Canadian cities are about as dense as German cities

[Yuri]

Regarding urban areas, German cities are considerably denser (2024 German estimates and 2021 Canadian census, source citypopulation.de):

Ruhr 5,219,200; 1,647 km2; 3,170 inh./km2
Berlin 4,525,900; 1,036 km2; 4,369 inh./km2 (inc. Oranienburg)
Köln-Düsseldorf 4,395,700; 1,188 km2; 3,699 inh./km2
Hamburg 2,627,100; 805 km2; 3,265 inh./km2
München 2,209,700; 444 km2; 4,977 inh./km2 (inc. Gilching and Neufahrn)
Frankfurt 1,807,700; 384 km2; 4,713 inh./km2
Stuttgart 1,472,800; 314 km2; 4,694 inh./km2
Mannheim 1,093,150; 265 km2; 4,125 inh./km2 (inc. Weinheim and Schifferstadt)
Nürnberg 1,046,000; 284 km2; 3,687 inh./km2


Toronto 6,908,597; 2,437 km2; 2,835 inh./km2 (inc. Hamilton, Oshawa, Bolton, Georgetown and Milton)
Montreal 3,771,701; 1,443 km2; 2,614 inh./km2 (inc. Châteauguay and Varennes)
Vancouver 2,449,176; 919 km2; 2,665 inh./km2 (inc. Ladner)
Calgary 1,305,550; 622 km2; 2,100 inh./km2
Ottawa 1,205,939, 611 km2; 1,974 inh./km2 (inc. Kanata)
Edmonton 1,151,635; 627 km2; 1,836 inh./km2

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Toronto 6,908,597; 2,437 km2; 2,835 inh./km2 (inc. Hamilton, Oshawa, Bolton, Georgetown and Milton)

I'm not sure about those numbers, from your list of cities it sounds like it includes the entire Golden Horseshoe which has almost 10 million people.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I'm not sure about those numbers, from your list of cities it sounds like it includes the entire Golden Horseshoe which has almost 10 million people.

No. It’s urban area (built up area) according to the Canadian Census definition. GGH spans over 31,000 km2. The urban area in the list is only 2,400 km2, less than 1,000 sqm.

If you follow the citypopulation.de, you can even see the maps.

[Yuri]

Out of curiosity, I added up several quarters on the core of [b]Berlin[b/]. I found 1,527,195 inhabitants (2024) inside only 120,9 km2. That’s 12,631 inh./km2.

For comparison, Bronx has 1,384,724 in 109,2 km2 for a density of 12,678 inh/km2. Philadelphia places 1,573,916 people within 348 km2, almost 3x less dense than Berlin.

Toronto (Old Toronto, York and East York) gets 1,104,463 people in 142 km2 for a 7,778 inh./km2. Impressive, but still way lower than Berlin.

Montreal (excluding the 7 less dense arrondissements), has 1,291,731 in 181,7 km2 for a 7,109 inh./km2.

[iheartthed]

I'm not sure that there's a lot of value in comparing a subjective concept like "urban area" density across international borders. Even for two very similar countries like Canada and the United States, which have very similar municipal organization policies and have had similar issues/patterns with urban sprawl, the comparisons are often strained. Does knowing that Toronto's "urban area" is nearly 60% more dense than New York's really tell us anything meaningful? Absolutely no one would drive across both New York's and Toronto's metro area and walk away with that impression.

In comparing two extremely different countries like Germany and Canada, I'm not even sure I see the point. Germans probably wouldn't even understand why you would need to contrive a metric like urban area because their organizations of government don't easily support urban area balkanization.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm not sure that there's a lot of value in comparing a subjective concept like "urban area" density across international borders. Even for two very similar countries like Canada and the United States, which have very similar municipal organization policies and have had similar issues/patterns with urban sprawl, the comparisons are often strained. Does knowing that Toronto's "urban area" is nearly 60% more dense than New York's really tell us anything meaningful? Absolutely no one would drive across both New York's and Toronto's metro area and walk away with that impression.

