# The densest part of your city



## KGB (Sep 12, 2002)

> Los Angeles is suprisingly dense interms of people per sqr mile. Not so much in the core city, but they break from the traditional less dense American suburbs. This is why interms of metropolitan area, Los Angeles is the densest in North America (excluding Mexico City).



You've been reading too much Demographia. As with any bias organization with an agenda, it's best to take their statistical interpretations with a grain of salt.

Comparing "metro" area densities in some kind of "macro" analysis is pointless, as they are ALL not dense....so winning the "most dense" of all the non-dense "metros" is faint praise to say the least. Demographia does this, because it's the only way non-dense places like Los Angelese can appear to look favourable.

Look at the data with more common sense, and that house of cards falls down very quickly.






KGB


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

KGB said:


> You've been reading too much Demographia. As with any bias organization with an agenda, it's best to take their statistical interpretations with a grain of salt.


The charts provided by demographia are an accurate depiction of density levels of L.A. and the various cities L.A. is compared to.


Demographia is not an organization bent on making L.A. look favourable. They are not run by the Los Angeles city council, and if you do want to disect the data, then we can. Like I said earlier, L.A.'s core is not exceptionally dense when compared to say New York, European, or Asian cities. They do have the second densest census track (using 2000's census statistics) in the United States after NYC with 95,000 ppl per sq mile (surpassing Chicago's 92,000 pple per sq mile). The center of L.A. can also hold it's own against other American cities aside from NYC.



KGB said:


> Comparing "metro" area densities in some kind of "macro" analysis is pointless, as they are ALL not dense....so winning the "most dense" of all the non-dense "metros" is faint praise to say the least.


I don't see why we can't compare density levels of an entire metro area? Isn't the idea of smart growth to be be dense from the city core to the outskirts of the metro? I think geography and the sheer growth rate, has aided L.A. in achieving the title "densest urban area" in the U.S. and Canada.




KGB said:


> Demographia does this, because it's the only way non-dense places like Los Angelese can appear to look favourable.
> 
> Look at the data with more common sense, and that house of cards falls down very quickly.
> 
> ...


Really, then lets look at density levels in comparison to other cities using set radius. Then we can see who's dense and who's not.

Took some digging but it saved me alot of work........Thanks mad_nick.



mad_nick said:


> EDIT:
> I organized the data by radius to make it easier to compare the cities.
> 
> *5 mile radius*
> ...


These are 2000 statistics. The L.A. metro has gained nearly 1.5 million people since 2000, and most likely will gain nearly 1.5 million more by 2010. Regardless of what our perception is of L.A., and whether or not it fits into our traditional view of what an urban city looks like, L.A. is dense. Not centralized, not tall, not mass transit oriented, but pact with people.

In the U.S., at the 5 mile radius from it's center L.A. is #4, behind NYC, San Fran, and Chicago in density, and at the 10 mile radius it's #3 behind NYC and Chicago. Not bad for a city that really does not have a "downtown".

and comparing L.A. with TO, TO's core density is only slightly above L.A., and nearly identical densities further away from the core.











Your words.......



KGB said:


> *I think it's very interesting how Toronto and LA have almost identical numbers for the 5-mile radius comparison...population, square miles and density figures are the same.
> *
> One might think there are parallels to be gleaned from this...yet the two cities are so much different in how they get to those figures. LA having a more-or-less uniform average density over a wide area, while Toronto achieving it's similar average density via wildly differing density pockets within the same area.
> 
> ...


^^
I agree with your statement, yet I'm confused to what you meant with your secodn paragraph? I would think, that L.A. would have the greater differences in density pockets, since they have mountain ranges literally, in their city.


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

Well, my city isn't so rich as europeans, or with beautful buildings ans North Americans, but has your charm...

Fortaleza the 4th brazilian city, capital of Ceará state, with 2.5 mi people and 3.2 in metro region.
7000 people/km² in the densest district. 
Here we don't use to build hight officers, but hight apartaments close to the sea
1.








2.








3.








4.


