked around in the places and times that are at the troughs of that rhythm.
But I suspect there is also a longer-term trend, or perhaps a step change, caused by COVID: Cities just seem quieter now.
To an extent it is good. I'm happy to see a city by for and of people, rather than ditto for cars, their manufacturers, and their buyers (who lack alternatives). By all means, let restaurants build decks on the street; decorate them with flower boxes; let people meet there for brunch or after work.
There is also a negative aspect. There is still, I think, a suburban hangover. I see this in friends who it is now difficult to drag out of their apartments and away from their video games; in other people who one might frustratedly describe as "suburban women voters" who, in rare acts of personal courage, mask up and use the subway (they stand out from the people who actually live and work in the city. ... I shouldn't mock them; at least by seeing the reality they will overcome their fears); and in the rhetoric of the political Right, which seems more grounded in Escape from New York than in reality.
So I suppose several forces have made the city quieter. Some positive, some negative. And popular perception lags (as it must; this is the nature of information transmission).
The loudness of cities is generally a product of cars.
Very busy areas of cities without many cars are fairly quiet.
Tire noise, exhaust noise, horns, etc all make a ton of noise. Living near a highway in the suburbs is probably inherently more noisy than many cities.
I like to think about the time around 1900 when the population was far far higher than today, but there were no cars. Horses don’t make the same noise.
Of course there was heavy industry in that day so that would be loud and filthy.
I guess it would depend on where you were. If you're in a high traffic area full of horses wearing metal shoes stepping on cobble stones and handcarts with metal rims rolling over cobble stones, it could probably get pretty loud.
I bet it could get pretty quiet, even with the density.
I had the same experience being in downtown SF (near Market) for the first time in a few years, but I attributed it to the number of electric cars.
The whole visit felt weird, and eerie, and off somehow, but I couldn't figure out what it was. And then I was standing waiting for a crossing light and heard the clicking of a scooter's turn signal ~20 feet away. It stood out because it took a few seconds to realize that I shouldn't be hearing it because of other noise.
Its funny for me, born and raised in the endless river valleys of the PNW, that I am so used to this topology that I'm much more comfortable in cities with an "opposite valley wall" (even if it's a building facade on the other side of the street and not the next row of hills a couple miles distant) in sight, than I am in Florida, on islands, or other big flatlands areas with nothing at all to break up the great sweep of the horizon.
I'm the opposite, I'm always more at ease in the great plains (I'm from Eastern-Europe, for context), while when I'm at the mountainside I feel like there's something that's just about to "fall on my head" or similar, something that hangs over me.
I work in Midtown and live in (a still very dense) part of Brooklyn. When I come home in the evenings and come up those subway stairs I always breathe a sigh of relief.
That’s interesting. When I lived in Manhattan I didn’t mind the density at all. But I was apartment hunting in Brooklyn one day and literally had a panic attack at how chaotic it was. I made it two blocks from the 4/5/6 station (I forget which one) before heading back.
> made it two blocks from the 4/5/6 station (I forget which one)
4 or 5. If you fall asleep on those, you go to Brooklyn or the Bronx. If you fall asleep on the 6, you always wake up in the Bronx. (Well, or City Hall. But then you can get dumplings.)
The fact you present this obvious distinction as meaningful insight suggests your preconceptions about the city were not based in reality that even the most basic differences apear revelatory.
I"m not sure I agree with the setup. He's weighting clutter types based on his personal experience, eg a newsstand (=3) is weighted 20 times higher than a tree (=0.15). It's very subjective, and like the model implies a desolate empty parking lot with no trees is somehow ideal. Important factors like urban vitality, utility, or aesthetic quality are not quantified so easily.
If you want to see well-designed cities, look at Europe. Helsinki has both deep integration with nature, and high-quality public services. Denmark does very well with cycling, which improves public health and noise and air quality. Etc. I like to focus on countries that rank highly on the World Happiness Report, and try figure out what they're doing right.
> a desolate empty parking lot with no trees is somehow ideal
The author is trying to measure "claustrophobia" specifically, not ideal-ness. An empty parking lot would be less claustrophobic than most other kinds of places, yes. The measured claustrophobia factor appears to be just one part of a larger analysis that resulted in a NYT article, but unfortunately the article isn't linked.
