Canadian cities are about as dense as German cities

[muppet]

London itself is quite the example - nearly half is green space (47%), the highest of any major city. It technically can be counted as 'woodland' from the tree cover.
In reality the urban 'feel' without the parks puts it still well below Paris or Barcelona, but on par with Naples (near 30K per sq mile). The centre of course even higher:

SCROLL >>>>>






www.bowlofchalk.net


Outside the centre:

[muppet]

In short Germany and UK live much denser than on paper, skewed by the disproportionately high amount of parkland. Same with optics, the majority of the population in apartments, with many formerly singular houses subdivided or shared as rentals -creating the tightest living space in the OECD.

[MolsonExport]

wow, the relative density is really quite high in the midlands. They should have had a high speed rail connection to the rest of Europe a long time ago.

[MolsonExport]

Montreal also has a really large park at its centre: Mount Royal Park, which lowers its overall density.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by muppet

In short Germany and UK live much denser than on paper, skewed by the disproportionately high amount of parkland. Same with optics, the majority of the population in apartments, with many formerly singular houses subdivided or shared as rentals -creating some of the lowest average living space in the OECD.

And both Germany and Britain experienced a massive influx of immigrants this century which helped their inner cities to boom, reversing the urban flight post-1973 that also affected them more than the other Western European countries.

Another thing in common is that London and Berlin consolidated their cities long ago (1965 and 1920), expanding their borders, including suburbs and given this idea that they're not very dense.

London, for instance, has 8,799,728 in 1,572 km2 for a not so impressive density of 5,600 inh./km2. Taking out a few boroughs on the eastern, southern and western fringes, we get 6,886,883 within 966 km2 for a more respectable density of 7,100 inh./km2. And finally, Inner London counts 3,693,220 within 367 km2 for a much more impressive 10,100 inh./km2.

We can do the same exercise for Berlin: 3,897,145 inh. within 891 km2 and 4,300 inh./km2. Removing some quarters in the fringe, that are mostly comprised by forests, we have a way higher density of 6,700 inh./km2 (3,510,777 inh. within 523 km2.) and Inner Berlin has 2,013,542 inh. in 182 km2 for an 11,000 inh./km2 density.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

wow, the relative density is really quite high in the midlands. They should have had a high speed rail connection to the rest of Europe a long time ago.

England is very dense. Too bad they are horrible to build infrastructure. England, removing those emptier spaces (Cornwall and Devon, the two counties on the border with Wales and the other two bordering Scotland), there are 53,475,436 million people living within 102,562 km2 for a 521 inh./km2, which is just slightly below Atlanta's urbanized area.

And that's using 2021 Census numbers. Population over this area has grown by 2 million since then, increasing the density to 540 inh./km2 or so.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal also has a really large park at its centre: Mount Royal Park, which lowers its overall density.

Using Google Maps I found it measures 4.3 km2. However, it's a very central park surrounded by dense urban developments by all sides. It's much more like an urban park such as Central Park or Hyde Park, integral part of the city. It's not like London's Green Belt or the forests surrounding Berlin.

[Docere]

London is not super-dense but it's not un-dense either where the population actually lives. What's the weighted density for London?

[Docere]

England was of course the first fully industrial country. A century ago something like 75% of England's workforce was comprised of manual workers.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by muppet

Brits endure the smallest average house size in the West (818 sq ft/ 76 sq m), lower even than Japan, by a quarter.
It shows the dichotomy of high living density despite seeming much lower in overall density -and the lived experience not matching the stats.

The same for the optics -many singular houses are actually converted to flats, such is the profitability of some of the world's highest prices, national average at $471 per sq foot/ $5070 per sq m.

Housing floorspace - as well as the size of households - is a pretty important part of density that tends to get overlooked in the face of the more visually apparent built density. A bunch of people crammed into a house can provide the same paper density figures as a more structurally imposing but spacious apartment building. For this reason, British cities can put up more impressive density numbers than their built form would imply.

A similar effect - though somewhat less dramatically - is at play in Canada's big cities: living spaces can be quite small, and high housing costs mean a lot of people need to cram in to afford the limited amount of space; which is how even a low-slung, leafy-looking neighbourhood like this (sometimes derisively referred to as "low-density SFH") can pack in densities of 15,000 people/sqkm: https://maps.app.goo.gl/KKV9Zs95XxdAuemB9

[muppet]

^yep, same in London (beautiful neighbourhood btw). The lowrise areas are often more crowded than the highrise ones over here.

