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.
To give real life proof that high density areas aren't necessarily more crowded.
These are the two districts that make up Downtown Toronto.
Toronto Centre
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 3.9
Average household size: 1.7
so 2.29 rooms per person
Trinity Spadina
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 4.1
Average household size: 1.9 2.16 rooms per person
Suburbs
Peel - the most populous of Toronto's suburban counties, and the most diverse
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 6.5
Average household size: 3.2 2.03 rooms person
York - the second most populous of Toronto's suburban counties, and one of the wealthiest
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 7.2
Average household size: 3.2 2.25 rooms per person
Durham - the third most populous of Toronto's suburban counties, and least expensive
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 7.1
Average household size: 2.8 2.54 rooms per person
Halton - the least populous (though still 0.5 million people) of Toronto's suburban counties, and one of the wealthiest
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 7.2
Average household size: 2.8 2.57 rooms per person
Suburban counties total
Weighted by population: 2.26 rooms per person
Weighted by households: 2.28 rooms per person
So really the suburbs and downtown are about the same.
The other "inner city" districts (in the geographic, not economic sense)
Beaches-East York: 2.35 rooms per person
Toronto-Danforth: 2.30 rooms per person
Davenport: 2.12 rooms per person
Parkdale-High Park: 2.33 rooms per person
St Paul's: 2.40 rooms per person
York South-Weston: 1.92 rooms per person
Eglinton-Lawrence: 2.32 rooms per person
So some are a bit below, others a bit above the suburban average, but overall, it's about the same.
High density cities would be fine as long as there is a healthy representation of higher-income and middle-income individuals living in those high-density living quarters. This might come off as politically incorrect, but I doubt that many people would complain about a high density city that was composed almost entirely of wealthy, educated, law-abiding residents. It is when we start seeing homeless folks, drug users, or "people who look shady" in the streets that our perception of a "good" city starts to turn negative, whether that be in a city with high or low density. Unfortunately, our biased perceptions (usually based on socio-economic classes) color our opinions of whether a city is "good" or "bad".
But is a high density area composed of poor people worse than a low density area full of poor people? Leafy suburbs tend not to be poor, but you can find counterexamples. I'm not sure why there's anything intrinsically worse about the poor parts of say, Washington Heights or West Bronx than poor lower density areas, say in Los Angeles or a ghetto rust belt city.
Mixed (wide range in incomes)
Don Valley East: 2.04 (mostly 50s-60s vintage neighbourhoods)
York Centre: 2.04 (mostly 50s-60s vintage neighbourhoods)
Don Valley West: 2.24 (mostly 20s-60s vintage neighbourhoods)
Middle class to upper-middle class
Willowdale: 2.17 (mostly 40s-50s vintage neighbourhoods with a lot of new condos)
Etobicoke Centre: 2.42 (mostly 40s-50s vintage neighbourhoods, a few pre-WWII and 60s vintage areas)
Etobicoke Lakeshore: 2.45 (mostly 10s-40s vintage neighbourhoods with some new condos)
So the most crowded (or maybe rather least spacious, 3 people in 5 rooms is still not that crowded) areas are the outer parts of Toronto, mostly built in the 70s-80s. Some new neighbourhoods in the suburbs are also in the 1.5-1.8 rooms per person range.
When you are talking about super high density neighborhoods, you are talking about real difficulties in getting around or even finding a reasonable place to put your cars.
When you are talking about super high density neighborhoods, you are talking about real difficulties in getting around or even finding a reasonable place to put your cars.
It just doesn't work that well in America.
Why would it make a difference whether it's in the US? Manhattan is not hard to get around in, it's hard to park in of course, but it nor any of the other few extreme density spots in the US don't work any differently than elsewhere. Most people just don't drive in them because it's impractical.
The even comment is weird, finding a reasonable place to put your car is more extreme than real difficulties in getting around.
To give real life proof that high density areas aren't necessarily more crowded.
These are the two districts that make up Downtown Toronto.
Toronto Centre
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 3.9
Average household size: 1.7
so 2.29 rooms per person
Trinity Spadina
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 4.1
Average household size: 1.9 2.16 rooms per person
Suburbs
Peel - the most populous of Toronto's suburban counties, and the most diverse
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 6.5
Average household size: 3.2 2.03 rooms person
York - the second most populous of Toronto's suburban counties, and one of the wealthiest
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 7.2
Average household size: 3.2 2.25 rooms per person
Durham - the third most populous of Toronto's suburban counties, and least expensive
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 7.1
Average household size: 2.8 2.54 rooms per person
Halton - the least populous (though still 0.5 million people) of Toronto's suburban counties, and one of the wealthiest
Average number of rooms per dwelling: 7.2
Average household size: 2.8 2.57 rooms per person
Suburban counties total
Weighted by population: 2.26 rooms per person
Weighted by households: 2.28 rooms per person
So really the suburbs and downtown are about the same.
The other "inner city" districts (in the geographic, not economic sense)
Beaches-East York: 2.35 rooms per person
Toronto-Danforth: 2.30 rooms per person
Davenport: 2.12 rooms per person
Parkdale-High Park: 2.33 rooms per person
St Paul's: 2.40 rooms per person
York South-Weston: 1.92 rooms per person
Eglinton-Lawrence: 2.32 rooms per person
So some are a bit below, others a bit above the suburban average, but overall, it's about the same.
What's that look like per square feet?
Typical apartment in San Francisco is going to be 600-700 square feet for a 2bd, out here it's more like 1,100. So they'd have roughly the same number of rooms. Maybe there's an extra bathroom, but I don't think bathrooms are counted as a "room." Overcrowding also just isn't about your dwelling. Ever been to Mission Dolores Park on a sunny day? Or if you try and rent the facilities in San Francisco squatters, you can't use them because of squatters.
Typical apartment in San Francisco is going to be 600-700 square feet for a 2bd, out here it's more like 1,100. So they'd have roughly the same number of rooms. Maybe there's an extra bathroom, but I don't think bathrooms are counted as a "room."
Going by questions on the NYC forum, 3 bedroom apartments with 2 bathrooms tend to much harder in NYC to find than elsewhere.
Kowloon Walled City was like a shelf with sardine cans stacked 10 tall and the sardines had the juices squeezed out of them to fit two dozen per can.
Kowloon was just crazy, it's probably a good thing it was demolished.
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.
