Density in urban neighbourhoods - Page 3

Docere · #41 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:24 PM**

Profiles of 15 sub-areas (few live in the Financial District) from 2021 census.

Annex

Population: 15,977
Density: 10943 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $110,300
Renter: 70%

Bay St. Corridor

Population: 28,097
Density: 20812 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $63,655
Renter: 70%

Cabbagetown (east of Parliament)

Population: 4,143
Density: 3871 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $106,500
Renter: 39%

Church-Yonge Corridor

Population: 35,744
Density: 33405 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $56,100
Renter: 73%

Kensington-Chinatown

Population: 18,597
Density: 12234 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $53,800
Renter: 68%

King-Parliament

Population: 16,066
Density: 17463 per sq km
Average income: $88,200
Renter: 48%

King-Spadina

Population: 25,729
Density: 26254 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $89,800
Renter: 62%

Moss Park

Population: 11,557
Density: 15617 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $44,969
Renter: 84%

Regent Park

Population: 12,797
Density: 19995 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $48,600
Renter: 71%

St. Jamestown

Population: 25,795
Density: 34393 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $48,100
Renter: 81%

St. Lawrence-Distillery

Population: 13,497
Density: 9851 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $68,900
Renter: 63%

University

Population: 7,595
Density: 5387 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $74,100
Renter: 61%

Waterfront Central

Population: 17,259
Density: 22709 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $89,200
Renter: 60%

Waterfront West

Population: 28,199
Density: 24735 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $73,100
Renter: 60%

Yorkville

Population: 12,491
Density: 10861 per sq km
Average income (per capita): $127,300
Renter: 47%

MolsonExport · #42 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Shameful stats for Phoenix. Could be the least interesting city with more than 5 million metro on the planet.

Nouvellecosse · #43 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The highest I got was 350,523 if you centre it at Harbord and Brunswick. I get that these are imperfect and are based on census geographies, but you still have to move west to cut off natural features like Rosedale valley and the lake, but also low density rich areas like Rosedale and Rathnelly.

Some of these cities I don't know too well, but here are some other "highest scores" I got for other cities:

NYC - 638,000 (centered just south of Sheep Meadow in Central Park)

Los Angeles - 349,000 (centered at Lafayette Park)
San Francisco - 337,000 (centered somewhere in the Western Addition)
Montreal - 321,003 (centered at Masson and De Lorimier)

Boston - 261,000 (near MIT)
Vancouver - 250,000 (somewhere near the southern foot of the Cambie Bridge)
Chicago - 245,000 (forgot exactly where, but somewhere near Clybourn Metra station). Chicago was in a "lower" tier than I was expecting.
Philly - 237,000 (somewhere near Rittenhouse Sq)
DC - 222,000 (near Howard U)

I'm surprised that LA is so high. DT Toronto looks so much denser because of the highrises, but I suppose it isn't too surprising for a 3km radius since density drops off quickly once you leave the immediate downtown. It doesn't become low density like some cities, but the area of high density is very limited. So the downtown residential highrises sort of subsidize the rest of the inner city in terms of density.

Pavlov · #44 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm surprised that LA is so high. DT Toronto looks so much denser because of the highrises, but I suppose it isn't too surprising for a 3km radius since density drops off quickly once you leave the immediate downtown. It doesn't become low density like some cities, but the area of high density is very limited. So the downtown residential highrises sort of subsidize the rest of the inner city in terms of density.

The Asian megacities are incredible in this respect. They maintain circles with >400,000 populations over vast, vast areas.

MolsonExport · #45 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:30 PM**

zoomer · #46 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:36 PM**

I recall we did this last year but with a census mapper with an Ireland internet address.

www.maps.ie/population/

Unfortunately it's overwhelmed by pop up adds now to make it nearly unusable. Overall the proportions are the same, but that maps.ie one had estimates about 5-10% higher or so across the board.

For example with a 3 km radius Victoria came out with 132,799 but with the Tom Forth site it comes in at 126, 800.

https://www.tomforth.co.uk/circlepopulations/?lat=48.43699&long=-123.35887&distance_km=3

mousquet · #47 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Interesting how many more people there are in a 62 km radius from the centre of London, UK (16,702,837), vs. the equivalent for Paris (12,525,335).

Uh, are you astonished?