I don't know about that. Yes they would notice the extreme high density in NYC's core areas but they'd also notice the geographically huge low density, large lot fringes that don't really exist to any great extent in the GTA. After all, with an urban area covering 8412.65 km2, a person would spend a lot of time driving through those low density areas compared to the only 1,829.05 km2 of the Toronto urban area. Seemingly endless by comparison. I suspect that difference would make a pretty big impression.

Criticisms of comparing metro areas or municipal density between countries is fair, but urban areas is actually decent even if not as good as weighted density.

[Yuri]

It’s the subject of thread though.

I provided data for urban areas, which indeed include a detached house in a far flung suburb and a highrise downtown, but I also provided data for administrative jurisdictions, inside their urban core.

On both counts, German urban areas are considerably denser than Canadian ones. What they have in common is they are all getting denser which I find a positive development.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't know about that. Yes they would notice the extreme high density in NYC's core areas but they'd also notice the geographically huge low density, large lot fringes that don't really exist to any great extent in the GTA. After all, with an urban area covering 8412.65 km2, a person would spend a lot of time driving through those low density areas compared to the only 1,829.05 km2 of the Toronto urban area. Seemingly endless by comparison. I suspect that difference would make a pretty big impression.

Criticisms of comparing metro areas or municipal density between countries is fair, but urban areas is actually decent even if not as good as weighted density.

Even though I find weighted density a very good tool to understand a given urban environment, I find very odd how on SSP people have this thing to dismiss ultra low density developments on the New York and Boston corridor. Millions of people live in such environment and it’s no way more sustainable than the ones found in Atlanta or Charlotte suburbs.

It’s almost like they’re exempt of any criticism just because they have old dense urban cores. By that reasoning I could welcome those endless gated communities around SP just because the urban area is already very dense. They’re horrible.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't know about that. Yes they would notice the extreme high density in NYC's core areas but they'd also notice the geographically huge low density, large lot fringes that don't really exist to any great extent in the GTA. After all, with an urban area covering 8412.65 km2, a person would spend a lot of time driving through those low density areas compared to the only 1,829.05 km2 of the Toronto urban area. Seemingly endless by comparison. I suspect that difference would make a pretty big impression.

The average of the densities of the counties ringing NYC (2,362 people/km sq) is probably going to be quite a bit higher than the average of the areas ringing Toronto. If anything they would notice that semi-rural places are considered part of the catchment area in NY and would not be part of the catchment area in Toronto.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Even though I find weighted density a very good tool to understand a given urban environment, I find very odd how on SSP people have this thing to dismiss ultra low density developments on the New York and Boston corridor. Millions of people live in such environment and it’s no way more sustainable than the ones found in Atlanta or Charlotte suburbs.

It’s almost like they’re exempt of any criticism just because they have old dense urban cores. By that reasoning I could welcome those endless gated communities around SP just because the urban area is already very dense. They’re horrible.

It's true that the people living in low density parts of regions with dense cores probably aren't living anymore sustainable than people in low density parts of other regions. But i do think it's fair to point out that places with her weighted density have a higher percentage of people living in dense settings. So more of the people are living at greater sustainability.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The average of the densities of the counties ringing NYC (2,362 people/km sq) is probably going to be quite a bit higher than the average of the areas ringing Toronto. If anything they would notice that semi-rural places are considered New York part of the catchment area in NY and would not be part of the catchment area in Toronto.

I don't think that's true considering that Canadian suburbs tend to be denser than US suburbs with the sometimes exception of the US southwest. Well, unless you're only counting a small percentage of the total NY suburbs. Yes there are places in metro NY that are technically suburbs but functionally urban (largely on the NJ side of the Hudson). But that's a pretty small percentage of the land and people.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think that's true considering that Canadian suburbs tend to be denser than US suburbs with the sometimes exception of the US southwest. Well, unless you're only counting a small percentage of the total NY suburbs. Yes there are places in metro NY that are technically suburbs but functionally urban (largely on the NJ side of the Hudson). But that's a pretty small percentage of the land and people.

