Largest Canadian cities since 1921

[Yuri]

I decided to do the same exercise for US cities in 1950. I used city proper and I kept adding suburbs that had a high density (above 2,000 inh./km²):

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ---- 10,244,422 -- 1,255 km² ---- 8,160 inh./km²

Chicago ------ 3,930,506 ---- 670 km² ---- 5,863 inh./km²

Detroit ------ 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

Montreal ----- 1,164,133 ---- 164 km² ---- 7,098 inh./km²

Cleveland ---- 1,082,067 ---- 245 km² ---- 4,544 inh./km²

St. Louis ---- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Pittsburgh --- 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto -------- 889,869 ---- 142 km² ---- 6,267 inh./km²

Cincinnati ----- 708,469 ---- 256 km² ---- 2,768 inh./km²

Milwaukee ------ 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo -------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

It's crazy to see how dense, urban and big northern US cities were back then.

P.S. For Americans, 1 sqm = 2.59 km².

[Doady]

If you use weighted density, the city of Detroit probably still denser than the city of Toronto.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Doady

If you use weighted density, the city of Detroit probably still denser than the city of Toronto.

Probably. I also suspect the far edges of Detroit city proper were not fully urbanized. I added HP and Ham, 2 Grosse Pointes, the 2 cities south of Detroit, by the river and 3 Oakland County suburbs.

[Docere]

The then-city of Toronto was pretty small in 1950. It had already been fully built out by 1930.

[Doady]

Yeah Toronto was probably closer to 1 million in 1950? But I am not sure if it was contiguously built up. I can't imagine it was anywhere as dense as Montreal or New York, with all their side streets lined with multi-family housing. Even today, Toronto doesn't feel as "big" as Montreal, if that makes any sense.

[Docere]

Canadian Census Tract data for 1951:

https://archive.org/details/31761118900414/page/n151/mode/2up

[Yuri]

I did a crazy thing and added Los Angeles dozens and dozens of suburbs and I had to figure it out which one were urbanized by 1950. Some maps helped it. I also tried to take if off the parts of Los Angeles city proper that are mountains. I cut 1/3 of it. I couldn't deal with sparsely populated areas on the San Fernando Valley and some areas between Los Angeles and Long Beach.

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ----- 10,244,422 -- 1,255 km² ---- 8,160 inh./km²

Chicago ------- 3,930,506 ---- 670 km² ---- 5,863 inh./km²

Los Angeles --- 3,512,434 -- 1,502 km² ---- 2,339 inh./km²

Detroit ------- 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

Montreal ------ 1,164,133 ---- 164 km² ---- 7,098 inh./km²

Cleveland ----- 1,082,067 ---- 245 km² ---- 4,544 inh./km²

St. Louis ----- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Pittsburgh ---- 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto --------- 889,869 ---- 142 km² ---- 6,267 inh./km²

Cincinnati ------ 708,469 ---- 256 km² ---- 2,768 inh./km²

Milwaukee ------- 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo --------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

[Docere]

Three other small municipalities were pretty dense in 1951. Population and land area and density reported in square miles (as reported at time):

Long Branch 8,727 0.86 10,148
Mimico 11,342 0.78 14,451
New Toronto 11,194 1.20 9,348

[Yuri]

San Francisco. Very easy. SF plus 7 municipalities on East Bay:

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ------- 10,244,422 -- 1,255 km² ---- 8,160 inh./km²

Chicago --------- 3,930,506 ---- 670 km² ---- 5,863 inh./km²

Los Angeles ----- 3,512,434 -- 1,502 km² ---- 2,339 inh./km²

Detroit --------- 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

San Francisco --- 1,386,789 ---- 342 km² ---- 4,053 inh./km²

Montreal -------- 1,164,133 ---- 164 km² ---- 7,098 inh./km²

Cleveland ------- 1,082,067 ---- 245 km² ---- 4,544 inh./km²

St. Louis ------- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Pittsburgh ------ 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto ----------- 889,869 ---- 142 km² ---- 6,267 inh./km²

Cincinnati -------- 708,469 ---- 256 km² ---- 2,768 inh./km²

Milwaukee --------- 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo ----------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

Those numbers show how California went from the least dense urbanized areas in the world to the densest in North America.

