2019 Population Estimate of Canadian Metropolitan Areas

[Nouvellecosse]

I wonder if Toronto city proper will have passed any major NA cities proper in density since the last census? It seems to be on the verge of passing Chicago and Philadelphia so I guess we'll have to wait and see...

[GreaterMontréal]

Montréal city proper has a density of 4,926/km² or 12,773/mi². The city of Boston and San Francisco are really small compared to Montréal. They are the size of Vancouver (city).

Montréal is 2x the size of San Francisco. 1.8 million /141 mi²

[Nouvellecosse]

^^ Interesting when looking at the figures online such as Wikipedia, they list density as much lower for Montreal. This is due to them using the total city area which includes both land and some water rather than just the land component. However, for other cities I've checked including Toronto and Vancouver it doesn't specify whether or not the area includes any water.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I wonder if Toronto city proper will have passed any major NA cities proper in density since the last census? It seems to be on the verge of passing Chicago and Philadelphia so I guess we'll have to wait and see...

The 2019 statcan estimate for the City of Toronto was 2,965,713, which was an increase of 46,000 from 2018, so the city is likely at (or slightly above) 3000,000 as of this year, which would give it a population density of at least 4,760 pp sq km or 12,330 pp sq mi.

Chicago's 2018 population estimate of 2,705,994 would give it a density of 11,888 pp sq mi (land area only), and Philly's 2018 estimate of 1,584,138 gives it a density of 11,797 pp sq mi. I don't think Chicago or Philly would have grown enough from 2018 to 2019 to breach 12,000 pp sq mi.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^^ Interesting when looking at the figures online such as Wikipedia, they list density as much lower for Montreal. This is due to them using the total city area which includes both land and some water rather than just the land component. However, for other cities I've checked including Toronto and Vancouver it doesn't specify whether or not the area includes any water.

The territorial limits of Montreal, Brossard, Longueuil, Boucherville, La Prairie and Sainte-Catherine meet halfway in the middle of the St. Lawrence River.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I do get the point about Boston's suburbs though. A huge proportion of its suburbia looks like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2145...7i16384!8i8192

Whereas Toronto's suburbia typically looks like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8657...7i13312!8i6656

Canadian metros are clearly more compact and have lots more packed-in suburbia, kinda LA style. Probable factors are central planning vs local planning, age of suburbia, and wealth differences. The Boston example is no doubt a much older, wealthier area with local zoning control.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wait, I had no idea of this. London, ON is considered a posh, uppity town? Kinda like a Santa Barbara or Connecticut of Ontario? I thought is was a mildly pleasant typical university town, overall pretty unremarkable.

And Hamilton doesn't strike me as U.S.-style Rustbelt. It's more like a behind-the-times, uncool feel. Where grandma lives. Like stuck in 1995 compared to Toronto.

London, probably more than any other Canadian city, was considered Canada's old wealth city. Western remains an old establishment university and use to be one of 2 schools {the other being Queens in Kingston} where the rich parents from Toronto and Montreal use to send their kids so they could "mingle with the right crowd".

London being on the Thames was the last city in Southern Ontario to get a factory in the late 1920s and it was for making cookies as the city is on a non-navigable waterway and survived on it's university and large insurance companies. This is why London is choke full of inner city neighbourhoods with big brick Victorians and Edwardians on tree lined streets. Now the city is much more industrial and the 1990s and early 200s wreaked havoc on the city's economy surging it's unemployment rate to nearly 10% and decimating the downtown. Now the city is enjoying a massive renewal with huge condo/apts going up downtown and a resurging downtown.

London never had urban freeways nor any empty brownfields by decaying industry so the pleasant, connected, and walkable inner city neighbourhoods remain intact. Due to these reasons, London is still seen as a refuge from the Toronto urban blob and is still viewed as the nicest city in SO as it's tony reputation remains.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Mister F

The post you're responding to was about suburban growth and density. New York's urban area density (2053/sq km) is lower than that of both Toronto (3028/sq km) and Montreal (2720/sq km). And the big California cities. New York City itself is obviously hyper dense, but the urban area as a whole isn't.

Doady isn't wrong. There's nothing in Canada that has the kind of sprawl so common in the U.S.

No, it isn't just the city that is dense. Most people who live in the New York metropolitan area live in environments that are several times more dense than Toronto.

New York and Los Angeles are good examples of the differences between these two density measures. While they are close in the average density — 2,826 for New York versus 2,646 for L.A. — the New York metro has much higher levels of concentrated or population-weighted density, 31,251 versus 12,114 people per square mile. San Francisco, which has lower average density than L.A. (1,755 people per square mile), tops L.A. on population-weighted density with 12,145 people per square mile.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/...t-metros/3450/

[dc_denizen]

as I said above, by my estimate around 16.5 million New Yorkers live in a built environment that averages 7,800 ppl/square mile, which is denser than the GTA.

hopefully this oft-repeated chestnut about new york's supposed lack of MSA density outside the city can be put to rest

[park123]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

as I said above, by my estimate around 16.5 million New Yorkers live in a built environment that averages 7,800 ppl/square mile, which is denser than the GTA.

hopefully this oft-repeated chestnut about new york's supposed lack of MSA density outside the city can be put to rest

Why go so far? NYC has over 8 million people at a population density of 27,000 per square mile. Take out Staten Island and you hardly lose any population while increasing the density. Take out the airports too.

How many people in Canada live at a population density of 27,000 per square mile? I think not 8 million.

[park123]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

as I said above, by my estimate around 16.5 million New Yorkers live in a built environment that averages 7,800 ppl/square mile, which is denser than the GTA.

hopefully this oft-repeated chestnut about new york's supposed lack of MSA density outside the city can be put to rest

I wouldn't be surprised if "urban" Northern NJ has more people living at or above 20,000 people per square mile than the GTA. Meanwhile people in Manhattan don't even consider those parts of NJ to be urban.

[lio45]

No need for data to know that NYC is denser than Mtl, you just have to have visited the two. Buildings in NYC neighborhoods have typically 1-2 stories more.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5151...7i16384!8i8192

vs

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6860...7i16384!8i8192

(I dropped these pins randomly, but knew what I'd find and wasn't surprised.)

Toronto is likely even less dense, at first sight.

[Nouvellecosse]

It seems what people are trying to describe is "weighted density" which is definitely important in terms of both function and aesthetics. Official density stats is mostly just relevant in terms of the municipality's economics and for the gratification of urban hobbyists like us.

[lio45]

I'm wary of "official density stats" because they inevitably include stuff like Staten Island or a huge chunk of St. Lawrence or Lake Ontario surface area, while my very rough method (explained above) does not have that flaw.

Your own city has pathetic official density, you should be more sympathetic to my method (and I stand by it - I'd sooner take a few random Google Street Views of various neighborhoods and extrapolate from that than take HRM pop divided by HRM area).

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I wonder if Toronto city proper will have passed any major NA cities proper in density since the last census? It seems to be on the verge of passing Chicago and Philadelphia so I guess we'll have to wait and see...

NYC is in its own category when it comes to density. That I'm sure everyone can agree on. Mexico City is 2nd densest, then it gets rather murky. The difficulty lies in trying to make an apples to apples comparison. Some city boundaries are tiny while others far more expansive. In 1998, City of Toronto density plummeted but only because it amalgamated with lots of neighbouring municipalities with far lower population densities (Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York, East York, York). The 'Old City of Toronto' is much denser than the present City of Toronto. Using 'city' boundaries can be problematic. What city is 2nd densest in North America depends on what one includes and what one leaves out. Is it Vancouver, San Francisco, Toronto, or some other city?

I'd like to see figures for land area of roughly the same size.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by park123

How many people in Canada live at a population density of 27,000 per square mile? I think not 8 million.

Is that going to clarify things any though. 8 million would require 21% of all Canadians to be living at that density or higher.

[Mister F]

You guys are hilarious. Nobody said that Toronto or Montreal are denser than New York. Obviously. What was said is that New York's extensive sprawl makes its overall urban area density relatively low. That doesn't take anything away from the city itself. Clearly I touched a nerve.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Mister F

You guys are hilarious. Nobody said that Toronto or Montreal are denser than New York. Obviously. What was said is that New York's extensive sprawl makes its overall urban area density relatively low. That doesn't take anything away from the city itself. Clearly I touched a nerve.

But that isn't correct. New York isn't as sprawly as Toronto, or any other city in the U.S. or Canada. It just has a lot of rural and sparsely populated land included in the metro area.

[Crawford]

NYC has very little typical North American sprawl. It has a shitload of dense urbanity, and a shitload of ruralesque backcountry.

But giant tract home subdivisions separated by big box arterials are pretty atypical. Westchester, with a million people, has no such areas, really. Fairfield, Nassau, Bergen, Hudson, Essex and Union have very few such areas. The stuff you see in 90% of Orange County, CA, or suburban GTA, or anywhere in Texas, with 200 mass-built homes, and an adjacent highway, is pretty unusual.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

New York isn't as sprawly as Toronto, or any other city in the U.S. or Canada. It just has a lot of rural and sparsely populated land included in the metro area.

A lot of metros can say the exact same thing though. Metropolitan areas across Canada/US take in lots of rural and sparsely populated land. I'm not sure you can argue that NY is the least sprawly. First one has to agree on what constitutes sprawl. Is Surrey in the Vancouver CMA sprawl, for instance?