# Density in European cities



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

Are you happy with the density in your city? Would you like to see an increase in the density levels in certain areas of your city? Does your city suffer with the effects of urban sprawl with single family dwellings dominating the urban fabric? (traffic, long commute times, pollution, poor walkability). For Dublin, I would love to see an huge increase in density in the inner city areas, although the city council have done a good redevelopment job in the docklands and some south inner city areas, Dublin could benefit massively with an increase in inner city living. We have a disgraceful urban sprawl problem in Dublin combined with a poor transport system. The reason I picked Europe is because it is interesting to compare the urban form from country to country. Paris (proper) and Barcelona (proper) are amongst the most dense areas in Europe and I find them somewhat fascinating. So discuss what is your city like and what changes would you like to see.


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

Just a couple of examples of the new higher density areas in Dublin docklands:


Dublin Docklands - April 2011 by infomatique, on Flickr


Dublin Docklands: The Grand Canal Square by infomatique, on Flickr


Dublin Docklands - April 2011 by infomatique, on Flickr


----------



## Brummyboy92 (Aug 2, 2007)

I completely agree, the UK suffers terribly when it comes to urban sprawl, par London of course. I too wish the inner city areas where much more denser, however there's no plans for this to happen anytime soon. And before we can even start on the inner city suburbs we have to concentrate on the city centre itself. I don't think that's dense enough, much better than say 10 years ago however we still have a long way to go. And until city centre living is more affordable massive demand for such properties will simply never come to light


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

Yeah it seems like both Irish and British cities both suffer with sprawl, however I find the Birmingham City Centre redevelopment program very interesting and maybe you'll see a denser inner city by the time it's finished.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

I do not like the current density of Norwegian cities, but to be fair we have started to build some denser developments the last few years which will hopefully change that.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

The problem in Sweden is not single-family home but boring, horrible "box-in-a-park"-type of development that has spread like a disease during the past 50 years.

People are living in apartments, but the density are probably not high as it's far between the apartments.

:wallbash:

We have plenty of single-family homes too but I don't see them as bad as the apartment-in-a-park development.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

KeanoManu said:


> The problem in Sweden is not single-family home but boring, horrible "box-in-a-park"-type of development that has spread like a disease during the past 50 years.
> 
> People are living in apartments, but the density are probably not high as it's far between the apartments.
> 
> ...



I hate those things lol

I wish the mid 1800s dense blocks would come back like haussmann or cerda style, but that will probably never happen so we'll have to cherish what we have.


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

Belgian inner cities are pretty dense, so that's fine. These parts of the cities were build before ww2 and are rather well preserved and still inhabited. Some of these neighbourhoods are a bit less densely inhabited than originally, because households have become smaller than they used to be in the past. This is actually the biggest problem of these inner city neighbourhoods: They are not (seen as) well-suited for middle-class families with children.

The problem is the suburbs and the "countryside". Almost all Belgium is urbanised, but most of it consists of sprawl. The pressure and urgency to do something about it is very high, but unfortunately only very few people get this. People who are professionally involved in this issue do understand it and they warn politicians to act, but these politicians are afraid to go against the dominant mentality that praises single family homes in a suburban environment and condems real urban environments as crowded, filthy and dangerous.

An urban lifestyle should therefore be promoted as a good alternative to a suburban life. The positive sides of city life should be highlighted and the negative sides (imagined an real) should be dealt with. I hope that our cities will eventually get much bigger and more dense and that the sprawl problem will be reduced. A real solution for this latter problem will probably be impossible, because it has been ignored for too long and the damage is too big and irreversible. This is very regrettable, because I think that open space in the vicinity of large and densely inhabited urban areas is crucial. People sometimes need to leave the chaotic and crowded urban zones to get some fresh air and enjoy the silence and quietness.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

This is an issue related to urban conceptions that come from several decades ago. It's also related with renting culture, house prices, space available, etc. In Spain, most people live in flats, and single-house residential areas are very rarely located within the inner city, so density in the center use to be quite high. An eurostat report from 2009, stated that 64.6% of the people in Spain lived in flats (and have in mind that it involves people living in the countriside. If we focus only in the cities, tha ratio would climb to 80-85%):

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Housing_statistics

That's only 1% down of countries such as the Baltic countries, where there is limited building space, and very irregular density, plus soviet urban development conception. Curiously enough, spanish middle class people don't think of living in flats as a lower living standard, although there's a growing culture of moving to less populted areas out of the city borders, or even countriside areas not far from jobs. In any case, i found desireable that inner cities have 24 hours activity, involving offices and day bussiness but also nightlive, adn why not, residential areas. It's a quite messy and causes some trouble... but ¿can you imagine Madrid center in a different way? If you live in the center, you have certain benefits (you're close to everything, well communicated, with the best gyms, cinemas, nighlife within 10 minutes from your block), but should accept the disavantadges (noise, pollution, expensiveness, etc.).


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

^^As a consequence of this mentality, Spanish cities are among the best in Europe. Even rather small cities might feel very urban and lively. On the other hand, there is so much remaining open space. This is obiously a consequence of the (for W-European standards) rather low population density, but also because of the good land use. I really admire and envy the Spanish for this. It's almost a pity that you lost our country in the 18th century


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Wapper said:


> Belgian inner cities are pretty dense, so that's fine. These parts of the cities were build before ww2 and are rather well preserved and still inhabited. Some of these neighbourhoods are a bit less densely inhabited than originally, because households have become smaller than they used to be in the past. This is actually the biggest problem of these inner city neighbourhoods: They are not (seen as) well-suited for middle-class families with children.
> 
> The problem is the suburbs and the "countryside". Almost all Belgium is urbanised, but most of it consists of sprawl. The pressure and urgency to do something about it is very high, but unfortunately only very few people get this. People who are professionally involved in this issue do understand it and they warn politicians to act, but these politicians are afraid to go against the dominant mentality that praises single family homes in a suburban environment and condems real urban environments as crowded, filthy and dangerous.
> 
> An urban lifestyle should therefore be promoted as a good alternative to a suburban life. The positive sides of city life should be highlighted and the negative sides (imagined an real) should be dealt with. I hope that our cities will eventually get much bigger and more dense and that the sprawl problem will be reduced. A real solution for this latter problem will probably be impossible, because it has been ignored for too long and the damage is too big and irreversible. This is very regrettable, because I think that open space in the vicinity of large and densely inhabited urban areas is crucial. People sometimes need to leave the chaotic and crowded urban zones to get some fresh air and enjoy the silence and quietness.


Is there any success in promoting an urban life style? I live in the US and there is strong trend of people(including those with families) moving to the central city. There are cities like Philadelphia and Boston that take nearly half of the grown of the metropolitan area. To be fair, sprawl in Belgium isn't really that bad from what I seen.


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

Compared to some years ago, young people indeed rediscover the city. Unfortunately, many of them leave again when they have children and the money to buy a house outside the city. It's not totally incomprehensible, because it's hard to find childcare or a school and the price of somewhat bigger house in the inner city can be pretty high. There should be more pressure to solve these problems though. Today, people find it normal to leave the city and buy a single family house outside. People who remain in the city are considered a bit alternative.

Urban sprawl really is a problem. Single properties are not as big as in the US, but the shortage of land and and the incredibly bad spatial planning have resulted in a catastrophical situation. We really feel the negative consequences of urban sprawl.
Also, it is quite possible that we might have a somwhat different understanding of what it is to live in the (central) city and outside. What do you mean exactly when you say that people are moving to Central Boston or Philadelphia?


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

It's nothing compared to sprawl in US or few other counries, with endless suburban subdivisons and strip malls that go on and on for miles. Hell, there are entire cities that are nothing but auto-centric sprawl with some pockets of urbanity. Belgian sprawl is more of ribbon-type growth between the more urban towns and cities. BTW, what's the story behind the promotion of sprawl in Belgium? Is it cultural or something that was influenced by "outside" forces. And I find it hard to believe that there is no child-care or schools.


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

Yes, but that would be impossible in such a small country as Belgium. The size is more or less the same as Maryland  
More than 2/3 of the country consist of cities very near to each other with sprawling suburbs and villages in between and a very high road density to connect these numerous places. 
I realize very well that we have different standards


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

And twice the population. As for you question, I'm talking about the central cities of metropolitan area or the core city of the region.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

No offense intended to you Wapper, but Belgium have always come across as a mess from a planning a urban point of view to me. There are some positive sides like your impressive art nouveau and baroque buildings, but the overall planning leaves a lot to be desired. There is a rather stark contrast to Belgium and your neighbour the Netherlands, which on the other hand seems to be rather good at planning. At least from my point view.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

Wapper said:


> ^^As a consequence of this mentality, Spanish cities are among the best in Europe. Even rather small cities might feel very urban and lively. On the other hand, there is so much remaining open space. This is obiously a consequence of the (for W-European standards) rather low population density, but also because of the good land use. I really admire and envy the Spanish for this.


That's true, but there's a dark side to it, like working class areas being overcrowded, with brutal, ugly soviet styled blocks (don't get me worng, soviet architecture is great, but just not that kind). On the other had, density became too low in the central areas, which is a big problem. Many towns in the countryside are with an average population of 65-75 years, and in a decade or so, we have to face a big problem with a lot of ghost towns and a wasted countryside:















> It's almost a pity that you lost our country in the 18th century


Well, at least something good came from those times, like Velazquez's paintings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surrender_of_Breda
:cheers:


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

LtBk said:


> It's nothing compared to sprawl in US or few other counries, with endless suburban subdivisons and strip malls that go on and on for miles. Hell, there are entire cities that are nothing but auto-centric sprawl with some pockets of urbanity. Belgian sprawl is more of ribbon-type growth between the more urban towns and cities. BTW, what's the story behind the promotion of sprawl in Belgium? Is it cultural or something that was influenced by "outside" forces. And I find it hard to believe that there is no child-care or schools.


In Ireland we have the same culture as the US in regards to owning your own home with a front and back garden and owning maybe 1 or 2 cars. It is only in the last 20 years here that people are starting to live in continental European style apartment living. During the 'celtic tiger' era in Ireland, planning spiraled out of control and there was serious corruption in the planning system with regards to zoning. Belgium is a highly dense country similar to its neighbour the Netherlands. Planning is a lot more stricter as there is very little land. 



Wapper said:


> ^^As a consequence of this mentality, Spanish cities are among the best in Europe. Even rather small cities might feel very urban and lively. On the other hand, there is so much remaining open space. This is obiously a consequence of the (for W-European standards) rather low population density, but also because of the good land use. I really admire and envy the Spanish for this. It's almost a pity that you lost our country in the 18th century


I am fascinated by Spanish cities and how little land they take up. The apartment living is apart of Spanish culture and even in cities with small populations they feel much larger than they actually are mainly down to the fact that they are so dense. Very impressive land usage by planners in Spain without having many "ghettos" sometimes associated with high density blocks.


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

typical spanish city street


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

mckeenan said:


> That's true, but there's a dark side to it, like working class areas being overcrowded, with brutal, ugly soviet styled blocks (don't get me worng, soviet architecture is great, but just not that kind). On the other had, density became too low in the central areas, which is a big problem. Many towns in the countryside are with an average population of 65-75 years, and in a decade or so, we have to face a big problem with a lot of ghost towns and a wasted countryside:


Yes, that's the other side of the medal. I'm not too familiar with the spanish countryside, but I know many French regions that have the same problems. It's quite sad to see once thriving regions and villages in decay. But maybe this is not only due to the success of an urban lifestyle. After all, people also lived in those cities decades ago. I think this is more the consequence of a changing economy. Agriculture is not what it used to be and there are probably not enough jobs in those regions. Some of the people that left might simply be attracted by the modern city life, but I think most of them had to leave to find a job.
Anyway, it's very impressive to see Madrid on your map. It's like an island in a sea of emptyness. You could build some new cities in those empty areas, but I wonder if they wouldn't be too hot and arid. People have always prefered the coastal areas because they're more pleasant to live in.




Galro said:


> No offense intended to you Wapper, but Belgium have always come across as a mess from a planning a urban point of view to me. There are some positive sides like your impressive art nouveau and baroque buildings, but the overall planning leaves a lot to be desired. There is a rather stark contrast to Belgium and your neighbour the Netherlands, which on the other hand seems to be rather good at planning. At least from my point view.


No offense taken  
Until let's say 1950, everything was fine. The past-war economic boost (which made it possible for more people to build and own a house and to buy a car), the evolution towards a service-based economy and the baby-boom are the cause of all the trouble. Our government should have made up strict rules (like the Dutch did), but they didn't care. From 1945 until 1962, there were no spatial planning or building rules and everything was thus possible. In 1962 some regulation was finally created, but in reality nothing changed. People considered our cities as old-fashioned and a suburban (car-oriented) lifestyle seemed to be the modern way. The rules didn't change much, because people didn't care and because politicians didn't want to refuse their voters a building permit. From the 70s on, regulation became more strict, but it has only become serious in very recent time. Today, we are left with a disastrous situation and most people still don't care about it. Rules are more strict, but open space is still being parceled out and sold to build single family houses. 
This very day, a concerned civil servant wrote a column in an important newspaper to launch a cry of distress about the whole situation. The immediate cause of it was a proposal of some politicians to make building and parcelling out in the remaining open space easier again. That's the sad situation we're in hno:

The conclusion (in my opinion) is that the local conditions (like abundance or lack of building space) might have some influence, but the success of city life is mostly determined by historical and cultural factors. Living in a city has not been the ideal in my country for over a 100 years. Political, economic and religious authorities tried to keep people out of the cities for fear of secularisation, socialism and insurgence. They were very succesful and this created the ideal to live outside the city and made people believe that the city is bad. It's very hard to change people's mind. This probably didn't happen in Spain where living in cities is still considered normal.



LtBk said:


> It's nothing compared to sprawl in US or few other counries, with endless suburban subdivisons and strip malls that go on and on for miles. Hell, there are entire cities that are nothing but auto-centric sprawl with some pockets of urbanity. Belgian sprawl is more of ribbon-type growth between the more urban towns and cities..


You're right about those ribbon type growth. If you just keep to the large roads, you will drive between two walls of houses with only now and then a chance to look through. Behind the houses there are still fields and some open space, but they are interrupted every few 100m by a row of houses. People enjoy the accessibility of the road in front and the view on the fields on the backside. You will very rarely have the oppurtunity to see a clear horizon though.




> BTW, what's the story behind the promotion of sprawl in Belgium? Is it cultural or something that was influenced by "outside" forces.


I kind of explained that above.  Ironically, some cities of Belgium have been among the most important urban centres in Europe for centuries. But the evolution towards urban life in industrial and post-industrial times has not really been a success (if you ask me).




> And I find it hard to believe that there is no child-care or schools.


Of course there are schools and kindergartens, but the demand is just really high.




> In Ireland we have the same culture as the US in regards to owning your own home with a front and back garden and owning maybe 1 or 2 cars. It is only in the last 20 years here that people are starting to live in continental European style apartment living. During the 'celtic tiger' era in Ireland, planning spiraled out of control and there was serious corruption in the planning system with regards to zoning.


Ireland was not really an industrial country in the period that other European cities were booming because of an increasing population and the industrial revolution. Also, you were under British influence back then (or just plainly a part of the UK). The British have a long tradition to favour single family homes over living in appartments. That's also the reason why you won't see many 19th century or early 20th century appartment blocks over there.

Well well, I did a nice effort to celebrate my 1000th post on SSC :cheers:


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Wapper said:


> And what kind of people live in the now?


In those it's probably upper middle class as it is located in what is considered to be a nice district of the city (the western side of Oslo is considered nice while the eastern side is considered bad). In this area, which is another somewhat similar development from the early '40s I believe, it's more of a lower middle class district. But it all depends on the location.


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

Galro said:


> In those it's probably upper middle class as it is located in what is considered to be a nice district of the city (the western side of Oslo is considered nice while the eastern side is considered bad). In this area, which is another somewhat similar development from the early '40s I believe, it's more of a lower middle class district. But it all depends on the location.


Bad zones in norway ?


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

bilbao (E) from the 30 s aswell


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

VITORIA MAN said:


> Bad zones in norway ?


These are the bad places in Oslo:
https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...=1HttphJ15FXJhosliZpl4w&cbp=12,111.85,,0,4.99

https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...=19ojYikT7lzfpY1wKFz6BA&cbp=12,332.31,,0,-0.9

There is also considerable drug dealing here, but this is not visible on streetview as the google car appears to have been there early in the morning. 

The whole of Northern Norway is nationally considered to be a troubled area and with relatively large crime rates relative to their population. The small town of Vardø is one of the troubled cities up north - it's basically like a Norwegian mini version of Detroit.

https://maps.google.no/maps?q=Vardø...xyuLzoEM66C_ibpAFb6tWA&cbp=12,152.01,,0,-1.94

https://maps.google.no/maps?q=Vardø...PJ2RhnEmiMlLZ20Yw9CqVQ&cbp=12,189.15,,0,-1.94

https://maps.google.no/maps?q=Vardø...=020Rjy4bd08VDoKO1FgQZQ&cbp=12,339.43,,0,4.37

You can use streetview to move around a little to take a peek.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Wapper said:


> Whatever you call them: I meant housing with the same purpose as commieblocks, i.e. housing built by the state or the city to accomodate the masses that migrated from the country to the cities.


I assume you're thinking of Barcelona's Eixample, hausmannian Paris etc. I'll agree on those. 
RE modernism, if you go to classic interbellum modernism (Bauhaus, Dutch De Stijl & co, even a good part of the French school), you'll see that the way the original modernist envisaged habitats was quite a good one, without excessive densities and with a rational usage of space, beautiful architecture of low to medium height... For example, here is an interbellum working class neighbourhood built from scratch with Bauhaus inspiration in Bucharest: 










So I wouldn't put the blame on "modernism". IMO what happened was that when the powers to be decided to take on the major issue of the time in the '50s (up to the '70s), they picked the solutions from the (in hindsight) worst possible source: Le Corbusier. There were plenty of other options but his ideas were those that provided easy solutions to the issue of mass accommodation, mass car traffic, etc. Turns out there's no "easy solution". 

BTW Russia also played an important role here but I'm not informed enough to make firm claims. I remember reading that Russian constructivism was an intelligent, creative movement, close to its Western counterparts that I've mentioned above, but when Stalin changed his mind on cultural issues in the early '30s he more or less decapitated (quite literally, to an extent) the Russian modernist movement and replaced it with a very rigid academic approach that included "socialist realism" in the visual arts and a much less flexible and more oppressive planning in urbanism, all inspired by his own ideas. [To an extent, a similar thing has happened in Romania: commieblock neighbourhoods from the '50s up to the early '70s were quite decent, well planned and good looking at the time of their inauguration; but when the deluded Ceausescu started to push his will, and whole areas of commieblocks and other buildings were built with his involvement in the design and planning (!), and with his requirements of making them as cheap as possible, the country was utterly disfigured.]

Speaking of Le Corbusier, this reminds that another thing I discovered by moving around a bit (besides that density in itself is not a problem) was that apartment blocks can be actually beautiful, and I would actually like to live in a Le Corbusier habitation unit provided it's well maintained. There is in Marseille's old port a series of (Corbusier-inspired?) apartment blocks built in the '40s and '50s after the Nazi destruction of the area that are just stunning. And there are lots of obviously Corbusier inspired recent blocks around my neighbourhood which are mouthwatering. I'd be a happy man if I could live in this one, not far away from where I live now, at the edge of our park:


DSC_0449 by Alexandru Mircea, on Flickr


DSC_0447 by Alexandru Mircea, on Flickr


DSC_0630 by Alexandru Mircea, on Flickr

There are other excellent ones around the park:


DSC_0732 by Alexandru Mircea, on Flickr


DSC_0420 by Alexandru Mircea, on Flickr

In the pic above the apartment building to the left looks better but is probably more expensive, while the bigger one to the right also has a better view.

There are other such examples in the neighbourhood but without the park which is an amazing plus. As much as I love old architecture, I'd take such an apartment block over something old any day, because with it 1) you still remain inside the historical city and benefit from it's advantages 2) you benefit from modern comfort, like not making strong noise for every step on the century old wooden floor, hearing every sound your neighbour above makes, not having bathrooms of, say, "quirky" shapes, not having old pipes squeak in your apartment when neighbours from two floors down or above turn on the water, not having cigarette smoke from a neighbour infiltrate into your home via building imperfections, having ventilation, and so on and so forth.


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

its wasnt a question it was just a surprise for me !!! here in spain we think in norway is the paradise but i see that it isnt


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I like the density of English cities. They tend to have quite dense centres which more recent apartments and office buildings, then have leafy suburbs that stretch out normally with a good local rail network.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

VITORIA MAN said:


> its wasnt a question it was just a surprise for me !!! here in spain we think in norway is the paradise but i see that it isnt


Then I misunderstood you. Sorry. :cheers1:


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

^^ Those apartment blocks are indeed very well integrated in the city. I wouldn't mind living there either.
The worst areas are monofunctional (only residential) areas with free-standing blocks that are built in new zones outside the city centre. In communist cities I assume that there was at least good public transportation, but if these areas are completely isolated there is a high risk that they will become ghetto's.



> The whole of Northern Norway is nationally considered to be a troubled area and with relatively large crime rates relative to their population. The small town of Vardø is one of the troubled cities up north - it's basically like a Norwegian mini version of Detroit.


Those areas look pretty creepy. I guess this can probably be explained by the very low population and the depressing weather. It must be hard to live there.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Wapper said:


> Those areas look pretty creepy. I guess this can probably be explained by the very low population and the depressing weather. It must be hard to live there.


People are moving away from it as there is very little jobs. Here is a graph of the population development of Vardø in recent times. As you can see, it is declining sharply and that is despite the record high growth the whole country have gone through in the same period. 










Many Northern Norwegian towns and cities suffers from the same to varying degrees.


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

Galro said:


> Then I misunderstood you. Sorry. :cheers1:


thanks for the information anyway


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

> To an extent, a similar thing has happened in Romania: commieblock neighbourhoods from the '50s up to the early '70s were quite decent, well planned and good looking at the time of their inauguration; but when the deluded Ceausescu started to push his will, and whole areas of commieblocks and other buildings were built with his involvement in the design and planning (!)


I didn't know that Ceucescu was so involved ir urban develpoment. I've read about the parlament palace in Bucharest, and how Ceucescu removed entire neigbourhoods, including churches, sinagoges, etc. Sad enough, such things have an impact that last for decades.



> The worst areas are monofunctional (only residential) areas with free-standing blocks that are built in new zones outside the city centre. In communist cities I assume that there was at least good public transportation, but if these areas are completely isolated there is a high risk that they will become ghetto's.


I think we all agree about that. The point is the cause. It's clear, having in mind what Alexandru had posted, that it's not just modernism. I tend to think, that it's more related with cheapness and despise for the lower classes, than with architecture or usbanistic trends.


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

italy


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

Those are usually where the poorest communities live in the poorest neighborhoods, surely not the middle classes; middle class usually live in flats tall from 2 to 6 storeys in more "normal" neighborhoods or detached houses


----------



## wc eend (Sep 16, 2002)

What makes it that southern European cities are generally so much denser than northern ones? Greece is a similar story as Italy and Spain. What role does climate play?


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

wc eend said:


> What makes it that southern European cities are generally so much denser than northern ones? Greece is a similar story as Italy and Spain. What role does climate play?


It's more central (a bit less than the south) and southern Italy where density is higher in cities; northern Italy which has a colder climate from the typical "Italian" one (except coastal areas in Liguria) it's a different story, where sprawl and detached houses are much more widespread (especially Veneto).. elsewhere however a second house in the countryside is widespread; so, many live in the cities and use that house during weekends and summers (or just live there); less harsh climate is a component I guess, as many here like to have the main services more around them (especially schools, work opportunities etc.; although car is often used anyways), and would find it very hard to stay isolated all the time and that would probably cause depression and would cause many local activities like bars, pizzerias etc. to close (more than they are doing now), especially in smaller towns etc


----------



## blasll (Mar 19, 2012)

Wapper said:


> Whatever you call them: I meant housing with the same purpose as commieblocks, i.e. housing built by the state or the city to accomodate the masses that migrated from the country to the cities.


I beg to dissagree, there are many examples of beautiful and successful housing built by the state, take for example the gemeindebauten of vienna, built even after WWII, as far as i know a very big percentage of the viennese, not restricted to the poor, live in those. But then, everything works well in that city


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

wc eend said:


> What makes it that southern European cities are generally so much denser than northern ones? Greece is a similar story as Italy and Spain. What role does climate play?


Wealth, you can track urban sprawl in most south european countries to when people began to earn more.

In Spain for example urban sprawl was almost non existant before the 1980s and only really began to appear in the 1990s when many cities experienced population drops.

And the new housing developments in Spain the last 10 years are very similar to the model used in northern europe that use the house in the park model. 

Just look at the new largescale developments to the south of Zaragoza or south-east of Madrid, they follow the same pattern, housing blocks scattered over huge land areas with no amenities at all, entire neighbourhoods planned around the car.

These neighbourhoods have no urban life at all, people living in those areas are forced to drive even if they just want to go to the local bar, which has now been moved to the "adjacent" mall.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

gincan said:


> Just look at the new largescale developments to the south of Zaragoza or south-east of Madrid, they follow the same pattern, housing blocks scattered over huge land areas with no amenities at all, entire neighbourhoods planned around the car.
> 
> These neighbourhoods have no urban life at all, people living in those areas are forced to drive even if they just want to go to the local bar, which has now been moved to the "adjacent" mall.


Yep, sadly enough, this is true. Also, those "in the middle of nowhere" developments lacks of good public transportation, which is a problem, specially for kids.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

^^ Can you post a google streetview link to those developments? In general I have to say I like modern Spanish planning from what I've seen. Developments like this looks good for me planning wise even if the architecture is not that great.


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

blasll said:


> I beg to dissagree, there are many examples of beautiful and successful housing built by the state, take for example the gemeindebauten of vienna, built even after WWII, as far as i know a very big percentage of the viennese, not restricted to the poor, live in those. But then, everything works well in that city


I agree there. I lived in Vienna for 5 months and I have never seen a better organized city. The housng built by the manicipality is generally very nice and they seem to be very proud of it, seeing that they write it in big letters on the wall! It's great if this is the normal way of living.



gincan said:


> Wealth, you can track urban sprawl in most south european countries to when people began to earn more.
> 
> In Spain for example urban sprawl was almost non existant before the 1980s and only really began to appear in the 1990s when many cities experienced population drops.
> 
> ...


But didn't the Spanish crisis put a (at least temporary) stop to this?


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

Galro said:


> Can you post a google streetview link to those developments? In general I have to say I like modern Spanish planning from what I've seen. Developments like this looks good for me planning wise even if the architecture is not that great.


^^
For example, this near Mostoles (Madrid metropolitan area)

There were news recently in local media on bad public transportation in there. The whole neighborhood seem to be recently built, and it is built in an area surrounded of warehouses/industrial park, and, like many neighborhoods in Madrid metropolitan area, in fact have little shops/bussiness/services, because them being just a big bedroom areas.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Wapper said:


> The worst areas are monofunctional (only residential) areas with free-standing blocks that are built in new zones outside the city centre.


Very well said - _monofunctional_ is the key word in this discussion. 



Wapper said:


> In communist cities I assume that there was at least good public transportation, but if these areas are completely isolated there is a high risk that they will become ghetto's.


I can't speak for Budapest, Prague, Warsaw etc. but in communist Bucharest public transport was terrible. The main focus was on moving vast numbers of people from the "dormitory" areas to factories and back. Which left the city totally unprepared for the needs of a modern city in a normal society, which put much less focus on the peripheries and much more on the centre (a radial model for the transport system is usually the norm). 

Here you can watch a short report from back in the day, showing images of amazing overcrowding and poor infrastructure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGidTkhEqRw The report gives several explanations for the poor effectiveness, like 1) poor implementation of the shift schedule conceived at a regional level so that factories release their workers in waves, not all at the same time; 2) disruption created by car owners or 3) bad behaviour from users. It's obvious that 2) and 3) are bullshit, privately-owned car numbers were very small those days. The system was just woefully underdeveloped. Just as bad were the two decades of stagnation after 1989, developing the metro network has only resumed about a couple of years ago. Whenever I lived in a commieblock area I was lucky enough to find something near a metro station, but if the metro station doesn't help you for your daily commute to work, then you're in deep shit, usually. 



mckeenan said:


> I didn't know that Ceucescu was so involved ir urban develpoment. I've read about the parlament palace in Bucharest, and how Ceucescu removed entire neigbourhoods, including churches, sinagoges, etc. Sad enough, such things have an impact that last for decades.