[niwell]

Despite being mostly "houses" pre-WWII Toronto was actually quite dense, which is reflected in current density stats for predominantly lowrise areas of the Old City. Couple of reasons for this - outside of wealthy quarters most of these actually housed multiple families. Not uncommon for a house built in the first couple decades of the century to have 2-3 kitchens from the get-go. This was boosted by the fact that Toronto had very little large-scale speculative development and a large percentage of dwellings were owner-built. For many, "lodgers" were often the only way to defray costs. It was also a workaround for prohibitions on purpose-built apartment buildings, though those still did exist in areas. Centrally for "bachelors" and a bunch just outside city limits, particularly in North Toronto around Bathurst/St. Clair.

The other big reason is that unlike a lot of other North American cities the transit system was mandated to operate at a break-even rate and would only expand when ridership demanded it. This is why older parts of the city have very narrow lots and saw a relative paucity of leap-frogging speculative development at the urban fringe. The big area where development was more haphazard would have been on the NW fringe near industry along the rail corridors. And while generally owner-built, these areas ended up being quite dense due to the reasons mentioned above (originally verging on slums).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I decided to do the same exercise for US cities in 1950. I used city proper and I kept adding suburbs that had a high density (above 2,000 inh./km²):

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ---- 10,244,422 -- 1,255 km² ---- 8,160 inh./km²

Chicago ------ 3,930,506 ---- 670 km² ---- 5,863 inh./km²

Detroit ------ 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

Montreal ----- 1,164,133 ---- 164 km² ---- 7,098 inh./km²

Cleveland ---- 1,082,067 ---- 245 km² ---- 4,544 inh./km²

St. Louis ---- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Pittsburgh --- 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto -------- 889,869 ---- 142 km² ---- 6,267 inh./km²

Cincinnati ----- 708,469 ---- 256 km² ---- 2,768 inh./km²

Milwaukee ------ 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo -------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

It's crazy to see how dense, urban and big northern US cities were back then.

P.S. For Americans, 1 sqm = 2.59 km².

Yes, the big northern industrial US cities weren't built to be low density like the Sun Belt cities. Today New York is almost certainly the only one of these cities on the US side of the border that would be more dense if you calculated the 2020 density for the same cities.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Probably. I also suspect the far edges of Detroit city proper were not fully urbanized. I added HP and Ham, 2 Grosse Pointes, the 2 cities south of Detroit, by the river and 3 Oakland County suburbs.

There might have been small pockets of northwest Detroit that were still being developed in 1950, but that should be negligible. I think all of Detroit's current footprint would have been developed by about 1955. Any housing in the city built after that was built on a pre-existing lot.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

San Francisco. Very easy. SF plus 7 municipalities on East Bay:

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ------- 10,244,422 -- 1,255 km² ---- 8,160 inh./km²

Chicago --------- 3,930,506 ---- 670 km² ---- 5,863 inh./km²

Los Angeles ----- 3,512,434 -- 1,502 km² ---- 2,339 inh./km²

Detroit --------- 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

San Francisco --- 1,386,789 ---- 342 km² ---- 4,053 inh./km²

Montreal -------- 1,164,133 ---- 164 km² ---- 7,098 inh./km²

Cleveland ------- 1,082,067 ---- 245 km² ---- 4,544 inh./km²

St. Louis ------- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Pittsburgh ------ 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto ----------- 889,869 ---- 142 km² ---- 6,267 inh./km²

Cincinnati -------- 708,469 ---- 256 km² ---- 2,768 inh./km²

Milwaukee --------- 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo ----------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

Those numbers show how California went from the least dense urbanized areas in the world to the densest in North America.

I wouldn't have guessed that most of the Great Lakes cities were more dense than San Francisco.

[Docere]

According to this old SSP thread Toronto in 1950 had a weighted density of 22K per square mile and Detroit 15K.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6854878

That's not surprising. Toronto was definitely a tighter, more compact city, Detroit was more expansive.

[Yuri]

Brought London, that used to be world's largest city between 1800 and the 1930's and it was surpassed by New York. It was a little bit tricky to find the area. I used the full 1951 population figure for Greater London and used Google Maps to remove the Green Belt inside of it. I eliminated some 350 km², but there were probably more non-urbanized spaces back in 1951.

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ------- 10,244,422 -- 1,255 km² ---- 8,160 inh./km²

London ---------- 8,164,416 -- 1,238 km² ---- 6,593 inh./km²

Chicago --------- 3,930,506 ---- 670 km² ---- 5,863 inh./km²

Los Angeles ----- 3,512,434 -- 1,502 km² ---- 2,339 inh./km²

Detroit --------- 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

San Francisco --- 1,386,789 ---- 342 km² ---- 4,053 inh./km²

Montreal -------- 1,164,133 ---- 164 km² ---- 7,098 inh./km²

Cleveland ------- 1,082,067 ---- 245 km² ---- 4,544 inh./km²

St. Louis ------- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Pittsburgh ------ 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto ----------- 921,132 ---- 149 km² ---- 6,182 inh./km²

Cincinnati -------- 708,469 ---- 256 km² ---- 2,768 inh./km²

Milwaukee --------- 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo ----------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wouldn't have guessed that most of the Great Lakes cities were more dense than San Francisco.