If we ignore NYC and ignore all of the counties ringing NYC, we've excluded like at least 70% of where the New York metro area population resides. Yes, you'll still have like 70% of the land area remaining but that goes back to my point about New York including a lot of rural and semi-rural places in the urban area. New York is not evenly developed like Toronto, so the average density statistics are highly misleading. I don't think you'll drive around the places where people actually live in the NY urban area and conclude that Toronto is more densely populated.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If we ignore NYC and ignore all of the counties ringing NYC, we've excluded like at least 70% of where the New York metro area population resides. Yes, you'll still have like 70% of the land area remaining but that goes back to my point about New York including a lot of rural and semi-rural places in the urban area. New York is not evenly developed like Toronto, so the average density statistics are highly misleading. I don't think you'll drive around the places where people actually live in the NY urban area and conclude that Toronto is more densely populated.

Indeed, and this is where weighted density comes in handy. Most of the population the NY metro lives at a higher density than their Toronto counterparts, but there's also a relatively small population spread out over a vast semi-rural hinterland - an equivalent of which just doesn't exist around Toronto.

As such, Toronto's average urban density is higher, but the average person in NY lives at a higher density.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Out of curiosity, I added up several quarters on the core of [b]Berlin[b/]. I found 1,527,195 inhabitants (2024) inside only 120,9 km2. That’s 12,631 inh./km2.

For comparison, Bronx has 1,384,724 in 109,2 km2 for a density of 12,678 inh/km2. Philadelphia places 1,573,916 people within 348 km2, almost 3x less dense than Berlin.

Toronto (Old Toronto, York and East York) gets 1,104,463 people in 142 km2 for a 7,778 inh./km2. Impressive, but still way lower than Berlin.

Montreal (excluding the 7 less dense arrondissements), has 1,291,731 in 181,7 km2 for a 7,109 inh./km2.

I liked this game:

Boston: 968,863; 167 km2; 5,801 inh./km2 (inc. 4 suburbs)

Chicago: 1,239,330; 163.2 km2; 7,594 inh./km2 (27 communities, north biased)

Düsseldorf: 603,355; 136.9 km2; 4,407 inh./km2 (minus outward quarters)

Frankfurt: 637,430; 118.4 km2; 5,384 inh./km2 (minus outward quarters)

Hamburg: 1,152,359; 189.6 km2; 6,078 inh./km2 (minus outward quarters)

Köln: 736,861; 154.6 km2; 4,766 inh./km2 (minus outward quarters)

Miami: 553,851; 115 km2; 4,816 inh./km2 (inc. 3 suburbs)

München: 1,289,003; 175.4 km2; 7,349 inh./km2 (minus outward quarters)

Los Angeles: 800,796; 158 km2; 5,068 inh./km2 (21 central neighborhoods)

San Francisco: 878,392; 121.5 km2; 7,230 inh./km2

Vancouver: 756,008; 115.2 km2; 6,564 inh./km2

Washington: 702,250; 158.3 km2; 4,436 inh./km2

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If we ignore NYC and ignore all of the counties ringing NYC, we've excluded like at least 70% of where the New York metro area population resides. Yes, you'll still have like 70% of the land area remaining but that goes back to my point about New York including a lot of rural and semi-rural places in the urban area. New York is not evenly developed like Toronto, so the average density statistics are highly misleading. I don't think you'll drive around the places where people actually live in the NY urban area and conclude that Toronto is more densely populated.

There are specific criteria that include minimum densities for a place to be included in urban area calculations with any place falling below that threshold being omitted. Which is why metro areas are usually larger in population and lower in density than urban areas since parts of a metro area may not be considered urban. So your explanation works well with metro area density comparisons since that actually can include rural areas. But when it comes to urban areas, that argument amounts to just calling the lower density parts of an urban area "rural" or "semi-rural" despite them meeting the requirements for being classified as urban (not arbitrary political boundaries). If it turns out that the density requirements in the US are lower than in a place we're trying to compare with then yes, some areas should be excluded for the comparison. As long as we can show with some certainty that those areas wouldn't be included based on the other country's higher threshold and they're also excluded from the UA population total rather than just the density calculation.

[edale]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Indeed, and this is where weighted density comes in handy. Most of the population the NY metro lives at a higher density than their Toronto counterparts, but there's also a relatively small population spread out over a vast semi-rural hinterland - an equivalent of which just doesn't exist around Toronto.

As such, Toronto's average urban density is higher, but the average person in NY lives at a higher density.