UK land area: 243,610 km²
Metropolitan France: 551,695 km²

There is still room in France. I even wonder whether it wouldn't partly cause the 100 Years' War, even though populations were much lower back then. It may have been like the Japanese who felt cramped on their archipelago in the 1930s.
Don't get me wrong, it's actually empathy to our English bros from me. People need room to live after all.

That's not even taking overseas France into account. The rainforest in Guiana is the largest pristine green area of the entire EU, but it has to be widely preserved for the sake of our Earth.

Pavlov · #48 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Pearl River Delta with 45 million in a 62 km radius (which even includes a substantial area of ocean water): https://www.tomforth.co.uk/circlepopulations/?lat=22.78862&long=113.62747&distance_km=62

An astounding 65 million if you extend the radius all the way (100 km).

MolsonExport · #49 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet

Uh, are you astonished?

UK land area: 243,610 km²
Metropolitan France: 551,695 km²

There is still room in France. I even wonder whether it wouldn't partly cause the 100 Years' War, even though populations were much lower back then. It may have been like the Japanese who felt cramped on their archipelago in the 1930s.
Don't get me wrong, it's actually empathy to our English bros from me. People need room to live after all.

That's not even taking overseas France into account. The rainforest in Guiana is the largest pristine green area of the entire EU, but it has to be widely preserved for the sake of our Earth.

Having been to France a dozen times, no, I "am not astonished". However, Paris feels more dense to me than London. I knew that London was considerably larger, yet I had imagined the difference to be perhaps smaller. These are the primate cities of each country. Nothing astonishing, mind you.

Docere · #50 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 6:04 PM**

Rarely does a city's "urban reach" flow equidistant. Chicago for example has Lake Michigan to the east. Vancouver has the downtown peninsula. Toronto's growth pattern has a westward bias, and its downtown is hedged in by the Rosedale Valley and Don Valley (though the Yonge corridor sans Rosedale has pretty high density too).

MonkeyRonin · #51 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 8:17 PM**

3km radius comparison between Canada and Germany's big 3 cities:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Berlin

Munich

Hamburg

Toronto

Montreal

Vancouver

trueviking · #52 Posted **Jun 8, 2026, 9:12 PM**

Best I could do for Winnipeg at 3kms was 140.108

Docere · #53 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 3:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet

Uh, are you astonished?

UK land area: 243,610 km²
Metropolitan France: 551,695 km²

There is still room in France. I even wonder whether it wouldn't partly cause the 100 Years' War, even though populations were much lower back then. It may have been like the Japanese who felt cramped on their archipelago in the 1930s.
Don't get me wrong, it's actually empathy to our English bros from me. People need room to live after all.

That's not even taking overseas France into account. The rainforest in Guiana is the largest pristine green area of the entire EU, but it has to be widely preserved for the sake of our Earth.

France's "spaciousness" is quite striking compared to England, the Benelux countries and western Germany. France had low fertility rates in the 19th century and was slower to industrialize and urbanize.

Docere · #54 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 4:59 AM**

Toronto density map:

https://schoolofcities.github.io/mapping...able/assets/toronto-density-33b1c910.png

Rosedale stands out for low density among central neighbourhoods, but High Park to Coxwell is overwhelmingly red (at least moderately high density), as is much of the old borough of York. The Don Valley is quite visible. Also the industrial sector in the NW is quite sizeable.

MonkeyRonin · #55 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Shameful stats for Phoenix. Could be the least interesting city with more than 5 million metro on the planet.

That must have been an error in fairness (the circle is in a pretty odd location). I was getting 100,000+ to the west and northwest of downtown Phoenix, and ~90,000 around central Tempe. Still very low given the city's size, of course.

biguc · #56 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 8:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm surprised that LA is so high. DT Toronto looks so much denser because of the highrises, but I suppose it isn't too surprising for a 3km radius since density drops off quickly once you leave the immediate downtown. It doesn't become low density like some cities, but the area of high density is very limited. So the downtown residential highrises sort of subsidize the rest of the inner city in terms of density.

LA is very surprising. I took this up to 7 km to make a Paris-sized ring and LA maxes out at about 1.1m, which is the same as Montreal's highest and a hair higher than Toronto.

I mean, this probably shouldn't be that surprising. LA has had sleeper density going back to the 2000s; I remember it being a big deal on this board when it turned out LA's metro density was higher than New York's. But that's different than a sustained blob of Toronto/Montreal density spread over the size of Paris.