An empty parking lot is effectively the gold standard for opposite-of-claustrophobia as the article seems to intend the term. It's the least claustrophobic space possible on the surface of the Earth. Even an open meadow is less open than an empty paved parking lot because it has small bushes and shrubs everywhere. This matches my intuition as a mild sufferer--I actually try to picture a brightly lit gas station parking lot if I'm feeling claustrophobic.
This is really fascinating use of city data. I’ve browsed stuff like sidewalk data in the NYC open data portal before and wondered what I could ever do with it. You have a better imagination than me!
Particularly happy to see scaffolding listed in there. It’s an absolute blight on the city and some scaffolding remains up for years and years for no good reason. There should be fines for leaving it up.
There is a good reason though, right? My understanding is that local ordinances require very frequent window inspections (following a highly publicized death), so to perform those inspections they need the scaffolding to protect the under-walking pedestrians from the inspectors. Because they are so frequent, it's cheaper to just leave the scaffolding up and take it down and put it up for every inspection.
With drones becoming more common and robust, though, it will hopefully soon be easier and faster to do the inspections and so the scaffolding may become cheaper to remove and replace each cycle
The inspection rules are kind of extreme, supported by the people who do the work and the scaffold companies. Once you “start work” (put up the scaffolding) the clock stops. You see buildings with scaffolding for years with little to non actual work.
Good point about the scaffolding. I stayed for a few days in the financial district last year and walking around outside the hotel felt like being underground.
They don’t have data for “Cellars (not a problem unless open)”
Walking past a random 10 foot deep open hole is very unnerving to me. It’s also just one of the many ways the city is inhospitable for people with accessibility needs. But of course the NYCers probably don’t even notice.
The random danger of NYC is part of its allure. People also benefit from appropriately challenging physical environments, as it enlivens and engages the body. Inattention in dense environments can lead to conflict and congestion, and so I suspect that the random observable dangers can serve some public good by causing general awareness and the self-exclusion of those who do not adapt to the needs of a dense place.
Read up on people being electrocuted by stepping on a manhole cover that has been energized by a utility line fault underneath. Every time I see one i think of those stories and wonder if it's going to kill me or not haha.
“map the emotional terrain of the world’s most famous and influential urban center, New York City, and explore the effect of the city’s powerful moods on those who live and work here.”
Interesting. One anecdote is that having spent a considerable amount of time walking in a number of major cities (Tokyo, Singapore, SF, LA, Seattle, etc.) I've never felt anything remotely like 'claustrophobia' on the streets of NYC.
Agree with a lot of this methodology-- having lived in NYC with kids the #1 contributing factor to a feeling of claustrophobia for me is the size of the sidewalk and its buffering from the road.
Compared to even the suburbs where 1-2 people on a sidewalk can feel like you're dangerously close to having to step into an active roadway, sidewalks in NYC neighborhoods like the upper east side feel gigantic and are bordered by parked cars that provide a buffer to the roadway.
In 1811 the grid plan designated sidewalk widths to be 20ft for major cross-town roads vs. many suburban sidewalk widths at 4-5 feet.
I lived two blocks off Times Square for two years. The 'claustrophobia' described by the article provided me with a sense of anonymity which in turn made me feel safe.
Living in the suburbs is much more like living in a fish bowl. I can't leave my house and take a walk around the neighborhood without the neighborhood being aware of my presence.
I think this misses the point that a large contributor to feeling claustrophobic is on-street parking in residential neighborhoods. The author mentions Cobble Hill as "quaint and quiet" but it has multiple main streets with two parking lanes and one travel lane. Combine that with narrow sidewalks and pedestrians who aren't six feet tall can't see across the street. It's like walking down a canyon made of SUVs on one side and brownstone staircases on another.
I think a simpler analysis of sidewalk width plus the presence of curb parking would provide a closer representation of the lived experience. In mid-town, you have wide avenues and wide streets yet that's singled out as the worst area. Doesn't really add up IMO.