Officially the densest neighbourhood is Maida Hill:



Parts of Chelsea, where the uber rich live in luxury bedsits, isn't too far behind. This is where you hear the ridiculous stories of a million bucks to live in a cupboard.



Same with Marylebone








...are higher than say Nine Elms (every building is an apartment block):



or highrise areas like West Croydon, Elephant & Castle, Lewisham, Wembley Central





However, the densest part is highrise, but not official as it isn't it's own ward. In 2020 Millharbour hit 107,000 per sq km/ 277,000 per sq mile (and in 5 years has since built even more).


It's surprisingly, the shortest quadrant in the pic, at bottom left. The highrise thickets in the rest of the pic, almost all apartments, they don't have updated data on:

[iheartthed]

For as dense as England is, why didn't they build the cities taller?

[MolsonExport]

Doesn't King Charles III hate highrises?

[Docere]

England became an urban-majority country in the 1851 census. In comparison, Germany was first-majority urban in 1925, US in 1920, Canada in 1931, France not until after WWII (1954).

[muppet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

For as dense as England is, why didn't they build the cities taller?

They did actually, all the rage in the postwar era. However they were so ugly and crime-riddled many were torn down - 400 tower blocks demolished by the Millennium in London. Birmingham, with near 500 tower blocks, condemned half of them and started a demolition drive that continues to this day. Replaced by dense housing, it's interesting to note density went up. The whole tower-in-the-park idea actually resulted in low density, with acres of unused, wind-blown land (an example here of the 90s/00s replacements).



And yep, King Charles did hate highrises and got many stopped or lowered, including UK's tallest buildings. Also London has something like 14 protected viewing corridors to 5 UNESCO sites, a cathedral and 3 palaces, plus runs to 6 airports that highrises can't impinge upon. Highly unpopular with the general public after the postwar debacles, there were powerful lobby groups too, like English Heritage, so not worth the effort. However the unending property bubbles from the 80s meant ultimately it was.

Of course highrises are now back in demand due to the population boom -we're currently looking at 57 million people in an area smaller than Louisiana, or as Yuri mentioned, 55million in Maine, or Newfoundland.

Highrises again but far prettier, livable and woven into the urban fabric rather than being isolated -London has something like 600 buildings of over 20 storeys planned. It grows by 100,000 a year (and its metro even more), but can't expand outwards, only upwards, or subdivide like hell which has of course been the capitalist option of choice -charge more for less. It needs 66,000 new homes a year, but only builds about 38,000 -the developers keep the optimal underbuild, ensuring prices never stop increasing.

[iheartthed]

By build taller I don't exclusively mean high-rises, but even more densely built midrises (5 to 10 stories). England being as densely populated as it is, why isn't there more of this in the cities?

Paris: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6hSz6nacdyhoibKH7
Barcelona: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kNvt4ozZwaQhYgT7A
Athens: https://maps.app.goo.gl/u9Z2YNYpEFX7UyVu6
Rio de Janeiro: https://maps.app.goo.gl/uZu2qJyuNumkJZci7

Even in London the flat buildings tend to be shorter than in other parts of Europe, or comparable cities around the world.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by muppet

They did actually, all the rage in the postwar era. However they were so ugly and crime-riddled many were torn down - 400 tower blocks demolished by the Millennium in London. Birmingham, with near 500 tower blocks, condemned half of them and started a demolition drive that continues to this day. Replaced by dense housing, it's interesting to note density went up, as the whole tower-in-the-park idea actually resulted in low density, with acres of unused, wind-blown land (an example here of the 90s/00s replacements).



And yep, King Charles did hate highrises and got many stopped or lowered, including UK's tallest buildings. Also London has something like 14 protected viewing corridors to 5 UNESCO sites, a cathedral and 3 palaces, plus runs to 6 airports that highrises can't impinge upon. Highly unpopular with the general public after the postwar debacles, there were powerful lobby groups like English Heritage, so not worth the effort. However, the unending property bubbles from the 80s meant ultimately it was.

Of course highrises are now back in demand, due to the population boom -we're currently looking at 57 million people in an area smaller than Louisiana, or as Yuri mentioned, 55million in Maine, or Newfoundland.

