Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People here in North America normally think the cities in Europe are more dense and compact, without the typical suburban sprawls that we normally see here. But is it true?
I was surprised that find that most European cities are not that dense. We only look at cities with over 1M population here.
Rome, 2.8M, 1,285km sq vs. Torono/Chicago 2.8M, 630/610 km sq;
Berlin: 3.4M, 892km sq vs. Los Angeles 3.9M 1214km sq
London: 8.3M 1,500 km sq vs. New York 8.3M 784km sq
Vienna: 1.8M 416 km sq vs Montreral 1.65M 431 km sq
Some are denser, such as
Milan: 1.3M 182 km sq vs San Diego 1.3M 842km sq
The really dense big European cities are only a few such as
Paris: 2.2M 105km sq
Barcelona 1.6M 102km sq
Are people wrong that European cities are denser?
Or is it because European cities don't have much of the suburbs (satellite cities dependent on the major city)? But not really. For example, although Paris is highly compact, metro Paris has about 10M people on 17,000 km sq of land, on the other hand, Los Angeles country has 10M people too, on 12,000 km sq, much denser than Paris.
botticelli; it might make more sense to compare metros rather than city boundaries, which can be misleading. Inner-city New York is definitely more dense than inner-city London or Berlin, but the suburban areas are much more dense - that is the primary difference. British suburbs are more dense than American suburbs. I have no idea about French suburbs.
As an example, the Chicago urban area has a population density of 509/km sq (2,140/km sq for Cook County), compared to 5,630/km sq for London's urban area.
One big problem is the definition of city.
Open two browser windows and open the map of both LA and Berlin on Google maps, using the same scale. You will easily see the difference.
In Germany the only region that is a bit similar to greater LA is the Ruhr district.
The structure of those big cities is also different. In Europe people want to live in inner cities and many do. In the US people try to get out of inner cities. So often you have a downtown that is pretty empty at night, not so in Europe usually.
People here in North America normally think the cities in Europe are more dense and compact, without the typical suburban sprawls that we normally see here. But is it true?
I was surprised that find that most European cities are not that dense. We only look at cities with over 1M population here.
Rome, 2.8M, 1,285km sq vs. Torono/Chicago 2.8M, 630/610 km sq;
Berlin: 3.4M, 892km sq vs. Los Angeles 3.9M 1214km sq
London: 8.3M 1,500 km sq vs. New York 8.3M 784km sq
Vienna: 1.8M 416 km sq vs Montreral 1.65M 431 km sq
Some are denser, such as
Milan: 1.3M 182 km sq vs San Diego 1.3M 842km sq
The really dense big European cities are only a few such as
Paris: 2.2M 105km sq
Barcelona 1.6M 102km sq
Are people wrong that European cities are denser?
Or is it because European cities don't have much of the suburbs (satellite cities dependent on the major city)? But not really. For example, although Paris is highly compact, metro Paris has about 10M people on 17,000 km sq of land, on the other hand, Los Angeles country has 10M people too, on 12,000 km sq, much denser than Paris.
As mentioned above, city limits are misleading. For example, Paris municipality is notoriously small compared to the real size of the city, whereas Rome is pretty big.
Paris and Barcelona, along with Athens (?) still probably have the densest inner cities in Europe.
Metro areas are misleading too. In France, most of the land included is rural. 17k km² is much larger than Paris' urban footprint. Urban areas are probably the best tool, though they have their flaws too and aren't defined the same way depending on the country. Paris' is 2,700 km².
This thread on another forum is probably one of best at comparing the urban footprint of different cities all over the World: Urban Area Map Showcase - SkyscraperCity
On the first page, you have for example Paris and Houston. While neither can be considered representative as the US and Europe are diverse, Houston is clearly larger despite its much smaller population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
botticelli; it might make more sense to compare metros rather than city boundaries, which can be misleading. Inner-city New York is definitely more dense than inner-city London or Berlin, but the suburban areas are much more dense - that is the primary difference. British suburbs are more dense than American suburbs. I have no idea about French suburbs.
French suburbs are denser than British and German ones. Though there will be some variation. Paris' suburbs are much denser than Toulouse's, for example. As a rule, the more south you go in Europe, the denser the suburbs get.
People above said it all already
I add by saying Paris, Barcelona, Athen and Naples are actually the most densest among the typical dense European metropolis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