As a born and bred country person, I've always found pretty much all cities claustrophobic for me. My son, I guess as part of his youthful rebellion, told me at the age of five that he was going to go to school in NYC, and he followed through on the threat. This past summer we drove down to the Bronx a few times in preparation for his attending Fordham University, and I found the Bronx very uncomfortably busy and loud. Well, this past weekend I went down to parent's weekend at the school, and stayed in Manhattan, which I hadn't been to in at least 25 years. After an evening in Manhattan, I took the train up to the Bronx and suddenly thought, "wow, this is so quiet and nice!" Clearly perspective is very important.
I've been living in Brooklyn for just shy of 20 years and I'm very comfortable in dense cities. After spending about a month in India, primarily in Delhi and a bit in Jaipur, I remember getting back to Manhattan and thinking "wow, look at all this space, there's no people here! What a peaceful, relaxed city".
Something that surprises often is that NYC used to be far, far denser. See the second image: https://urbanomnibus.net/2014/10/the-rise-and-fall-of-manhat...
I recommend to people the Tenement Museum for their second trip to NYC - it was eye opening (but pretty grim)
What amazes me is that people did not flee. I assume the hand-to-mouth existence they had in these slums was apparently a little better than their prospects elsewhere. Or perhaps they were moving out but immigration and reproduction was more than making up for it…
To where?
You have no money, very little skills, you don't speak English. Even if you cobbled together money to take the train to some small town in Ohio or Iowa or something, what are you going to do as a complete social outsider who doesn't speak the language?
The idea was to stick around in the LES where you had an actual community. Try to make some money, learn English, develop some skills, and then move out. Which is exactly what people did. And the new immigrants took their places.
Also -- they had already fled. This was the fleeing. From Ireland, from Italy, from Poland, etc.
Sure, my point is that - no matter how bad this looks, it was approximately better than their alternatives. So it's a testament to human resilience.
That aside, that there was literally no going back, given the travel to get to NY. I had an ancestor come to NYC in the 19th c. and return back to Sweden, but he was not in the desperate straits that many were. I'm sure some would have returned, given the opportunity.
There is a real human tendency to stay in a known but bad situation instead of making the risky leap into the likely better but unknown.
You see it time and time again.
Their kids were the ones who were better educated and could move on.
It’s still happening today.
This is the entire reason why people emigrate.
A lot of these people were in immigrant enclaves. Their neighborhoods may have been the only place in the country people spoke their language or shared their religion, so serving that community was their best bet for employment.
Who does the best job managing density? Tokyo is lovely and orderly, but it’s not that dense—similar to San Francisco. Maybe Seoul?
Of all the places I've been, Singapore.
They have a population of 6 to 7 million people in an area of 700 square kilometers, resulting in a population density of 8300 people / km^2. Substantially more than that if you account for the fact that a large percentage of the island is still tropical jungle.
Despite that fact, their city planning is so good with large open spaces everywhere interspersed with greenery, that you almost never feel claustrophobic. Even the so-called "hearland" neighbourhoods with rows after rows of high-rise residential HDB buildings are quite pleasant.
The most claustrophobic place I've been in Singapore are the few squares in the center of CBD filled with skyscrapers that almost obscure you the view of the sky.
You aren't kidding! I picked a random intersection in what looks like an urban part of the city and it's beautiful: https://maps.app.goo.gl/P3aUTtYejh5YHvFF6
Depends where in San Francisco. A lot of business travelers in particular perceptions of SF are probably colored by the areas near the Moscone (and Fishermans Wharf). Though most of SF is relatively sane in general--certainly not like the Times Square area in NYC.
> Times Square area in NYC.
quick funny story, my family and i were in Times Square last year for New Year's. Thousands of people everywhere as you can imagine. We're walking down the sidewalk and right as rain my wife runs into someone she knows from all the way back in Texas. Among all those people from all over the world she still manages to run into someone she knows. My wife and her talk while me and the boys hang around waiting just like we've had to do at our local grocery store back home. My kids and I still laugh at that story.
I’ve read about the “international airport paradox” which says you’ll likely see someone you know at an international airport - because if you’re in the group to use them, you’re already in a pretty small group.
I've actually run into people I knew in Manhattan. But they were from the Northeast so it wasn't that unusual.
San Francisco doesn’t feel dense to me at all.
San Francisco is the 5th densest county in the USA, the top four are also the four densest burroughs of New York City.
There is a good argument that San Francisco could and should be denser than it is, but its ludicrous to call it not dense at all.
I live in a US city with a higher population density than SF that has barely any structures taller than 3-4 storeys. Most of SF is low density for a city of global importance. The Richmond, Sunset have essentially not changed since the early post-war era.
You can argue the global importance of Silicon Valley or even California generally. I'm not sure I get the "global importance" of the city of San Francisco specifically, which besides an attractive location and relatively easy access to Silicon Valley isn't especially unique among medium to large US cities.
Honestly, I feel like Paris does a great job. I know it's relatively small population wise for a major international city (~2 million), but it's population density is about 50% more than NYC without ever feeling overwhelming. Just having those 6-story Haussmann style buildings everywhere with wide boulevards makes it feel very human scale.
Good point. It’s dirty, but the density does seem nicely managed.
When I have been in NYC recently, it's seemed remarkably quiet to me. In particular, I don't see many cars.
(Only the subway is loud. But that doesn't stress me out, because I don't have to do anything. You get on, you let your mind wander, you get off, you take a little walk.)
When I was a child, I saw movies set in New York, and the streets were always choked with traffic. The sound of a car horn was almost a shorthand for the city. You'd hear it in music. They'd use it in establishing shots in films. Always yellow cabs.
Even a decade or two ago, you'd stand, as a pedestrian, at the crosswalk, waiting for the light to change.
Now, often you look both ways and the street is clear for a whole block. You don't wait, you just cross.
Sure, there's a rhythm to it. Even decades ago, the Financial District, choked during rush hour, was spookily-empty on the weekends. So maybe I have more recently walked around in the places and times that are at the troughs of that rhythm.
But I suspect there is also a longer-term trend, or perhaps a step change, caused by COVID: Cities just seem quieter now.
To an extent it is good. I'm happy to see a city by for and of people, rather than ditto for cars, their manufacturers, and their buyers (who lack alternatives). By all means, let restaurants build decks on the street; decorate them with flower boxes; let people meet there for brunch or after work.
There is also a negative aspect. There is still, I think, a suburban hangover. I see this in friends who it is now difficult to drag out of their apartments and away from their video games; in other people who one might frustratedly describe as "suburban women voters" who, in rare acts of personal courage, mask up and use the subway (they stand out from the people who actually live and work in the city. ... I shouldn't mock them; at least by seeing the reality they will overcome their fears); and in the rhetoric of the political Right, which seems more grounded in Escape from New York than in reality.
So I suppose several forces have made the city quieter. Some positive, some negative. And popular perception lags (as it must; this is the nature of information transmission).
Apparently the surge tolls they implemented recently contributed to less traffic, in Manhattan at least
The loudness of cities is generally a product of cars.
Very busy areas of cities without many cars are fairly quiet.
Tire noise, exhaust noise, horns, etc all make a ton of noise. Living near a highway in the suburbs is probably inherently more noisy than many cities.
I like to think about the time around 1900 when the population was far far higher than today, but there were no cars. Horses don’t make the same noise.
Of course there was heavy industry in that day so that would be loud and filthy.
How quiet was dense NYC in 1830 though?
I guess it would depend on where you were. If you're in a high traffic area full of horses wearing metal shoes stepping on cobble stones and handcarts with metal rims rolling over cobble stones, it could probably get pretty loud.
I bet it could get pretty quiet, even with the density.
College campuses are often pretty dense but also pretty quiet.
I had the same experience being in downtown SF (near Market) for the first time in a few years, but I attributed it to the number of electric cars.
The whole visit felt weird, and eerie, and off somehow, but I couldn't figure out what it was. And then I was standing waiting for a crossing light and heard the clicking of a scooter's turn signal ~20 feet away. It stood out because it took a few seconds to realize that I shouldn't be hearing it because of other noise.
Its funny for me, born and raised in the endless river valleys of the PNW, that I am so used to this topology that I'm much more comfortable in cities with an "opposite valley wall" (even if it's a building facade on the other side of the street and not the next row of hills a couple miles distant) in sight, than I am in Florida, on islands, or other big flatlands areas with nothing at all to break up the great sweep of the horizon.
I’m the same. Land that isn’t mountainous is terrifying to me. It’s like an instinct that The Horde could approach from any angle.
The Midwest creeps me out.
I come from a part of North America as jagged as Norway.
I'm the opposite, I'm always more at ease in the great plains (I'm from Eastern-Europe, for context), while when I'm at the mountainside I feel like there's something that's just about to "fall on my head" or similar, something that hangs over me.
The sun either rises way too late or sets too early if you’re right up against the Rockies.
It IS weird to now live where there aren’t noticeable mountains as landmarks.
Midtown Manhattan is “too much” even for a lot of New Yorkers. I try to minimize my time there.
I work in Midtown and live in (a still very dense) part of Brooklyn. When I come home in the evenings and come up those subway stairs I always breathe a sigh of relief.
That’s interesting. When I lived in Manhattan I didn’t mind the density at all. But I was apartment hunting in Brooklyn one day and literally had a panic attack at how chaotic it was. I made it two blocks from the 4/5/6 station (I forget which one) before heading back.
> made it two blocks from the 4/5/6 station (I forget which one)
4 or 5. If you fall asleep on those, you go to Brooklyn or the Bronx. If you fall asleep on the 6, you always wake up in the Bronx. (Well, or City Hall. But then you can get dumplings.)
What he is studying at Fordham? Is he and his friends worried about the job market after graduation?
The fact you present this obvious distinction as meaningful insight suggests your preconceptions about the city were not based in reality that even the most basic differences apear revelatory.
what were his preconceptions about the city other than "they're all loud and claustrophobic?"
I"m not sure I agree with the setup. He's weighting clutter types based on his personal experience, eg a newsstand (=3) is weighted 20 times higher than a tree (=0.15). It's very subjective, and like the model implies a desolate empty parking lot with no trees is somehow ideal. Important factors like urban vitality, utility, or aesthetic quality are not quantified so easily.
If you want to see well-designed cities, look at Europe. Helsinki has both deep integration with nature, and high-quality public services. Denmark does very well with cycling, which improves public health and noise and air quality. Etc. I like to focus on countries that rank highly on the World Happiness Report, and try figure out what they're doing right.
> a desolate empty parking lot with no trees is somehow ideal
The author is trying to measure "claustrophobia" specifically, not ideal-ness. An empty parking lot would be less claustrophobic than most other kinds of places, yes. The measured claustrophobia factor appears to be just one part of a larger analysis that resulted in a NYT article, but unfortunately the article isn't linked.
Greenwich village in third place is weird when most of the residential side streets have dense tree canopies and minimal traffic.
Yeah this is probably the only metric where Rikers island beats SoHo.
An empty parking lot is effectively the gold standard for opposite-of-claustrophobia as the article seems to intend the term. It's the least claustrophobic space possible on the surface of the Earth. Even an open meadow is less open than an empty paved parking lot because it has small bushes and shrubs everywhere. This matches my intuition as a mild sufferer--I actually try to picture a brightly lit gas station parking lot if I'm feeling claustrophobic.
This is really fascinating use of city data. I’ve browsed stuff like sidewalk data in the NYC open data portal before and wondered what I could ever do with it. You have a better imagination than me!
Particularly happy to see scaffolding listed in there. It’s an absolute blight on the city and some scaffolding remains up for years and years for no good reason. There should be fines for leaving it up.
There is a good reason though, right? My understanding is that local ordinances require very frequent window inspections (following a highly publicized death), so to perform those inspections they need the scaffolding to protect the under-walking pedestrians from the inspectors. Because they are so frequent, it's cheaper to just leave the scaffolding up and take it down and put it up for every inspection.
With drones becoming more common and robust, though, it will hopefully soon be easier and faster to do the inspections and so the scaffolding may become cheaper to remove and replace each cycle
The inspection rules are kind of extreme, supported by the people who do the work and the scaffold companies. Once you “start work” (put up the scaffolding) the clock stops. You see buildings with scaffolding for years with little to non actual work.