I remember to have read an article on Demographia like 15 years ago about it. They've brought 1950 population figures with the urbanized areas back then.

Los Angeles was for decades synonym of urban sprawl. Only very recently this notion started to fade away.

Just remember that in the late 1970's on Go West lyrics we read:

"there are many ways
(To live there) in the sun or shade
(Together) we will find a place
(To settle) where there's so much space"

Originally Posted by Docere

Three other small municipalities were pretty dense in 1951. Population and land area and density reported in square miles (as reported at time):

Long Branch 8,727 0.86 10,148
Mimico 11,342 0.78 14,451
New Toronto 11,194 1.20 9,348

Included. I guess we could do the same with an extra one or two for Montreal.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Brought London, that used to be world's largest city between 1800 and the 1930's and it was surpassed by New York. It was a little bit tricky to find the area. I used the full 1951 population figure for Greater London and used Google Maps to remove the Green Belt inside of it. I eliminated some 350 km², but there were probably more non-urbanized spaces back in 1951.

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ------- 10,244,422 -- 1,255 km² ---- 8,160 inh./km²

London ---------- 8,164,416 -- 1,238 km² ---- 6,593 inh./km²

Chicago --------- 3,930,506 ---- 670 km² ---- 5,863 inh./km²

Los Angeles ----- 3,512,434 -- 1,502 km² ---- 2,339 inh./km²

Detroit --------- 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

San Francisco --- 1,386,789 ---- 342 km² ---- 4,053 inh./km²

Montreal -------- 1,164,133 ---- 164 km² ---- 7,098 inh./km²

Cleveland ------- 1,082,067 ---- 245 km² ---- 4,544 inh./km²

St. Louis ------- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Pittsburgh ------ 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto ----------- 921,132 ---- 149 km² ---- 6,182 inh./km²

Cincinnati -------- 708,469 ---- 256 km² ---- 2,768 inh./km²

Milwaukee --------- 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo ----------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

I remember to have read an article on Demographia like 15 years ago about it. They've brought 1950 population figures with the urbanized areas back then.

Los Angeles was for decades synonym of urban sprawl. Only very recently this notion started to fade away.

Just remember that in the late 1970's on Go West lyrics we read:

"there are many ways
(To live there) in the sun or shade
(Together) we will find a place
(To settle) where there's so much space"



Included. I guess we could do the same with an extra one or two for Montreal.

Interesting that Montreal ranks second, after NYC and ahead of London, in these figures (density). Thanks for doing the math!

[Docere]

Wonder if this should be moved here as the thread is becoming less about Canadian cities specifically:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254554

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Interesting that Montreal ranks second, after NYC and ahead of London, in these figures (density). Thanks for doing the math!

Thank you! It's fun. It's almost like travelling in time, thinking on how those cities felt back then.

BTW, I added Mount Royal into Montreal, so density dropped slightly. I also removed the airports of New York, Chicago and Cleveland, which increased their densities. I also removed non-developed area inside Cincinnati proper, on the northwest and southeast corners of it and that "finger" on west.

And now adding Washington (without airport) and Baltimore (without that peninsula in the far south), which were a bit hard as they have lots of unincorporated communities around them:

------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ------- 10,244,422 -- 1,205 km² ---- 8,502 inh./km²

London ---------- 8,164,416 -- 1,238 km² ---- 6,593 inh./km²

Chicago --------- 3,930,506 ---- 650 km² ---- 6,046 inh./km²

Los Angeles ----- 3,512,434 -- 1,502 km² ---- 2,339 inh./km²

Detroit --------- 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

San Francisco --- 1,386,789 ---- 342 km² ---- 4,053 inh./km²

Montreal -------- 1,181,123 ---- 172 km² ---- 6,867 inh./km²

Baltimore ------- 1,088,708 ---- 259 km² ---- 4,203 inh./km²

Cleveland ------- 1,082,067 ---- 237 km² ---- 4,564 inh./km²

St. Louis ------- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Washington ------ 1,041,662 ---- 279 km² ---- 3,727 inh./km²

Pittsburgh ------ 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto ----------- 921,132 ---- 149 km² ---- 6,182 inh./km²

Cincinnati -------- 708,469 ---- 183 km² ---- 3,871 inh./km²

Milwaukee --------- 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo ----------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

[Docere]

Using a combination of old wards, federal election districts and 1941 census tract populations here's 1901 and 1941 populations of different areas of Toronto. I've divided into inner city/pre-1900 area which is Don River to Dovercourt south of Bloor, close to the original boundaries before the first annexations in the 1880s and the rest into outer city which was mostly built up between 1900 and 1930.

