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.
On the density side of things, I think Montreal is being overlooked here a bit.
City: 1,649,519 | 141 square mile | 11,701 people per square mile (pretty much the same as Philadelphia)
I'm not entirely positive because it's been a very long time since I've been there but really I cant imagine too many more active downtowns in North America than Montreal either, not saying more active than either of these two American cities but just want to throw in other factors that someone with experience in all three (fairly recent at that) can expand on.
Montreal is clearly not going to win the expanse argument here but I think it can solidly make the argument for compression just as much as the other two can. It's taking the public transit one without a doubt.
That said, my vote went to San Francisco/Bay Area overall from city to urban area to metropolitan level as most consistent, I suppose.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 04-19-2013 at 06:38 PM..
On the density side of things, I think Montreal is being overlooked here a bit.
City: 1,649,519 | 141 square mile | 11,701 people per square mile (pretty much the same as Philadelphia)
I'm not entirely positive because it's been a very long time since I've been there but really I cant imagine too many more active downtowns in North America than Montreal either, not saying more active than either of these two American cities but just want to throw in other factors that someone with experience in all three (fairly recent at that) can expand on.
Montreal is clearly not going to win the expanse argument here but I think it can solidly make the argument for compression just as much as the other two can. It's taking the public transit one without a doubt.
That said, my vote went to San Francisco/Bay Area overall from city to urban area to metropolitan level as most consistent, I suppose.
I agree
Density-wise it's San Fran>Montreal>Philly and it feels it even moreso on ground level
Size-wise its Philly>San Fran>Montreal but there is sort of an unofficial "where I feel safe to go border that eliminates much of Philly compared to San Fran and Montreal.
I think altogether these are very comparable cities but the size disadvantage is keeping the votes from Montreal.
I agree
Density-wise it's San Fran>Montreal>Philly and it feels it even moreso on ground level
Size-wise its Philly>San Fran>Montreal but there is sort of an unofficial "where I feel safe to go border that eliminates much of Philly compared to San Fran and Montreal.
I think altogether these are very comparable cities but the size disadvantage is keeping the votes from Montreal.
Yeah, pretty much spot on to what I think too in regards to Montreal and size. Overall, the Bay Area has an unfathomable cohesive density ringing and connecting Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco which sort of pulls it ahead of Montreal itself.
We should picture this thread up and get the statistics rolling too. It has the potential to be a more worthwhile discussion than it has been so far.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 04-19-2013 at 08:27 PM..
I agree
Density-wise it's San Fran>Montreal>Philly and it feels it even moreso on ground level
Size-wise its Philly>San Fran>Montreal but there is sort of an unofficial "where I feel safe to go border that eliminates much of Philly compared to San Fran and Montreal.
I think altogether these are very comparable cities but the size disadvantage is keeping the votes from Montreal.
I understand what your saying, but just because Philadelphia had bad areas, you can't say that that area isn't dense because it is..... North Philadelphia hits a density of 47k ppsm. And center city hits a density of 127k ppsm. And Phillys density does not stop.... So just because its a ghetto you can't throw the density away.. Anyway Phillys good areas are equal to SF's Phillys just a bigger city.. Double SF population. And the same as Montreal with close borders Philly 1.6 Million t 135sm and Montreal is 1.6 Million at 141sm. Soooooooo, what's your point!
Philadelphia sustains a high population density over a broader area than San Francisco. There are some very dangerous areas in Philly that also adds to that big city feel. Philly is an enormous city and at a time had 2.2 million people in the city limits so the dense infrastructure is still there. Philly has a huge downtown with el trains and subways through out the city. There are narrow streets and wall to wall houses for miles and miles in Philadelphia. When you are in Philadelphia you definitely know that your not in Kansas anymore.
Philadelphia sustains a high population density over a broader area than San Francisco. There are some very dangerous areas in Philly that also adds to that big city feel. Philly is an enormous city and at a time had 2.2 million people in the city limits so the dense infrastructure is still there. Philly has a huge downtown with el trains and subways through out the city. There are narrow streets and wall to wall houses for miles and miles in Philadelphia. When you are in Philadelphia you definitely know that your not in Kansas anymore.
Amen, bad areas don't take away the fact that its still denser then many cities. Philly is a very large city, twice the population of San Francisco. And it does that in only 135sm with only 80sm built on( because parks and airports and so on.). I don't see how you can call SF bigger.zz the cores are identical, while SF has slightly higher density in core, Philadelphias density never stops, that's why it's a city of 1.6 million and not 800,000 like SF.
I understand what your saying, but just because Philadelphia had bad areas, you can't say that that area isn't dense because it is..... North Philadelphia hits a density of 47k ppsm. And center city hits a density of 127k ppsm. And Phillys density does not stop.... So just because its a ghetto you can't throw the density away.. Anyway Phillys good areas are equal to SF's Phillys just a bigger city.. Double SF population. And the same as Montreal with close borders Philly 1.6 Million t 135sm and Montreal is 1.6 Million at 141sm. Soooooooo, what's your point!
I never said that you "throw away" anything. If you notice I put Philly as the largest city size-wise. I just was commenting on the biggest FEELING of a city. If I (and most people) don't venture to the neighborhoods then you don't realize how large it really is.
I think Montreal feels much much larger than Baltimore, I'd say a lot closer to Boston in big city feeling. The heavy rail subway network is expansive and actually quite comparable to Philadelphia and San Francisco's mass transit systems. The metro area sprawls more to the West and North. If you take the freeways out of town heading towards Ottawa & Toronto on the western side of the island you see a lot more urban/suburban development. Also to the north the metro sprawls quite a ways going into Laval. South of the St. Lawrence River coming up from Vermont, yes it is indeed very rural until a just few miles before the bridges into the city. Anyhow, Montreal is and does feel smaller than Philly and San Francisco, but certainly feels a lot bigger than Baltimore.
Baltimore was a bad comparison, but I've spent quite a bit of time in Montreal and I still don't think it feels as big as Boston. Especially near the city center. I do agree that Montreal still definitely feels smaller than the other two.
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.