For reference, Brooklyn easily breaks 2m at the same scale. So, Brooklyn density still eludes Canadian cities. But we shouldn't feel bad: Australian cities only come in around 600k.

I guess it's all surprising.

Pavlov · #57 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That must have been an error in fairness (the circle is in a pretty odd location). I was getting 100,000+ to the west and northwest of downtown Phoenix, and ~90,000 around central Tempe. Still very low given the city's size, of course.

Oof. Sorry. My bad. Not sure what went wrong there.

Docere · #58 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Reposting this from last year, but on this topic, here are some of Canada's densest neighbourhoods. From the City of Toronto's neighbourhood profiles, it has 4 neighbourhoods with population density levels exceeding 40,000/sqkm, as of the 2021 census:

North St. James Town
Population: 18,535
Density: 44,602/sqkm

Yonge-Doris (the eastern half of North York Centre)
Population: 20,160
Density: 44,126/sqkm

Church-Wellesley (adjacent to St. James Town above)
Population: 22,320
Density: 40,755/sqkm

North Toronto (Yonge & Eglinton area)
Population: 15,885
Density: 40,018/sqkm

There are also another 5 neighbourhoods with densities of over 20,000/sqkm:

Wellington Place (Entertainment District area)
Population: 25,570
Density: 26,254/sqkm

Harbourfront
Population: 28,135
Density: 25,178/sqkm

Bay-Cloverhill (adjacent to Church-Wellesley)
Population: 16,670
Density: 25,130/sqkm

Downtown Yonge East (adjacent to Church-Wellesley)
Population: 17,700
Density: 22,532/sqkm

Regent Park
Population: 12,750
Density: 19,995/sqkm (close enough)

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/d...on=&lat=43.644638&lng=-79.428632&zoom=14

Now, also worth noting that a lot of these neighbourhoods are pretty arbitrarily defined and can be weirdly small which can give an apparent boost to the density figures. Vancouver's "official" neighbourhoods meanwhile tend to be larger in size (with less statistical granularity as a result - eg. Yaletown and Olympic Village would exceed >20,000/sqkm but aren't considered "neighbourhoods" in the official sense), and I've been having a hard time finding data for many of Montreal's neighbouhoods; but a few other Canadian neighbourhoods in this density range would include:

West End, Vancouver
Population: 47,200 (2016)
Density: 23,838/sqkm

Shaughnessy Village, Montreal
Population: 15,677 (2016)
Density: 22,396/sqkm

Park Extension, Montreal
Population: 33,800 (2006)
Density: 21,000/sqkm

Add "Davisville-South Eglinton" to the list. The figures on the city page are incorrect (I thought the Mount Pleasant cemetery might be pulling the numbers down but it's in "Rosedale-Moore Park").

The "128" census tracts have a population of 23,375 in 0.95 sq km, or 24610 per sq km.

Docere · #59 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 7:46 PM**

Here's the entire Yonge-Eglinton area. Using the boundaries defined here, basically Chaplin Cres and Avenue Rd to Bayview, Beltline to Briar Hill/Blythwood.

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/96a5-CityPlanning_OPA405.pdf

Population: 68,184
Land area: 6.1 sq km
Density: 11177 per sq km

Obviously the Yonge-Mount Pleasant zone is doing the heavy lifting here.

someone123 · #60 Posted **Jun 9, 2026, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biguc

I mean, this probably shouldn't be that surprising. LA has had sleeper density going back to the 2000s; I remember it being a big deal on this board when it turned out LA's metro density was higher than New York's. But that's different than a sustained blob of Toronto/Montreal density spread over the size of Paris.

On the one hand, yes, LA is pretty dense and underrated for urbanism (it's not like southern cities). I actually like it quite a bit. But on the other hand, these statistical constructs don't map well onto urban experience. NYC is mostly islands so the 3 km circle thing is much less representative than it is in LA and in general it's easier to find contiguous blobs of development on LA's mostly featureless plain.

Inner NYC travel is largely subway-based and so connectivity along those corridors matters more, while areas 3 km apart in LA might basically need to be navigated by car and aren't really "neighbourhoods". You are more likely to go 1-2 subway stops than walk 30 blocks or wait half an hour for a bus.

Outer metro NYC has areas of low-density exurbs but does it really matter to the subway or vast commuter rail catchment areas?