Most and least dense European countries

[Dariusb]

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...n-density.html
Interesting article about the most and least dense European countries.

[MolsonExport]

i consider Monaco more of a statelet than a country. Ditto for Vatican City (occupying an area smaller than Central Park in NYC), etc. The article uses the same picture for Norway and Finland.

[whatnext]

What the northernmost countries are the least populated? Consider this Canadian shocked!

[Nouvellecosse]

How come there's no Europeans in here? This is supposed to be the European sub forum and all the posts are from North America. Boo.

[oskar88]

I am very surprised is not mentioned Barcelona (in the top 9). Actually, this is the top 3 according to Wikipedia:

- Levallois-Perret 27,420/km2 France
- Emperador 23,067/km2 Spain
- L'Hospitalet de Llobregat 21,364/km2 Spain

And the one on the third position, I have been there many times, and comparing with Germany where I am coming from, the difference is quite visible

[Acajack]

Emperador is really freaky. It's a tiny village with 600 people and only one third of a square km, but it's all dense mid-rise apartments and surrounded by farm fields.

Check it out:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5542...8192?entry=ttu

[Crawford]

France is interesting bc it's north of the Alps, but the built form is often closer to the denser, more apartment-oriented Club Med countries.

You always notice the differences traveling between Germany and France. Germany is much closer to the UK-Netherlands-Nordics typology. Of course directly on the border is blurry, bc the border changed so many times in history.

[kool maudit]

I would distinguish some of those. The UK and parts of Benelux are something different, with a focus on rowhouses on narrow lots versus the courtyard apartment buildings favoured in Germany, the Nordics and the Austro-Hungarian cities. France, like you said, points more towards Italy than the other Northern countries.

Copenhagen and Stockholm are interesting in the sense that they were both very small and restricted by walls/water for most of their history. In the second half of the 19th century, though, they both saw a huge wave of speculative building in the Viennese courtyard-block style that occurred all at once as restrictions on land outside the old cores were lifted.

It really only lasted about twice as long as the current Toronto condo boom, despite these areas now being seen as bastions of "traditional", "historical" buildings.

In both cities, but moreso in Stockholm due to the geography, this "European" style ends very abruptly, transitioning into single-family homes on fairly large, irregular lots. Swedish people have come to call the inner-city, Viennese-style quarters "stenstad" or "stone town". I think this usage representing something distinct or noteworthy reflects the very sudden historical shift that created these places.

Both of the big Nordic cities actually have pretty extensive 19th-century cores for their size. They are some of the larger cities of this type not to have been touched by WW2 bombings. They are not dense from a statistical perspective, though, because household sizes are so small. I think Sweden is the country with the highest percentage of one-person households in the world.

[kool maudit]

The small city of Sundsvall (68,000) in Sweden is seen as notable for having a "stenstad", as most cities of its size and in that region don't have this. It came about because of a fire in 1888 that destroyed most of the centre, which would have been made of mostly wooden buildings on irregular streets.

After the fire, they built a "stenstad" for the new centre, which really reflects the ethos of the time. Had the fire happened 20 years eariler or later, you wouldn't have any of this.

It's a really nice town, actually, nestled in some scenic hills. Very unique to have this kind of centre in such a place.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by oskar88

I am very surprised is not mentioned Barcelona (in the top 9). Actually, this is the top 3 according to Wikipedia:

- Levallois-Perret 27,420/km2 France
- Emperador 23,067/km2 Spain
- L'Hospitalet de Llobregat 21,364/km2 Spain

And the one on the third position, I have been there many times, and comparing with Germany where I am coming from, the difference is quite visible

These figures are deceiving, because they compare entire municipal territories, and European municipalities have widely different sizes.

We made that comparison on the rival forum a few years ago, and the most densely populated districts in Europe were in Paris, in Madrid, and in Barcelona. They beat any of these suburban municipalities listed here.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

France is interesting bc it's north of the Alps, but the built form is often closer to the denser, more apartment-oriented Club Med countries.

You always notice the differences traveling between Germany and France. Germany is much closer to the UK-Netherlands-Nordics typology. Of course directly on the border is blurry, bc the border changed so many times in history.

I find German urbanism much closer to France's urbanism than to UK-Benelux. German cities have a dense core surrounded by low density sprawl. It's the same in France.

