|
|
^great shot of my hometown.
---- Edmonton https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/forum/...61-jpg.289328/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/co...tm_name=iossmf |
Unreal amounts of density in Canadian cities (compared to the US).
I've always wondered why exactly this is? |
suburban toronto
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...09a12f2e_h.jpgA-DSC06093 by Folsome Corbett, on Flickr |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Southeast Baltimore
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...01545cd5_k.jpgBaltimore Sunrise by Evan Faler, on Flickr Downtown Baltimore from Patterson Park area (Johns Hopkins Hospital on the right) https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...0ed0bd67_k.jpgAfter the Storm by Evan Faler, on Flickr |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's great for you. Unfortunately, density is a statistic and not a matter of perception. New York is of course in a league of its own in North America; but Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are otherwise denser than any US city as measured by urban density and weighted density, and are about equal to Boston, Chicago, and Philly as measured by municipal density. They also objectively have more high-rises (per capita and/or total), which is probably what's being discussed here. |
Most importantly, Canadian cities don't take 30 miles to gradually peter into rural form, they punch above their populations in peak densities, and they don't have gaps.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
San Fran, Boston, Philly, and Chicago are denser than Montreal and Toronto, but SF and Boston are both under 50 sq miles in size, whereas Montreal is 166 sq miles (close to Philly's 143 sq miles) and Toronto is 243 sq miles. Chicago is basically the same size as Toronto: 234 sq miles. Boston gained over 100,000 people city-proper since the last Census and is now just under 700,000, for a municipal population density of 14,350~ pp sq mile. Toronto is 11,226 pp sq mile; Montreal is 10,070 pp sq mile. (San Fran wins at 18,790 pp sq mile, while Philadelphia comes in at 11,797 pp sq mile, and Chicago closes out just ahead of Philly at 11,846). I'm honestly not sure which is denser when using weighted densities. It wouldn't shock me to find out Montreal and Toronto eek out ahead of SF and Boston. But it's likely really close. |
But Canadian cities hold their own in Highrises, placing 3 in the top 10 N. American cities. Where they lag is in skyscrapers,with only Toronto placing in top 10.
|
Quote:
Weighted density - US: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...7&postcount=81 Weighted density - Canada: http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show...6&postcount=41 Urban area populations & densities: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf Really though, it's close enough between most of these cities that there aren't going to be any discernible differences in built density, but in true SSP spirit, technically we win. :D |
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Quote:
In the city centers, there isn't much difference except for the former Rustbelt cities which are practically empty in half of their CBDs. The suburbs, however, are much denser. It's easy to see, as well. American cities still build new developments where everybody gets a quarter acre of land per lot. In Canada, it's closer to half that. There are definitely more apartment buildings in Canada per capita, as well. The only facet where America is denser in the suburbs is that there's a lot more commercial/office building construction in the suburbs versus Canada. I would agree that if you're from Boston, Philly or NYC then you're going to find Canadian cities to be the same but if you're from just about anywhere else, you're going to notice the difference. |
Another great Vancouver aerial
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cbdb2b6d_h.jpg December twilight -- Vancouver 2020 by Gord McKenna, on Flickr |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 4:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev