World Cities (Population 500,000 +) With The Smallest Sprawl ...

Hed Kandi · #1 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 4:18 PM**

There has already been a plethora of threads discussing urban sprawl, mainly cities that have been a victim of urban sprawl.

However, there hasn't yet been a thread focussing on city's that have managed to limit urban sprawl.

Let's a get a list going. There's a sh*t load of cities out there, let's find the one that has the smallest sprawl.

I'll start, let's see if anyone cand find city's with a min population of 500 000 and the smallest possible land area. (Again this is just minimal sprawl, not population density).

Vancouver, Canada
Area: 115 sq km
Population: 600 000

Kingston, Jamaica
Area: 25 sq km
Population: 660 000

Lisbon, Portugal
Area: 84.8 sq km
Population: 564 477

glowrock · #2 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 4:29 PM**

Somehow, I find that Kingston number to be a little off. 25 sq km is only about 9 sq mi, so Kingston's got a density of roughly 70k+/sq mi??? Hmm...

Aaron (Glowrock)

JRinSoCal · #3 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 4:37 PM**

San Francisco, California, USA
Area: 122 sq km
Population: 798,000

unusualfire · #4 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 5:03 PM**

Sprawl is usually outside the city, so i don't see a point in this thread.

CGII · #5 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 5:44 PM**

Yeah, this should be by metro if you want it to be at all close to valid.

MayorOfChicago · #6 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 6:40 PM**

yeah this thread is really stupid if you're just looking at the random city limits of some central city. Vancouver is nowhere near the most compact urban center in the whole world.

LSyd · #7 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by unusualfire

Sprawl is usually outside the city, so i don't see a point in this thread.

the probable point? city boosterism.

-

DrJoe · #8 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

yeah this thread is really stupid if you're just looking at the random city limits of some central city. Vancouver is nowhere near the most compact urban center in the whole world.

Not only that, it is 3rd in Canada alone.

glowrock · #9 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 8:05 PM**

Agreed... Metro densities are a far better indicator of sprawl than core city densities.

Aaron (Glowrock)

staff · #10 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 8:40 PM**

Is these numbers for city propers? In that case it's pretty useless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGII

Yeah, this should be by metro if you want it to be at all close to valid.

Get some numbers for the urban areas instead and it's starting to get interesting.

From what I know - Vancouver (the urban area) is quite sprawly, right?

I don't know how large the built-up area (ie. urban area) for Hong Kong is but I guess it's less than 100 km2 (~39 sq. miles) (?) and has a population of over 7 million people. That's density for you right there.

My hometown Malmö has an urban area of some 42 km2 (~16 sq. miles) and holds approx. 300.000 inhabitants. The metro area (Malmö alone, not including Copenhagen) is probably more than 10 times that size by area, and only holds 600.000 - so metropolitan areas are not the best definition when comparing density.

SHiRO · #11 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 12:23 AM**

World city with the least amount of sprawl?
Hong Kong.

toddguy · #12 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 12:42 AM**

This site for urban areas has Vancouver(urban area) at over 400 square miles.

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

bryson662001 · #13 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHiRO

World city with the least amount of sprawl?
Hong Kong.

Rome doesn't have much sprawl. Outside of EUR, most development on the outskirts in in big apartment houses.

WonderlandPark · #14 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 5:55 AM**

Well by the inane logic of this thread, the smallest, and thus least sprawling city in America is West New York, NJ, 1.0 square miles with 45,000 people in it. Probably the least sprawling city anywhere in the world.

California and the Northeast region seem to have the most small cities, thus the least sprawl!!

--incorporated city (square miles)--
1. West New York Town, NJ (1.00)
2. Maywood City, CA (1.20)
4. Hoboken City, NJ (1.30)
4. Union City City, NJ (1.30)
5. Central Falls, RI (1.50)
6. West Hollywood City, CA (1.90)
7. Lawndale City, CA (2.00)
9. Garfield City, NJ (2.10)
9. Long Beach City, NY (2.10)
10. Chelsea City, MA (2.20)

BTW, I know it is supposed to be 500K, but I put this up just to show how pointless this can become.

LostInTheZone · #15 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 5:55 AM**

I hate these kind of threads.

SHiRO · #16 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryson662001

Rome doesn't have much sprawl. Outside of EUR, most development on the outskirts in in big apartment houses.

Rome 4 million

Hong Kong 7 million

urbanflyer · #17 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 6:08 AM**

These threads are retarded.

staff · #18 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 9:25 AM**

Actually I think they can be interesting if people get their shit together and provide facts that can be used for honest comparissions.

Saying that Vancouver is one of the world cities that has the smallest sprawl is not an example of above.

And I love it everytime I get to see SHiRO's excellent "red maps".