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.
Vancouver 1951
Population: 446,467
Area: 85.2 sq mi
Standard Density: 5,239 ppsm
Weighted Density: 8,690 ppsm
It's worth noting however that Vancouver census tracts were very large, averaging at 9300 people each, compared to Toronto's more reasonable 4300 pop average. I'm not sure why that is...
The urban area included Vancouver, Burnaby (1 CT excepted), New Westminster amd North Vancouver (city). There were 20-30k ppsm CTs on the downtown peninsula, and 10-20k ppsm CTs mostly around the Broadway corridor and inner East end.
Starting to look at Montreal. The Plateau was packed... Almost double the current population with 193,606 people in 3.2 square miles. The 1941 population was 206,143. And while the neighbourhood was clearly on the crowded side, I'm not even sure the Plateau was that poor by Montreal standards. That reputation could also belong to the Sud-Ouest and Quarter Latin although it's true that the Saint-Laurent corridor in the Plateau was at the core of several immigrant communities (and where the densest Plateau CTs were located).
Starting to look at Montreal. The Plateau was packed... Almost double the current population with 193,606 people in 3.2 square miles. The 1941 population was 206,143. And while the neighbourhood was clearly on the crowded side, I'm not even sure the Plateau was that poor by Montreal standards. That reputation could also belong to the Sud-Ouest and Quarter Latin although it's true that the Saint-Laurent corridor in the Plateau was at the core of several immigrant communities (and where the densest Plateau CTs were located).
As you also said, the immigrant-dominated part of the Plateau was more centred along St-Laurent (the Main) and was poorer. To quote another literary reference, this was Mordecai Richler's Plateau.
The ''legendary'' poor French Canadian district of Montreal would be St-Henri, which is some distance from the Plateau in the southwest of the city. Immortalized in Gabrielle Roy's Bonheur d'occasion (The Tin Flute). (Not to be confused with Gunter Grass' The Tin Drum.)
It looks like 50% decreases in population (from 1951 to 2011) were typical of most neighbourhoods built out prior to 1951. The Quartier Latin, Sainte Marie, older parts of Hochelaga/Maisonneuve, Villeray, Rosemont and Verdun and Pointe Sainte Charles all lost about 50% of their population just like the Plateau. These older neighbourhoods of Montreal (built up from about 1870-1930?) were very dense by North American standards. Comparing the densest parts of the US's densest cities at the time (NY excepted), like MLK corridor in Chicago's Southside and South and North Philly...
The difference of course is that Montreal was considerably smaller than all but Baltimore and the rest of the city was also quite dense while for the American cities the rest of the city was at more moderate densities.
So far, I've covered most of the urban area with 980,077 people and a 1951 weighted density of 44,659 ppsm (873,393 and 50,551 ppsm in 1941). That's almost 50% denser than the second urban area in the US (Philadelphia) at that time. What's missing are census tracts that changed their boundaries which are located throughout the urban area from core to fringe, so I don't expect adding them will change the density significantly.
I wonder how crowded (living space per capita) the Plateau was compared to these American districts/neighbourhoods. Assuming the decreases in population were mostly due to gentrification/smaller household sizes, this effect was stronger in Montreal than in Toronto densest area (inner West end) where 30% population decreases were more typical of neighbourhoods that saw little new construction.
It looks like 50% decreases in population (from 1951 to 2011) were typical of most neighbourhoods built out prior to 1951. The Quartier Latin, Sainte Marie, older parts of Hochelaga/Maisonneuve, Villeray, Rosemont and Verdun and Pointe Sainte Charles all lost about 50% of their population just like the Plateau. These older neighbourhoods of Montreal (built up from about 1870-1930?) were very dense by North American standards. Comparing the densest parts of the US's densest cities at the time (NY excepted), like MLK corridor in Chicago's Southside and South and North Philly...
The difference of course is that Montreal was considerably smaller than all but Baltimore and the rest of the city was also quite dense while for the American cities the rest of the city was at more moderate densities.
So far, I've covered most of the urban area with 980,077 people and a 1951 weighted density of 44,659 ppsm (873,393 and 50,551 ppsm in 1941). That's almost 50% denser than the second urban area in the US (Philadelphia) at that time. What's missing are census tracts that changed their boundaries which are located throughout the urban area from core to fringe, so I don't expect adding them will change the density significantly.