----------



## KGB (Sep 12, 2002)

> Demographia is not an organization bent on making L.A. look favourable. They are not run by the Los Angeles city council



I didn't mean to imply that it was actually LA-based, rather that they have a pro-suburban lifestyle agenda, and feel the need to "debunk" pro-urban attacks on the suburban lifestyle (car good...transit bad kind of nonsense). LA just provides the best stats for them to bastardize and use in non-sensical ways, which is why they cherry-pick all their data. Toronto poses a major threat to this agenda, because of its pro-urban design and "city that works" reputation, which is why they tend to single it out for "debunking".








> The charts provided by demographia are an accurate depiction of density levels of L.A. and the various cities L.A. is compared to.



Sure...the "figures" are accurate enough....but the context in which they are used is completely misleading. It's smoke and mirrors, and they hope you don't notice. This is all done carefully and on purpose, which is why I consider them downright dishonest and not worthy of inclusion in any serious debate or discussion on the topic.





> You made my point.



Sorry, but those quotes from past posts absolutely DO NOT support your theory at all.


Look, trying to measure residential density by using "metro" averages makes no more sense than determining city densities by taking the national density average for the USA and applying it....it's too big to tell you what goes on at the actual localized level where it counts.....WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE.

Land use and densities within a small, manageable localized area is what is important. Toronto is a "city" of 2.6 million people in a land mass of 243 square miles....but that will hardly tell us how anybody actually lives in terms of the residential area they reside in....it will vary wildly.

First, you have to start looking at land use...how much of that land area is actually used for residential in the first place. In Toronto's case, only 34.8% of the city land is used for residential...or about 85 square miles...which means ALL 2.6 million Torontonians live on 85 square miles of land total. So, the actual average density of where people actually live, at least on a city-wide average, would be over 30,500 PPSM.

Even that is a little big to get a real localized picture, and nobody is an "average" anyway. Within that 85 square miles, lies some pretty differeing residential densities. Some Torontonians live in some fairly non-dense areas, but a large percentage live in very high densities...basically, look at the densities of downtown, as well as the densities that follow the subway system. 

Start looking at it in terms that make sense, and it's clear that a lot larger percentages of Torontonians live in significantly higher density situations than do people in LA.

Quoting densities of less than 5000 PPSM in those "radius" comparisons (even forgetting land use for the moment) is pretty pointless, b3ecause that is not dense at all. We need to talk about areas that have 20,00 to 50,000 PPSM, and what percentage of the population lives in these areas for it to qualify as "high density" living.






KGB


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

You have to remember a couple things about LA County.

1)There are mountain ranges that disect the city and county,that are included in those numbers.

2) LA County is a very large county, with around 10.5 - 11 million people. 90% of these people live in half the county, around LA City. the outskirts in the mountians and deserts are skewing the numbers a bit. LA is definitley on par with SF, Chicago, and most of NYC outside of the densest parts of Manhattan.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

KGB said:


> Land use and densities within a small, manageable localized area is what is important. Toronto is a "city" of 2.6 million people in a land mass of 243 square miles....but that will hardly tell us how anybody actually lives in terms of the residential area they reside in....it will vary wildly.
> 
> First, you have to start looking at land use...how much of that land area is actually used for residential in the first place. In Toronto's case, only 34.8% of the city land is used for residential...or about 85 square miles...which means ALL 2.6 million Torontonians live on 85 square miles of land total. So, the actual average density of where people actually live, at least on a city-wide average, would be over 30,500 PPSM.
> 
> ...


Los Angeles: Largest Expanse of Over 10,000 Density: In fact, Los Angeles has the second most dense core of any metropolitan area in the developed "new world (US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Central Los Angeles is more dense than central Toronto, but less dense than the core of New York. But, again surprisingly, Los Angeles has the largest area of above 10,000 per square mile density in the new world, larger even than New York. 