The urban development plan of the late '70s and '80s is entirely his creation. When you see photos or footage of him inspecting a model or a construction work site, he is actually giving indications such as "the square needs an exit here, demolish that front of old houses and connect with the X boulevard" or "a monumental entrance is needed here" etc.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

wc eend said:


> What makes it that southern European cities are generally so much denser than northern ones? Greece is a similar story as Italy and Spain. What role does climate play?


IMO it's related to history not climate. Wherever cities have developed for centuries during the age of fortifications (so up until Renaissance / early modern era included), the planning culture of the place would emerge as one favouring density. Which is why you get dense cities more towards the North, too. In the old times, the usual solutions for a city bound by fortifications to develop were to split a property in two and raise two buildings on it, and so on until you would get crazily thin houses like those one room per level houses in the low countries; the other solution was to go tall (see the medieval "highrises" of Edinburgh) which was more difficult in a technical sense. 

When cities expanded of an accelerated manner since the 19th century and we're not talking strictly about inner city any more I don't think there's a clear pattern anymore. Britain, Germany and France are all to the North of the Mediterranean civilization yet they haven't responded the same: Britain moved early and built mid-density suburbs that were perfectly between urban and rural, while France and Germany (which had stronger left-wing politics) wait until longer and eventually went with very dense and tall apartment block districts. In the South also it's not the same everywhere, in Greece for example is not the same as in Italy and Spain: life style is much more individualistic IMO and peripheral and suburban areas of Greek cities are (from what I could see) more orientated towards low heights for residential complexes or fully individual properties, even if they are very close to each other.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

What exactly is "sprawl" to you guys?


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

LtBk said:


> What exactly is "sprawl" to you guys?


By Norwegian standards, something like this:

- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...f-8&channel=suggest&hnear=Oslo&gl=no&t=h&z=14
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...f-8&channel=suggest&hnear=Oslo&gl=no&t=h&z=14
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...f-8&channel=suggest&hnear=Oslo&gl=no&t=h&z=14
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...f-8&channel=suggest&hnear=Oslo&gl=no&t=h&z=14
- https://maps.google.no/maps?q=oslo&...f-8&channel=suggest&hnear=Oslo&gl=no&t=h&z=14

I consider all of that to be examples of sprawl and it is all part of Oslo metro area.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Britain, Germany and France are all to the North of the Mediterranean civilization yet they haven't responded the same: Britain moved early and built mid-density suburbs that were perfectly between urban and rural, while France and Germany (which had stronger left-wing politics) wait until longer and eventually went with very dense and tall apartment block districts.


I disagree, in France, the suburbs are mostly made of detached houses.
Tall housing blocks are a minority and those aren't as dense as many people imagine.
Housing block districts tend to have large unbuilt space on ground where there are parking lots and/or green land.

In Germany, there aren't a lot of housing blocks except on Eastern part.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Minato ku said:


> I disagree, in France, the suburbs are mostly made of detached houses.
> Tall housing blocks are a minority and those aren't as dense as many people imagine.
> Housing block districts tend to have large unbuilt space on ground where there are parking lots and/or green land.


You're not reading me right then, I'm not saying that much of the French suburbs are made of apartment blocks. We were discussing high density planned developments, so bringing up the typical detached house suburb would have been off at a tangent with the topic. Of course they exist and are the majority. France doesn't have many large & dense cities that needed large scale planning for expansion, indeed. (On the contrary France is a country of rather low overall population density, and a considerably lower percentage of the population lives in large cities.) But when it was the case, apartment block neighbourhoods were the typical French solution. 

Most of the French cities and towns that I have seen have at least a few apartment blocks, even when the place is so small it seems counter-intuitive. Even in the small Fontainebleau + Avon conurbation (about 30k people) where I lived they have several, like here, here or here. Now that I'm thinking, maybe the reason in this case was that the town is surrounded by untouchable forest. Edit: Although that didn't stop them from cutting down the forest to build the "newtown" area from my third example. 
Anyway yes, it's true that apartment block areas are not a majority in France like many people seem to think, and also like you say they are also rationally planned, unlike real commieblock neighbourhoods which are quite terrible to live in. 



Minato ku said:


> In Germany, there aren't a lot of housing blocks except on Eastern part.


Depends by what you mean with "a lot". If you compare with Eastern Europe, Western countries don't come anywhere close. I wouldn't even describe the amounts of apartment blocks anywhere in Western Europe with "lots", at all. Ironically though, I have seen once a research project that said that this kind of architectural design and of planning was copied from '50s Western German social housing (the pic in the link is from Romania).


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

El_Greco said:


> I think these are nice. Maybe nothing special architecturally but clean and lively.
> 
> I've seen quite a few areas like this in Madrid and they left good impression on me - well looked after, with great sense of community and plenty of open spaces. I'd say Spain has some of the most attractive neighbourhoods in Europe, not to mention best urban realm.


The urbanity and feeling of density is immense but the Franco era also left some completely unplanned and very poor quality housing. They have been regenerating these areas and adding well needed infrastructure and services but a lot of work is still to be done.

Regarding depopulation of the Spanish countryside that was mentioned by somebody. A new movement has come with the big crisis in Spain. Some people are leaving the city and moving back to villages to start businesses like artesenal cheesemaking or organic farming. Pretty exciting. People from all over Europe also seem interested in moving to these villages to bring them alive again.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Galro said:


> ^^ Can you post a google streetview link to those developments? In general I have to say I like modern Spanish planning from what I've seen.


It leaves much to be desired, there are several problems with the way the new towns are developed.

* too large blocks for the low population density. People are spread out over a too large area.
* too much space devoted for cars creating huge barriers destroying urban life. With no urban life, social desolation and urban degradation invite criminal activity.
* lack of commercial activity, if fact it is non existant in many of these new developments.
* lack of adequate public transport, low density combined with huge areas to cover require expensive public transport solutions, this is highly inefficient as busses run empty because of low usage.
* lack of basic municipal services, as everything is spread out over huge areas it is very expensive to maintain and parks/squartes/police/clinics/schools are all lacking in accessibility etc.
* These developments tend to degrade fast over time, first generation middle class, second generation (after 15-20 years) working class, third generation (after 20-30 years) social welfare class.
*With lower income inhabitants over time, the neighbourhood degrade as tax income drop and basic municipal service degrade. Social unrest follow and crime rise.
* After 30-40 years these areas tend to end up the least desirable and become highly segregated immigrant ghettos.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Minato ku said:


> I disagree, in France, the suburbs are mostly made of detached houses.
> Tall housing blocks are a minority and those aren't as dense as many people imagine.
> Housing block districts tend to have large unbuilt space on ground where there are parking lots and/or green land.
> 
> In Germany, there aren't a lot of housing blocks except on Eastern part.


My two cents

What I see in these decades is a ridefinition of 'traditional' European standards of urbanization

I mean that countries which traditionally had planned an urban/suburban pattern based on sprawl and detached or semidetached houses are now converting to 'condos' while countries which based their urban 'philosophy' on multifamily buildings and high density are now converting to sprawl with detached and row houses

My impression is even that the last ones are still increasing their soil cunsumption while the first ones, which had sprawled a lot in the past, are not

IMHO


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

guadalajara (E) 100.000 inhab


----------



## OriK (May 1, 2007)

Ribarca said:


> The urbanity and feeling of density is immense but the Franco era also left some completely unplanned and very poor quality housing. They have been regenerating these areas and adding well needed infrastructure and services but a lot of work is still to be done.
> 
> Regarding depopulation of the Spanish countryside that was mentioned by somebody. A new movement has come with the big crisis in Spain. Some people are leaving the city and moving back to villages to start businesses like artesenal cheesemaking or organic farming. Pretty exciting. People from all over Europe also seem interested in moving to these villages to bring them alive again.


In fact there are two flows...

A lot of higly skilled people are moving to big cities where it's easier for them to find a specialized job.

I think that both flows compensate themselves...


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

OriK said:


> In fact there are two flows...
> 
> A lot of higly skilled people are moving to big cities where it's easier for them to find a specialized job.
> 
> I think that both flows compensate themselves...


Perhaps. But I have read lots of stories from unemployed highly skilled people moving to the country side and picking up traditional crafts trying to make high quality products.


----------



## Avientu (Jul 12, 2007)

Ribarca said:


> Perhaps. But I have read lots of stories from unemployed highly skilled people moving to the country side and picking up traditional crafts trying to make high quality products.


Depopulated rural areas have been trying to attract people for many years, it's not something new that came with the crisis. They offer free/cheap housing, jobs, schools, etc to incentivate people to settle down in those places.
Another thing are jobless people moving to the countryside because they can't get a job in the cities. That is something directly related to the crisis, but I don't think the number si that high, is not everyone's cup of tea obviously, and it's not compensating the people who have been leaving the countryside for decades.


----------



## pussyqueen (Aug 1, 2013)

VITORIA MAN said:


> typical spanish city street


Not really, those buildings are pretty, most streets in Madrid don't look like that, it's not like Paris, although Spain is a beautiful country, especially Barcelona.


----------



## pussyqueen (Aug 1, 2013)

I actually love these urban sprawls in the UK.











Europe doesnt need residential skyscrapers.


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

madrid streets


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

Spanish newly built up areas look so Moroccan or Algerian. They could be almost everywhere in MENA. Almost no difference! :nuts:


----------



## OriK (May 1, 2007)

^^ Put an example as there are many different kind of newly built up areas...


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

SE9 said:


> London isn't considerably less dense than Madrid. Due to differences in city limits which are arbitrary, you can get a good picture of relative density by ascertaining the density of how the "innermost ~3 million" residents live in this instance:
> 
> Berlin
> - *Population:* 3,292,365
> ...


:nuts: Madrid is a much smaller city. You can't compare it like that. That's about half of Madrids metro population while only a fifth of Londons. You need to compare it with a population relative to its size for it to make any sense.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

If that's genuinely the case then it's a miracle that both London and Madrid house 3.3 million people in roughly the same land area, given that London's land is predominantly occupied by "2 to 4 storey terraces" and Madrid's land consists of taller apartment stock.

Either the majority of Madrid's land area is not built upon, or proportionally less of Madrid's buildings are for residential use, or London's built environment is more dense than has been described.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

SE9 said:


> If that's genuinely the case then it's a miracle that both London and Madrid house 3.3 million people in roughly the same land area, given that London's land is predominantly occupied by "2 to 4 storey terraces" and Madrid's land consists of taller apartment stock.
> 
> Either the majority of Madrid's land area is not built upon, or proportionally less of Madrid's buildings are for residential use, or London's built environment is more dense than has been described.


Why is that weird? Madrid is a much smaller city. All cities have suburbs with less built up areas. In a much smaller city these areas are bound to be closer to the inner city. You are compared what is innermost part of London with what is basically the whole innercity of Madrid pluss many suburbs. Compare urban areas vs urban areas or metro areas vs metros instead.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

SE9 said:


> London isn't considerably less dense than Madrid. Due to differences in city limits which are arbitrary, you can get a good picture of relative density by ascertaining the density of how the "innermost ~3 million" residents live in this instance:
> 
> Berlin
> - *Population:* 3,292,365
> ...


Madrid is only half as big as London, so it would be better to compare Madrid's inner 1.7 million with inner London. Madrid's city limits encompass many non built up areas which skews the density. 

Madrid's and Paris' inner districts reach densities of well over 20,000/km² whereas London has densities below 15,000/km² in all of it's districts.


----------



## Kaetzar (Jun 30, 2009)

*"INNER MADRID"*












This sort of "Inner Madrid" has seven districts of which densities are:

CENTRO: 28,587 per km²
RETIRO: 23,424 per km²
ARGANZUELA: 22,410 per km²
SALAMANCA: 27,418 per km²
CHAMBERÍ: 31,043 per km²
CHAMARTÍN: 15,510 per km²
TETUÁN: 28,888 per km²

TOTAL POPULATION: *1,156,811*


The "Inner Madrid" density is almost five times bigger than Inner London density. By the way, the 26.4% of the *city* area of Madrid is wild forest (Monte del Pardo) and another 20% is undeveloped.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm not disputing that the "core" of Madrid is more dense in residential terms than the "core" of London. I'm saying that if you're making face comparisons, compare either a similar population sample or a similar area. Don't disregard both. The 'Inner Madrid' that you cite corresponds to 'Central London' here.


----------



## OriK (May 1, 2007)

^^ but in this case I think that comparing the surface of Madrid doesn't make sense as a huge part of the city (around 25%) is a natural park...

And it's really protected! Even the entrance to most of that 25% of the city is forbidden!

This is inside Madrid boundaries:

































(Source: Wikipedia)


----------



## Kaetzar (Jun 30, 2009)

SE9 said:


> I'm not disputing that the "core" of Madrid is more dense in residential terms than the "core" of London. I'm saying that if you're making face comparisons, compare either a similar population sample or a similar area. Don't disregard both. The 'Inner Madrid' that you cite corresponds to 'Central London' here.


In this case "Inner Madrid" density is _only_ twice "Central London". Comparison between the six most dense districts of all England (all of them in London) and the density of the "core" of Madrid:

Islington: 13,886 per km² vs. Chamberí: 31,043 per km²
Kensington and Chelsea: 13,057 per km² vs. Tetuán: 28,888 per km²
Hackney: 12,977 per km² vs, Centro: 28,587 per km²
Tower Hamlets: 12,942 per km² vs. Salamanca: 27,418 per km²
Lambeth: 11,358 per km² vs. Retiro: 23,424 per km²
Hammersmith and Fulham: 11,124 per km² vs Arganzuela: 22,410 per km²

Another very dense districts in England-London:

Westminster: 10,220 per km²
Camden: 10,101 per km²
Southwark: 10,003	per km²

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population_density


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

chambery street scene
















Islington


----------



## object704 (Jan 3, 2013)

City density is very misleading. For example, Moscow's density halved recently, because it's territory doubled. Vladivostok is forest and hills, with almost all people crammed in the middle of its territory.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Galro said:


> Why is that weird? Madrid is a much smaller city. All cities have suburbs with less built up areas. In a much smaller city these areas are bound to be closer to the inner city. You are compared what is innermost part of London with what is basically the whole innercity of Madrid pluss many suburbs. Compare urban areas vs urban areas or metro areas vs metros instead.


Uhm, have you ever had a look at a map of London and Madrid. Madrid has a lot less low density suburbs than London. And by a lot I mean differences in order of magnitude. There are few detached home or even row house quarters in Madrid and the majority of the suburbs that you actually find are almost exclusively made up of dense city blocks comparable to inner Madrid. 

Spanish cities are really very different to British ones, just have a look at some satellite pictures, its pretty obvious. Overall density numbers are usually very unreliable, unless you differentiate unbuilt and park areas from low density resdiential and traffic area. Madrid has a lot of land in between the central city and the suburbs with no use or agricultural use.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm not sure what you object to in my comment. :dunno: Of course London have more suburbs. However it is also a much larger city with a larger inner city too. All I'm saying is that it makes very little sense to compare the inner city of London with the inner city of Madrid plus surrounding suburbs. The boundaries of Madrid includes areas like this too which, although relatively dense, are clearly suburbs detached from the inner city.


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

While population density is very important, it is hard to gauge the density of a city by it alone because of open space, parks etc. It's much easier to gauge a city's density by the built form. In the case of Madrid and London, I don't want this to turn into a city vs city. Both are great European cities and are unique in the world.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

object704 said:


> City density is very misleading. For example, Moscow's density halved recently, because it's territory doubled. Vladivostok is forest and hills, with almost all people crammed in the middle of its territory.


That's why we always have to discount open spaces when calculating the density. I think when someone speaks of density in this thread he means built up density which means people per km² of building area, infrastructure, gardens and parks.


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Uhm, have you ever had a look at a map of London and Madrid. Madrid has a lot less low density suburbs than London. And by a lot I mean differences in order of magnitude. *There are few detached home or even row house quarters in Madrid *and the majority of the suburbs that you actually find are almost exclusively made up of dense city blocks comparable to inner Madrid.


Hmmmm, it's clear that Spanish cities are very different to British ones, but Madrid has a huge offer of sprawls and row house quarters, even in those seven central districts ("Inner Madrid"), you can find Chamartín in Bing Maps or Google Street View. In the outskirts Rivas Vaciamadrid is a great example of middle class sprawl, and all the west and north metropolitan municipalities are filled of upper class developments (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Alcobendas, Boadilla del Monte, Las Rozas de Madrid...).

PS: Sorry my bad English.


----------



## object704 (Jan 3, 2013)

Chrissib said:


> That's why we always have to discount open spaces when calculating the density. I think when someone speaks of density in this thread he means built up density which means people per km² of building area, infrastructure, gardens and parks.


Much of the new territory of Moscow is built up - just not like in an "old" Moscow. 

Same in Vladivostok - even Russky island, the same size as "continental" city borders, is inhabited, by a few thousand people. Suburbs inside city borders are clearely built up - but good luck finding any measurements of empty spaces there.


----------



## OriK (May 1, 2007)

Are we counting the metropolitan area? in that case, the suburbs are much less denser than the suburbs of the proper Madrid city...


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Pavlemadrid said:


> Hmmmm, it's clear that Spanish cities are very different to British ones, but Madrid has a huge offer of sprawls and row house quarters, even in those seven central districts ("Inner Madrid"), you can find Chamartín in Bing Maps or Google Street View. In the outskirts Rivas Vaciamadrid is a great example of middle class sprawl, and all the west and north metropolitan municipalities are filled of upper class developments (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Alcobendas, Boadilla del Monte, Las Rozas de Madrid...).
> 
> PS: Sorry my bad English.


Low density detached house or row house sprawl in Madrid is nothing compared to what you find in and around London. Its quite possible that even the much smaller Dublin has already more sprawl of that kind than Madrid. 

Mind you, I am not saying that there is no sprawl, but that there is considerably less than in many other European cities, especially those on the British Isles. And why do you equalize upper class developments automatically with sprawl?


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

Slartibartfas said:


> Low density detached house or row house sprawl in Madrid is nothing compared to what you find in and around London. Its quite possible that even the much smaller Dublin has already more sprawl of that kind than Madrid.
> 
> Mind you, I am not saying that there is no sprawl, but that there is considerably less than in many other European cities, especially those on the British Isles. And why do you equalize upper class developments automatically with sprawl?


Yeah that is true, Dublin urban area takes up a larger area than Madrid even though Madrid has 3 times the population.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I think Central London is perfect when it comes to density, however, I do agree with other who say that the city get suburban pretty quickly, especially if you move east of south from the city centre. There are suburban developments a stone's throw from Brick Lane, and just around the corner from Borough Market. Looking south from the City you see mostly trees (barring the very banks south of the river) because both buildings and densities are so low.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

the spliff fairy said:


> SE9, Inner London is 319 sq km, not 624 sq km (for the 3.23 million population catchment used by the Office of National Statistics).
> The 624 sq km catchment is far larger and is only used by the postal service with a far bigger population.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London
> ...



Ah, you're right. Amended below:


Berlin
- *Population:* 3,292,365
- *Area:* 892 km²
- *Density:* 3,700 per km²

Inner London
- *Population:* 3,231,901
- *Area:* 319 km²
- *Density:* 10,131 per km²

Madrid
- *Population:* 3,265,038
- *Area:* 606 km²
- *Density:* 5,390 per km²

Paris
- *Population:* 2,211,297
- *Area:* 105 km²
- *Density:* 20,169 per km²

Paris + Inner ring
- *Population:* 6,578,258
- *Area:* 762 km²
- *Density:* 8,632 per km²


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Robi_damian said:


> I still cling to the belief that London can still do with a few dense neighbourhoods here and there, around transportation interchanges in particular. Not unlike this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, Vauxhall


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

thun said:


> Has anyone the numbers of Naples? It should be right up there with Paris.





El_Greco said:


> Naples is a crazy place, uber dense too, even more so in the Quartieri Spagnoli. Love it.


Naples is not asdense as it appears (and in general Italian cities aren't; French and Spanish cities use to be way denser)

*Naples*
- *Population*: 960,100
- *Area*: 117 km²
- *Density*: 8,187 per km²

*Naples Province*
- *Population*: 3,055,339 
- *Area*: 1,171 km²
- *Density*: 2,609 per km²

Anyway there are very dense municipalities in Naples conurbation

The densest is *Portici* which is even the densest municipality in Italy

*Portici*
- *Population*: 55,365
- *Area*: 4,52 km²
- *Density*: 12,248 per km²


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^Parts of Naples in the 1970s/80s used to some of the densest in the world, on a par with Hong Kong and Macau I heard. The other areas were in Athens at that time.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

^^
Quartieri Spagnoli, the densest borough of Naples, got an area of 0.8 km² with a population of 14,000

Density is 17,500 per km², still less of the whole _'Paris ville'_


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^Yep, but it has been redistributed alot. The past was amazing though:

Just did some research, Naples after the war had a population of 500,000 in just 8 sq km (or 62,500 per sq km - well over 4x Manhattan's density, or 45% higher than Kowloon's). It's Old City had 300,000 in an even smaller area. The Vicaria district in particular rose to densities of 3000 per acre, or a whopping 741,316 per sq km (1.92 million per sq mile) .