You could replace Toronto with Los Angeles and this statement would remain true. LA, while not coming close to NYC in terms of weighted density, has far denser suburbs and therefore has a higher MSA density.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Indeed, and this is where weighted density comes in handy. Most of the population the NY metro lives at a higher density than their Toronto counterparts, but there's also a relatively small population spread out over a vast semi-rural hinterland - an equivalent of which just doesn't exist around Toronto.

As such, Toronto's average urban density is higher, but the average person in NY lives at a higher density.

It actually does exist around Toronto but just isn't considered part of Toronto's metro area for statistical purposes.

For instance, this is in a county that is part of the core NY MSA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/BRQ7G79yVLeZqAGc7

Most of the land area of Putnam County looks like that. And I believe every inch of Putnam county is included in Demographia's calculation of the NY Metro land area. Putnam County would never be included in a major Canadian city's statistical area. Putnam County has a land area as large as New York City's but not even 100,000 residents live there. In fact, the population density of the entire county would classify it as rural.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It actually does exist around Toronto but just isn't considered part of Toronto's metro area for statistical purposes.

For instance, this is in a county that is part of the core NY MSA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/BRQ7G79yVLeZqAGc7

Most of the land area of Putnam County looks like that. And I believe every inch of Putnam county is included in Demographia's calculation of the NY Metro land area. Putnam County would never be included in a major Canadian city's statistical area. Putnam County has a land area as large as New York City's but not even 100,000 residents live there. In fact, the population density of the entire county would classify it as rural.

Demographia does not metropolitan areas list, but urbanized areas ones. There are only a small section of it, on its south central portion included.

Here we have maps for all US urbanized areas: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/usa/ua/

New York (plus Bridgeport) has 20,342,857 inh., within 9,442 km2 and a 2,154 inh./km2.

I once did an exercise including New York City, Nassau, Essex, Hudson and Union and parts of Bergen, Middlesex, Passaic and Westchester. I found 15,041,390 people living within 3,555 km2 for a 4,231 inh./km2 density.

We could infer, subtracting those numbers, that are 5,301,467 people living in a 5,887 km2, for a 900 inh./km2 density. That's a massive number of people living in very low densities and a massive amount of otherwise farmland and nature that's now occupied by wasterful development.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Demographia does not metropolitan areas list, but urbanized areas ones. There are only a small section of it, on its south central portion included.

Here we have maps for all US urbanized areas: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/usa/ua/

New York (plus Bridgeport) has 20,342,857 inh., within 9,442 km2 and a 2,154 inh./km2.

I once did an exercise including New York City, Nassau, Essex, Hudson and Union and parts of Bergen, Middlesex, Passaic and Westchester. I found 15,041,390 people living within 3,555 km2 for a 4,231 inh./km2 density.

We could infer, subtracting those numbers, that are 5,301,467 people living in a 5,887 km2, for a 900 inh./km2 density. That's a massive number of people living in very low densities and a massive amount of otherwise farmland and nature that's now occupied by wasterful development.

That sounds more like it. So 75% of the people who live in the NY metro area live in an area with an average density that is substantially higher than Toronto's average density. If someone were to drive around the NY metro area they would likely be left with the impression that the NY metro is significantly more dense than Toronto. And sure, they may conclude that the fringes of the NY metro area are much less dense than Toronto's.

[iheartthed]

Using counties, this is what I calculated for the NY MSA.

New York Core + Border counties

Population: 15,187,242
Area: 1,832 miles / 4,745 kilometers
Density: 8,289 people per square mile / 3,200 people per square kilometer

Includes New York City, Nassau (NY), Westchester (NY), Bergen (NJ), Essex (NJ), Hudson (NJ), Middlesex (NJ), Union (NJ)



New York Outer counties

Population: 4,894,693
Area: 4,307 miles / 11,156 kilometers
Density: 1,136 people per square miles / 438 people per square kilometer

Includes Putnam (NY), Rockland (NY), Suffolk (NY), Hunterdon (NJ), Monmouth (NJ), Morris (NJ), Ocean (NJ), Passaic (NJ), Somerset (NJ), Sussex (NJ)

So 2/3rds of the NY metro land area contains 1/4th of the population. Much of that land area is preserved green space, so the density stats are very misleading.