Inner districts:

Ward 2 (Cabbagetown/Don) 35,228 45,318 +29%
Ward 3 (Downtown) 32,815 23,252 -29%
Ward 4 (Kensington Market area) 40,465 46,055 +14%
Ward 5 (Trinity Bellwoods area) 31,589 59,844 +89%

Outer districts:

Ward 1 (Riverdale) 11,179 44,297 +296%
Ward 2 (Rosedale) 3,468 17,136 +394%
Ward 3 (Yorkville and Deer Park) 7,187 16,774 +133%
Ward 4 (Annex and Hill District) 5,773 22,677 +293%
Ward 5 (Christie and Hillcrest area) 4,338 32,972 +660%
Ward 6 (Parkdale and Brockton) 27,549 94,591 +243%
Ward 6 (Earlscourt area) N/A, 25,131
Ward 7 (West Toronto Junction) 6,091 48,742 +700%
Ward 8 (East Toronto/Beaches) 4,633 85,835 +1752%
Ward 9 (North Toronto) 2,061 72,953 +3439%

Municipal ward map here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toronto/File:Toronto_ward_map_1964.PNG

[Docere]

A map of Toronto's streetcar system from 1945. Gives you a good sense of the pre-WWII built-up area:

https://transittoronto.ca/archives/maps/Streetcar_1945.pdf

[Yuri]

Finally, Philadelphia and Boston to finish all major North American cities.

And as an extra, I also brought Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo:

Buenos Aires would cover a slightly bigger area as some partidos (municipalities) were only partially urbanized and I left them out. Figures are from 1947 and as it was experience a rapid growth around that time, still getting lots of Europeans, I'd say it would be around 4.4 million and maybe 530 km² or so.

São Paulo was growing like crazy, avoiding flood plains, leapfrogged everywhere, lots of small farms and still didn't have the same urban grandeur of the other 3 Latin American, which were national capitals and we already big cities in the turning of the century. That probably explains the much lower density.


------------------------- Population 1950 ------ Area ------- Density

New York ------- 10,244,422 -- 1,205 km² ---- 8,502 inh./km²

London ---------- 8,164,416 -- 1,238 km² ---- 6,593 inh./km²

Buenos Aires ---- 4,017,913 ---- 492 km² ---- 8,166 inh./km²

Chicago --------- 3,930,506 ---- 650 km² ---- 6,046 inh./km²

Los Angeles ----- 3,512,434 -- 1,502 km² ---- 2,339 inh./km²

Mexico City ----- 2,661,437 ---- 265 km² --- 10,056 inh./km²

Philadelphia ---- 2,474,196 ---- 458 km² ---- 5,400 inh./km²

Rio de Janeiro -- 2,425,931 ---- 294 km² ---- 8,249 inh./km²

Detroit --------- 2,048,410 ---- 414 km² ---- 4,951 inh./km²

Boston ---------- 1,826,741 ---- 408 km² ---- 4,477 inh./km²

São Paulo ------- 1,756,956 ---- 291 km² ---- 6,027 inh./km²

San Francisco --- 1,386,789 ---- 342 km² ---- 4,053 inh./km²

Montreal -------- 1,181,123 ---- 172 km² ---- 6,867 inh./km²

Baltimore ------- 1,088,708 ---- 259 km² ---- 4,203 inh./km²

Cleveland ------- 1,082,067 ---- 237 km² ---- 4,564 inh./km²

St. Louis ------- 1,044,363 ---- 233 km² ---- 4,486 inh./km²

Washington ------ 1,041,662 ---- 279 km² ---- 3,727 inh./km²

Pittsburgh ------ 1,038,137 ---- 263 km² ---- 3,940 inh./km²

Toronto ----------- 921,132 ---- 149 km² ---- 6,182 inh./km²

Cincinnati -------- 708,469 ---- 183 km² ---- 3,871 inh./km²

Milwaukee --------- 637,392 ---- 129 km² ---- 4,922 inh./km²

Buffalo ----------- 600,198 ---- 108 km² ---- 5,394 inh./km²

So we can go back to Canada!