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ples italy vicaria population densest&f=false


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I also remember right up to the 1980s one poor area near the port that housed multiple families in old tenement blocks and alleyways was famed as one of the densest areas in the world. Im sure it would have been cleaned up now (akin to the Walled City in HK) - anyone know which one and the stats?


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

hospitalet de llobregat ,a barcelona's suburb 20.000 per km , the highest density in spain


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

the spliff fairy said:


> ^Yep, but it has been redistributed alot. The past was amazing though:
> 
> Just did some research, Naples after the war had a population of 500,000 in just 8 sq km (or 62,500 per sq km - well over 4x Manhattan's density, or 45% higher than Kowloon's). It's Old City had 300,000 in an even smaller area. The Vicaria district in particular rose to densities of 3000 per acre, or a whopping 741,316 per sq km (1.92 million per sq mile) .
> 
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lN6iq7lhk7UC&pg=PA143&dq=naples+italy+vicaria+population+densest&hl=en&sa=X&ei=juU6UueSG-jz0gXJhYC4DA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=naples%20italy%20vicaria%20population%20densest&f=false





the spliff fairy said:


> I also remember right up to the 1980s one poor area near the port that housed multiple families in old tenement blocks and alleyways was famed as one of the densest areas in the world. Im sure it would have been cleaned up now (akin to the Walled City in HK) - anyone know which one and the stats?


Fascinating stuff. Naples is my favourite city in Europe, I bet it was even more crazy back in the day.


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

Le Pré-Saint-Gervais ,a suburb in paris 23.000/km , the highest in france


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

Amadora , a lisbon's suburb , the hightest in portugal 7300/km


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

the spliff fairy said:


> This works out as a density about *10,131 per sq km*. If you took away the parkland (lets say 30%? rather than the 40% norm)
> it would rise to 14,132 per sq km (36,600 per sq mile). If you did the same for Inner Paris (9.4% parkland) it would rise to 23,283 per sq km
> (60,302 per sq mile), although that's one third the size of London's Inner City.


Inner Paris with 105.4 km² is more than 9.4% parkland. 
9.4% is excluding the big woods on the west and east.

The Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes cover 18.41km².
That's already 17.5% of the City of Paris size.
Excluding only the two big woods, the density of inner Paris is already about 25,794 per sq km.

If we had the 9.4% rest of parkland, the density of inner Paris rises to 28,470 inhabitants per per sq km.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I got it from the World Culture Report, assumed it would be Inner paris:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1660203


----------



## skyscraperus (Dec 25, 2012)




----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Beautiful view of Paris!


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

For the number freaks, these are the densest barrios in Barcelona and Barcelonès (Barcelona, Badalona, Santa Coloma and L'Hospitalet) except for Sant Adrià which I don't have numbers for.

*Barcelona* barrios (30.000+ inh/km2 only) _data is from 2012 me thinks_

59,685 inh/km2 - Sants-Badal 
53,638 inh/km2 - el Camp d'en Grassot i Gràcia Nova 
52,470 inh/km2 - el Camp de l'Arpa del Clot 
52,308 inh/km2 - Verdun 
51,620 inh/km2 - Navas 
50.323 inh/km2 - La Sagrada familia 

48.367 inh/km2 - Sant Antoni
46,957 inh/km2 - el Baix Guinardó
46,859 inh/km2 - el Turó de la Peira
45,771 inh/km2 - Vilapicina i la Torre Llobeta
45,137 inh/km2 - la Prosperitat 
44.897 inh/km2 - Raval
43,775 inh/km2 - la Nova Esquerra de l'Eixample
43,378 inh/km2 - Poble Sec

39,819 inh/km2 - la Vila de Gràcia
39,600 inh/km2 - el Clot
39,536 inh/km2 - Hostafrancs
38,657 inh/km2 - Sants
35,993 inh/km2 - el Putxet i el Farró
35,743 inh/km2 - El Fort Pienc
35,493 inh/km2 - Sant Martí de Provençals
35,132 inh/km2 - el Carmel
34,670 inh/km2 - el Congrés i els Indians
34,213 inh/km2 - la Font de la Guatlla
34,170 inh/km2 - l'Antiga Esquerra de l'Eixample
34,106 inh/km2 - la Teixonera
33,742 inh/km2 - les Corts
32,650 inh/km2 - la Bordeta
31,949 inh/km2 - Ciutat Meridiana

*Total population*: 886,959 (54,7% of population)
*Land area*: 21,28 km2 (21,2% of land area)

*Santa Coloma* barrios (30.000+ inh/km2 only) _data is from 2012 me thinks_

82,800 inh/km2 - Can Mariner
65,900 inh/km2 - Santa Rosa 
61,800 inh/km2 - El Fondo 
56,300 inh/km2 - El Llatí 
44,500 inh/km2 - El Riu Sud
42,800 inh/km2 - El Riu Nord
37,800 inh/km2 - El Centre

*Total population*: 90,137
*Land area*: 1,76 km2

*Badalona* barrios (30.000+ inh/km2 only) _data is from 2012 me thinks_

56.707 inh/km2 - Sant Mori
50,872 inh/km2 - Sant Joan
50,540 inh/km2 - Artigues
48,958 inh/km2 - Nova Lloreda
46,180 inh/km2 - la Pau
45,509 inh/km2 - La Salut
43,554 inh/km2 - San Crist
41,118 inh/km2 - Sant Roc
39,652 inh/km2 - Sant Antoni
36,910 inh/km2 - Congrés
35,976 inh/km2 - Raval


*Total population*: 122,450
*Land area*: 2,72 km2

*L'Hospitalet* barrios (30.000+ inh/km2 only) _data is from 2012 me thinks_

77,832 inh/km2 - La florida
61,675 inh/km2 - La Torrassa 
49,227 inh/km2 - Pubilla Cases
48,992 inh/km2 - Collblanc
40,073 inh/km2 - Les Planes
37,090 inh/km2 - Can Serra
36,002 inh/km2 - Bellvitge
35,427 inh/km2 - Sant Josep
33,012 inh/km2 - Centre
30,307 inh/km2 - Santa Eulália

*Total population*: 252,906 
*Land area*: 5,99 km2

*People living in 30,000+ barrios in Barcelonès area*: 1,352,452 (60% of population)
*Land area*: 31,75 km2 (22% of land area)
*
Average population density between 30,000+ neighbourhoods*: 42,597 inh/km2


----------



## skyscraperus (Dec 25, 2012)




----------



## fountainkopf (Aug 18, 2013)

Here is shown 100 000 people on sq km. Top height is 75 meters on 4 towers on each block. Yards are at 5 th floor height. 8000 shops on the street in 1 km2.










The whole area above is 1 million people on 3 x 3 km.


----------



## fountainkopf (Aug 18, 2013)

the spliff fairy said:


> I also remember right up to the 1980s one poor area near the port that housed multiple families in old tenement blocks and alleyways was famed as one of the densest areas in the world. Im sure it would have been cleaned up now (akin to the Walled City in HK) - anyone know which one and the stats?


Kowloon Walled City was 1.6 million people on sq km.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

fountainkopf said:


> Here is shown 100 000 people on sq km. (...)


I really don't understand this picture...


----------