No, it’s because putting up scaffolding is cheaper than actually performing facade repairs. Inspections are only every five years.
https://thehustle.co/originals/why-so-many-new-york-city-sid...
Good point about the scaffolding. I stayed for a few days in the financial district last year and walking around outside the hotel felt like being underground.
They don’t have data for “Cellars (not a problem unless open)”
Walking past a random 10 foot deep open hole is very unnerving to me. It’s also just one of the many ways the city is inhospitable for people with accessibility needs. But of course the NYCers probably don’t even notice.
The random danger of NYC is part of its allure. People also benefit from appropriately challenging physical environments, as it enlivens and engages the body. Inattention in dense environments can lead to conflict and congestion, and so I suspect that the random observable dangers can serve some public good by causing general awareness and the self-exclusion of those who do not adapt to the needs of a dense place.
Another advantageous random danger in NYC is the roving squads of ninjas. Good opportunity to keep practicing your nunchuck skills.
Friend of mine when he lived in Greenwich, CT commented on the "roving bands of preppie youth."
I think they were mostly harmless :-)
They might grow up to be managing directors at Bain Capital!
Read up on people being electrocuted by stepping on a manhole cover that has been energized by a utility line fault underneath. Every time I see one i think of those stories and wonder if it's going to kill me or not haha.
They have "Trash can", but not "giant pile of trash bags" :-)
Mapping the Psychogeography of New York City
“map the emotional terrain of the world’s most famous and influential urban center, New York City, and explore the effect of the city’s powerful moods on those who live and work here.”
https://urbanomnibus.net/2010/10/you-are-here-mapping-the-ps...
Psychogeography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogeography
Speed Levitch: The New York City "Grid Plan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9awJCyjt550
Interesting. One anecdote is that having spent a considerable amount of time walking in a number of major cities (Tokyo, Singapore, SF, LA, Seattle, etc.) I've never felt anything remotely like 'claustrophobia' on the streets of NYC.
Agree with a lot of this methodology-- having lived in NYC with kids the #1 contributing factor to a feeling of claustrophobia for me is the size of the sidewalk and its buffering from the road.
Compared to even the suburbs where 1-2 people on a sidewalk can feel like you're dangerously close to having to step into an active roadway, sidewalks in NYC neighborhoods like the upper east side feel gigantic and are bordered by parked cars that provide a buffer to the roadway.
In 1811 the grid plan designated sidewalk widths to be 20ft for major cross-town roads vs. many suburban sidewalk widths at 4-5 feet.
I'm a big fan of this sidewalk width map: https://sidewalkwidths.nyc/
I lived two blocks off Times Square for two years. The 'claustrophobia' described by the article provided me with a sense of anonymity which in turn made me feel safe.
Living in the suburbs is much more like living in a fish bowl. I can't leave my house and take a walk around the neighborhood without the neighborhood being aware of my presence.
Wow, the least crowded place is Rikers Island? I'm moving there right now!
How is building height not the primary factor? Building setbacks are intended to reduce the claustrophobic feeling of deep shadowed canyons.
I think this misses the point that a large contributor to feeling claustrophobic is on-street parking in residential neighborhoods. The author mentions Cobble Hill as "quaint and quiet" but it has multiple main streets with two parking lanes and one travel lane. Combine that with narrow sidewalks and pedestrians who aren't six feet tall can't see across the street. It's like walking down a canyon made of SUVs on one side and brownstone staircases on another.
I think a simpler analysis of sidewalk width plus the presence of curb parking would provide a closer representation of the lived experience. In mid-town, you have wide avenues and wide streets yet that's singled out as the worst area. Doesn't really add up IMO.
Is it terrible that I read the headline and immediately thought they were talking about Claude?
I reread it and realized I'm in too deep.
> In SoHo these days, there are so many pedestrians that they spill off the narrow sidewalks.
Yeah, there you have it. I wonder why the sidewalks are so narrow (/s).
Obviously, he's never been to Rikers.