France is very different from the Med in the sense that its dense cores are surrounded by low density sprawl, which is the case neither in Italy nor in Spain. In France the detached house is very prevalent, as in Germany. It's nowhere to be seen in Spain, and rather not frequent in Italy.

France and Germany are also very different from Benelux and UK in the sense that their urban cores are denser, made up of taller apartment buildings. In Germany this has become a bit blurred of course since WW2, because all their city centers were destroyed, and never rebuilt to the same level of density they had before the war, but still, they are denser than their Beneluxian and British counterparts, and closer to the French model.

French and German cities also sprawl much more than Dutch and British cities (Belgium is closer to France and Germany here, with unruly sprawl).

[mousquet]

There's this theory that was suggested by a French geographer in 1989.

The Blue Banana

Lol, I find the name of it to be cool.

It just states that the most dense areas of the continent have been the most creative and wealthiest for 1000 years or so, which makes sense simply because human resources and exchanges over these areas are more intense than in countrysides with a low population density, where life tends to be rougher.
Hence the difference between West and East Germany that would go back further into the past than the Soviet occupation, for instance.

I suppose it's an interesting theory, though it wouldn't be enough to explain the extraordinary wealth and standard of living of Switzerland.

Besides, some areas like Scandinavia are not included in the banana, while they manage to maintain a fairly high standard of living too, so density wouldn't explain everything.
It's nonetheless definitely an important factor.

[KlausD2]

del

[KlausD2]

del

[Velvet_Highground]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I would distinguish some of those. The UK and parts of Benelux are something different, with a focus on rowhouses on narrow lots versus the courtyard apartment buildings favoured in Germany, the Nordics and the Austro-Hungarian cities. France, like you said, points more towards Italy than the other Northern countries.

Copenhagen and Stockholm are interesting in the sense that they were both very small and restricted by walls/water for most of their history. In the second half of the 19th century, though, they both saw a huge wave of speculative building in the Viennese courtyard-block style that occurred all at once as restrictions on land outside the old cores were lifted.

It really only lasted about twice as long as the current Toronto condo boom, despite these areas now being seen as bastions of "traditional", "historical" buildings.

In both cities, but moreso in Stockholm due to the geography, this "European" style ends very abruptly, transitioning into single-family homes on fairly large, irregular lots. Swedish people have come to call the inner-city, Viennese-style quarters "stenstad" or "stone town". I think this usage representing something distinct or noteworthy reflects the very sudden historical shift that created these places.

Both of the big Nordic cities actually have pretty extensive 19th-century cores for their size. They are some of the larger cities of this type not to have been touched by WW2 bombings. They are not dense from a statistical perspective, though, because household sizes are so small. I think Sweden is the country with the highest percentage of one-person households in the world.

Bit thought provoking for all the debate about governance and culture the aftermath of war perhaps shows up much more so than we think. The devastation and socioeconomic/political turmoil caused by war either being subjugated to the aftermath of and or the drain on resources even in the winners. The Scandinavian countries were among the least effected by the world wars with Norway, Sweden & Denmark all being neutral in the first and Sweden being neutral in the second while Denmark and Norway were occupied very quickly. The relatively little damage in comparison to the obliteration seen in British and Axis cities by bombing or from heavy fighting. Not to mention the combination of both heavy bombardment and heavy artillery centric fighting seen in Eastern Europe. Certainly there are cultural, political, social, economic and many many other factors some of which make up the foundation of why Europe is such a fascinating place which can be seen reflected in city development. Though this topic could stretch back to the peak of the Spanish Empire and absolutely could be its own thread by which I mean European City development history, patterns & styles. The strain of decolonization and shift into the landing ground for decolonize(d)ing empires that the role played by Europeans Economic Community in terms of providing stability and opportunity for growth is another fascinating and important subject that plays into this topic.

Britain being blocked during the formative years of the ECC imo is represented by the Thatcher period of policy of rapid deindustrialization in favor of a financial system based economy, being a signatory of Brettan Woods as well as colonial connections to Arab Oil powers plays a major role in the development of the tax haven islands which were a keystone of competition with the U.S. in the global financial system. Though the modernization of the British financial system goes hand in hand with this time period as well muddying the waters a bit. The protection of major industrial institutions in France while Germany played its traditional role in the post ww1 20th century of being the major manufacturing power for smaller countries while importing raw materials. The Benelux countries partially due to being the largest ports in Europe I would argue play a role in the more British style of development as well as Luxembourg being a financial hub / tax haven nation factor in.