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.
But the only one of substantial population. Your largest cities in area are as large as some of our small states. Come on!
I will let botti and fusion address that... somehow I doubt Toronto and Montreal are as large and sprawly as Houston, LA, or Atlanta, especially when you factor in population density.
I will let botti and fusion address that... somehow I doubt Toronto and Montreal are as large and sprawly as Houston, LA, or Atlanta, especially when you factor in population density.
"The US Census bureau already found in 2012 that the entire Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area is the most densely populated "urbanized area" in the US with nearly 7,000 people per square mile"
NYC itself is denser than LA, but the whole LA basin is denser than the tri-state region around NYC.
Atlanta city limits are rather small, hence its low population in the city but I agree it is sprawled out in the suburbs.
Speaking of Montreal, the area of the city is quite small, like half of Toronto's. There was mention of the sprawl of Chicago but what about the sprawl of Toronto compared to Montreal. Imagine how big Montreal would be if it's area was the same size as Toronto, or God forbid Ottawa?
Toronto's urban area is denser than Montreal's. In fact, Toronto's UA is the densest in all of the U.S. and Canada.
Here are the top urban areas of The U.S. and Canada by population and square miles (2016 estimates):
20,685,000 / 4,495mi New York
15,135,000 / 2,432mi Los Angeles
9,185,000 / 2,647mi Chicago
6,550,000 / 883mi Toronto
6,280,000 / 1,998mi Dallas-Fort Worth
6,005,000 / 1,864mi Houston
5,955,000 / 1,080mi San Francisco Bay
5,820,000 / 1,239mi Miami
5,595,000 / 1,981mi Philadelphia
5,120,000 / 2,645mi Atlanta
4,950,000 / 1,322mi Washington DC
4,490,000 / 2,056mi Boston
4,295,000 / 1,245mi Phoenix
3,660,000 / 1,337mi Detroit
3,570,000 / 597mi Montreal
3,475,000 / 1,145mi Seattle
As for Ottawa, much of the land area of Ottawa's city proper is undeveloped farmland, since the city limits became so large after the former two-tiered Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carlton amalgamated to become the new city of Ottawa. The former City of Ottawa proper was quite small and dense. Ottawa's actual urban area contains 1,010,000 people in 194 sq. miles which works out to 4,800 people per sq. mile, which is actually more dense than NYC's urban area (4,602 people per sq. mi.)
As for Ottawa, much of the land area of Ottawa's city proper is undeveloped farmland, since the city limits became so large after the former two-tiered Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carlton amalgamated to become the new city of Ottawa. The former City of Ottawa proper was quite small and dense. Ottawa's actual urban area contains 1,010,000 people in 194 sq. miles which works out to 4,800 people per sq. mile, which is actually more dense than NYC's urban area (4,602 people per sq. mi.)
You can't just redefine what the actual urban area of a place is.
Someone was telling me about New Orleans and how sparsely populated it is when I told him that around 70% of the city is uninhabitable marsh and swampland. If New Orleans was just the populated areas, it would be a really dense city. It is a dense city but statistically it isn't. I imagine you are saying the same thing, but this is what happens when there are arbitrary boundaries.
You can't just redefine what the actual urban area of a place is.
Someone was telling me about New Orleans and how sparsely populated it is when I told him that around 70% of the city is uninhabitable marsh and swampland. If New Orleans was just the populated areas, it would be a really dense city. It is a dense city but statistically it isn't. I imagine you are saying the same thing, but this is what happens when there are arbitrary boundaries.
Montreal is dense but it peters out in density fairly quickly once outside the city proper. It also is quite sprawled out in itself. It certainly doesn't have exceptionally beautiful sprawl Once you get outside the dense urban core. You see the same crappy sprawl stuff as anywhere else. Actually imo the city with the best suburban sprawl in N.A is Boston. My opinion sure - but its the best looking sprawl I've seen on the continent. That said, Montreal urban core isn't much less dense that Toronto's but at this point Toronto's growth has put it over the top.. As you go into suburbia it isn't even close - Toronto has probably the most dense suburban areas in N.A that would even rival L.A. I read its suburban areas even eclipse L.A in density. Its not the best urban form I agree - but in the North American context Toronto's suburbia is very dense and probably among the most dense in the anglo world.