Highrises but far prettier, livable and woven into the urban fabric rather than being isolated -London has something like 600 buildings of over 20 storeys planned. It grows by 100,000 a year (and its metro even more), but can't expand outwards, only upwards, or subdivide like hell which has of course been the capitalist option of choice -charge more for less. It needs 66,000 new homes a year, but only builds about 38,000 -the developers keep the optimal underbuild, ensuring prices never stop increasing.

Fascinating. It is easy to see how London/England grapples with these growth challenges. Canada may be the second-largest country by landmass, yet our growth is overwhelmingly concentrated in a few select cities and corridors, and we are struggling mightily to increase our housing stock.

[MolsonExport]

Barcelona (especially, Eixample) got things right.

The Eixample is characterized by long straight streets, a strict grid pattern crossed by wide avenues, and square blocks with chamfered corners

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

By build taller I don't exclusively mean high-rises, but even more densely built midrises (5 to 10 stories). England being as densely populated as it is, why isn't there more of this in the cities?

For whatever reason, Northern/Protestant Europe is more into SFHs and small buildings. The big apartment blocks are the norm in Central Europe and Med Europe, but UK, Northern Germany, Netherlands, etc. are very much about SFH.

[muppet]

Yep, though very much a boomer thing. For millennials and everyone else, rich or poor, it's only every going to an apartment, renting all their lives or house sharing. New builds are dominated now by apartments or micro-homes. The same issue as in most OECD countries.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

By build taller I don't exclusively mean high-rises, but even more densely built midrises (5 to 10 stories). England being as densely populated as it is, why isn't there more of this in the cities?

Paris: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6hSz6nacdyhoibKH7
Barcelona: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kNvt4ozZwaQhYgT7A
Athens: https://maps.app.goo.gl/u9Z2YNYpEFX7UyVu6
Rio de Janeiro: https://maps.app.goo.gl/uZu2qJyuNumkJZci7

Even in London the flat buildings tend to be shorter than in other parts of Europe, or comparable cities around the world.

So several reasons.

1.Historically nothing could be taller than Buckingham Palace (though they often ignored the ruling), so 100ft as a height limit. Because UK needs large windows for the utter lack of light,
the floors were generally much bigger. London put in 5-6 storeys as a norm while Paris, which was much more into apartment living, squeezed in 7-8.

Thus the dichotomy, although Paris often appears to have more floors, and seem taller, London actually has the higher height limit -100ft as opposed to Haussman's 66ft.




(Check out the woman bottom left, nearest the wall for height reference)



If you read between the lines London still didnt manage to cram more people in despite the added height, so Paris & co. still win in density.


There are of course areas where they ignored the ruling (often on Victoria's doorstep, or commissioned by her husband), squeezing in floors:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Aldwyc..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kensin..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Whiteh..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


2. London did actually have very dense areas. 80% the density of Paris but over much larger an area. This was in The City, the traditional heart but well away from the palace,
that anchored the West End. London was double the population of Paris back then :




^However, almost everything you see other than the cathedral and church spires was flattened in the Blitz.


3. The Victorian streetscape aside, UK very much caught onto liveability earlier than the rest of the world -it invented the suburb, as well as the Garden city by the 1920s.
Huge slum clearances followed in the early 20th century, replaced by large rowhomes/ duplexes with gardens, around busy high streets. Also many more parks laid out,
taking up half the city.

I'd hesitate to call this suburban in the modern sense, as it's still so dense, but the 1930s was by far the biggest buildathon the country ever witnessed:

The Victorians already had a semblance of liveability (note the gardens), despite several people and multiple generations sharing a tiny house:



The Garden City built on this idea, increasing the size of the abode and garden, plus installing mod cons and parks:







In short by WWII London had already succeeded in housing the world's largest city, at 8.6 million, with a good proportion not enduring the traditional cheek-by-jowl density.

...which brings us onto the next major point -there was no longer a need to densify:

4. Depopulation. WWII marked the turning point, as London started declining. Bombed out, losing its empire and industry, while many surged beyond the green belt to live in the suburban
Southeast. By the 1980s the city had reached a nadir of 6.4 million and 1/8 of the land lay derelict.






However things began turning around by the 1990s, as the economy, immigration and internal migration boomed.

In short, historically London's floor limit (if not height), early embrace of liveability, then rapid decline, meant the streetwalls of old stayed in the past.