I wonder how crowded (living space per capita) the Plateau was compared to these American districts/neighbourhoods. Assuming the decreases in population were mostly due to gentrification/smaller household sizes, this effect was stronger in Montreal than in Toronto densest area (inner West end) where 30% population decreases were more typical of neighbourhoods that saw little new construction.
Memph thanks for the data - what was the weighted density for Philly in 1951 (or the year closest) - you referenced 50% higher for Montreal - so was it ~20-22K - and if so wouldn't that have been the average density as in 1950 the population was 2.1 million over like ~130 sq miles and most of the far NE was not yet developed - the core lost a lot of densiity - mostly family size change and neighborhoods with many abandoned homes.
The top ones for 1950/1951
1. New York-Newark: 74,956
2. Montreal: 44,000 (estimate for now)
3. Philadelphia: 30,602
4. Chicago: 27,099
5. Baltimore: 26,783
6. Washington: 21,805 (only DC+Arlington)
7. San Francisco: 21,466 (excludes San Mateo County and a bit elsewhere)
8. Toronto: 21,148
9. Boston: 20,792
10. New Orleans: 20,729 (city proper only)
The entire urban area is included unless otherwise noted, so for Philadelphia, that includes several areas in Camden, Delaware and Montgomery County. NE Philly is indeed largely excluded.
I meant Montreal was Philly's weighted density, + almost 50% more. (30,602*1.5 = 45,903)
And fyi for those numbers of North and South Philly, it's not all of North and South, just the central portions of these neighbourhoods that would add up to about 3-4 sq mi for comparison to the Plateau.
Could someone please tell me if this is correct. A hypothetical city that is three acres. One acre has 200 people on it, one acre has 75 people, and the third acre has 25 people.
The raw density is (200+75+25)/3 or 100 ppl/acre.
The weighted density would be 200/300*200+75/300*75+25/300*25= 154 ppl/acre
The top ones for 1950/1951
1. New York-Newark: 74,956
2. Montreal: 44,000 (estimate for now)
3. Philadelphia: 30,602
4. Chicago: 27,099
5. Baltimore: 26,783
6. Washington: 21,805 (only DC+Arlington)
7. San Francisco: 21,466 (excludes San Mateo County and a bit elsewhere)
8. Toronto: 21,148
9. Boston: 20,792
10. New Orleans: 20,729 (city proper only)
The entire urban area is included unless otherwise noted, so for Philadelphia, that includes several areas in Camden, Delaware and Montgomery County. NE Philly is indeed largely excluded.
I meant Montreal was Philly's weighted density, + almost 50% more. (30,602*1.5 = 45,903)
And fyi for those numbers of North and South Philly, it's not all of North and South, just the central portions of these neighbourhoods that would add up to about 3-4 sq mi for comparison to the Plateau.
Thanks for the clarification - do you have the totals and land area covered as well.
Montreal still feel pretty dense to me but I have mostly experienced the core
Could someone please tell me if this is correct. A hypothetical city that is three acres. One acre has 200 people on it, one acre has 75 people, and the third acre has 25 people.
The raw density is (200+75+25)/3 or 100 ppl/acre.
The weighted density would be 200/300*200+75/300*75+25/300*25= 154 ppl/acre
That's correct. Each tract's density multiplied by its population then divided by the total population.
Thanks for the clarification - do you have the totals and land area covered as well.
Montreal still feel pretty dense to me but I have mostly experienced the core
I underestimated how much of Montreal's suburbs were sufficiently built up to be considered "urbanized" (1000ppsm+) although it's still solidly second in terms of weighted density. Ultimately it added up to 114.2 sq mi compared to 277.5 sq mi for Philadelphia (Philly was also about double the population).
In the case of Montreal, this includes parts of Pointe Claire and Saint-Laurent to the West (but not Cote Saint Luc), Montreal-Nord and Tetreaultville to the East (but not St Leonard and Anjou), a bit of Laval and a good chunk of the South Shore suburbs including Longueuil, Saint-Hubert, Saint-Lambert and Greenfield Park. Of course , typically not all the land in these peripheral census tracts (and this goes for all cities) was built up, only enough to reach the 1000 ppsm threshold.
Montreal 1951
Population: 1,358,976
Area: 114.2 sq mi
Standard Density: 11,898 ppsm
Weighted Density: 38,433 ppsm
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.