Old Toronto is growing and becoming rapidly much more dense than Montreal. I've posted pics in the official Toronto pics thread in the Toronto forum that is easy to look at - there are pages and pages - I think you'll find more of a better answer there than endless back and forth arguing over numbers and arbitrary values here. Pics as they say, speak a thousand words. Toronto's DT core alone is growing in population greater than most city propers in N.A let alone Old Toronto or Toronto city propers growth.
Fact is when it comes to impressive growth levels and density Toronto is high up there blending the two. Sure the Atlanta's and Houstons of the world are growing even greater than Toronto, but they are still much more sprawled out in build up and are accommodating their growth in a larger area. Some may say this is due to brilliant transit development as someone said of Dallas for example - like what - and an exceptional highway network - i'm left scratching my head saying how exactly!!??.. Now some will attack Toronto's transit woes to the nth degree and blame it all on that- and that may tell part of the story but on the whole, I think its simply the direction the city is going in terms of protecting its greenbelt and creating a more compact and dense urban area than pretty much any other city in Canamerica save for NYC. In 10, 20 years from now, knowing what I know of the city - I think that will be something that will be easy to see.
You can't just redefine what the actual urban area of a place is.
Someone was telling me about New Orleans and how sparsely populated it is when I told him that around 70% of the city is uninhabitable marsh and swampland. If New Orleans was just the populated areas, it would be a really dense city. It is a dense city but statistically it isn't. I imagine you are saying the same thing, but this is what happens when there are arbitrary boundaries.
Statistics are one thing and built up area is another. When you are in a city you are in its built up areas. you are not in statistics.
Montreal is dense but it peters out in density fairly quickly once outside the city proper. It also is quite sprawled out in itself. It certainly doesn't have exceptionally beautiful sprawl Once you get outside the dense urban core. You see the same crappy sprawl stuff as anywhere else. Actually imo the city with the best suburban sprawl in N.A is Boston. My opinion sure - but its the best looking sprawl I've seen on the continent. That said, Montreal urban core isn't much less dense that Toronto's but at this point Toronto's growth has put it over the top.. As you go into suburbia it isn't even close - Toronto has probably the most dense suburban areas in N.A that would even rival L.A. I read its suburban areas even eclipse L.A in density. Its not the best urban form I agree - but in the North American context Toronto's suburbia is very dense and probably among the most dense in the anglo world.
Old Toronto is growing and becoming rapidly much more dense than Montreal. I've posted pics in the official Toronto pics thread in the Toronto forum that is easy to look at - there are pages and pages - I think you'll find more of a better answer there than endless back and forth arguing over numbers and arbitrary values here. Pics as they say, speak a thousand words. Toronto's DT core alone is growing in population greater than most city propers in N.A let alone Old Toronto or Toronto city propers growth.
Fact is when it comes to impressive growth levels and density Toronto is high up there blending the two. Sure the Atlanta's and Houstons of the world are growing even greater than Toronto, but they are still much more sprawled out in build up and are accommodating their growth in a larger area. Some may say this is due to brilliant transit development as someone said of Dallas for example - like what - and an exceptional highway network - i'm left scratching my head saying how exactly!!??.. Now some will attack Toronto's transit woes to the nth degree and blame it all on that- and that may tell part of the story but on the whole, I think its simply the direction the city is going in terms of protecting its greenbelt and creating a more compact and dense urban area than pretty much any other city in Canamerica save for NYC. In 10, 20 years from now, knowing what I know of the city - I think that will be something that will be easy to see.
So Toronto suburbia sprawl is more dense than Montreal suburbia sprawl is more dense than LA suburbia sprawl is more dense than Houston suburbia sprawl.
And Old Toronto is more dense than Vieux Montreal is more dense than Downtown Vancouver is more dense than Ottawa is more dense than.
Fascinating discussion we are having here. We are really getting somewhere!
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.