If we are talking about density, we must also take land usage into consideration. For the city of Chicago, which is 228 sq miles, 108 sq miles is classified as residential. So 2.9 million Chicagoans live in roughly half the entire city, roughly 26,000 ppl per sq mile. This is also misleading since certain communities have higher densities than others. I would imagine that the city of L.A. would also have similar residential patterns since they too have large areas of industry, recreation use, not to mention mountain ranges in their city. I have yet to come across accurate % of actual residential land for Los Angeles. What I do know is that census tracts are measurements of residential areas of a city, and L.A. has the second densest census tract in the United States (slightly greatrer than Chicago's). This atleast tells us that L.A has some neighborhoods that can be classifies as truly dense. 

If we look at the cities most dense areas:

Toronto's densest area compromises 1.83sq miles with a population of 126,074 and a density of 69,034 ppl per sq mile. 

Los Angeles densest area is 1.74sq miles with a population of 115,796 people and a density level of 66,549 ppl per sq mile.

So L.A. does compete even when we look at "true" densties as you classify them.




LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> You have to remember a couple things about LA County.
> 
> 1)There are mountain ranges that disect the city and county,that are included in those numbers.
> 
> 2) LA County is a very large county, with around 10.5 - 11 million people. 90% of these people live in half the county, around LA City. the outskirts in the mountians and deserts are skewing the numbers a bit. LA is definitley on par with SF, Chicago, and most of NYC outside of the densest parts of Manhattan.


You'de never woulda thought a Chicagoan would be defending Los Angeles.......:nuts:


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

chicagogeorge said:


> Los Angeles: Largest Expanse of Over 10,000 Density: In fact, Los Angeles has the second most dense core of any metropolitan area in the developed "new world (US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Central Los Angeles is more dense than central Toronto, but less dense than the core of New York. But, again surprisingly, Los Angeles has the largest area of above 10,000 per square mile density in the new world, larger even than New York.
> 
> 
> If we are talking about density, we must also take land usage into consideration. For the city of Chicago, which is 228 sq miles, 108 sq miles is classified as residential. So 2.9 million Chicagoans live in roughly half the entire city, roughly 26,000 ppl per sq mile. This is also misleading since certain communities have higher densities than others. I would imagine that the city of L.A. would also have similar residential patterns since they too have large areas of industry, recreation use, not to mention mountain ranges in their city. I have yet to come across accurate % of actual residential land for Los Angeles. What I do know is that census tracts are measurements of residential areas of a city, and L.A. has the second densest census tract in the United States (slightly greatrer than Chicago's). This atleast tells us that L.A has some neighborhoods that can be classifies as truly dense.
> ...


Ha! Seriously though, your a sensible guy, and neither of us is "one of those posters" that clog our respective forums.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Ha! Seriously though, your a sensible guy, and neither of us is "one of those posters" that clog our respective forums.


I try not to. I like to stick with the facts. I enjoy the topic of urban demographics and I appreciate KGB's input on the matter. It's nice to have a good discussion.

I've been to L.A. three times and I enjoyed your city everytime. The truth is, it is built differently than Chicago, Toronto, or New York for that matter, but it is a true gem, and is historically unique. 


Sometimes I can get defensive, and turn into a booster when there's a full moon out or when certain forumers post annoying comments.......(Silver.......). Well you know who I'm talking about. Well he's not that bad either.


----------



## Lightness (Nov 3, 2006)

Great to see some pics from Fortaleza Kaique, keep them coming. Only been to Rio but wish I get the chance to visit up north next time. There is certainly density in Brazilian cities. Didn't know Fortaleza was so big though.


----------



## fiatbao (Sep 5, 2006)

Salvador's urban area has 2.7 million inhab. It is the number 3 of Brazil.


----------



## KGB (Sep 12, 2002)

> If we look at the cities most dense areas:
> Toronto's densest area compromises 1.83sq miles with a population of 126,074 and a density of 69,034 ppl per sq mile.
> 
> Los Angeles densest area is 1.74sq miles with a population of 115,796 people and a density level of 66,549 ppl per sq mile.
> ...



What are these "areas" you speak of....who deliniated them and how?

More importantly, we are never defined by cherry-picking one small area representing so few people...it does not offer any sort of accurate representation of the general population.

I can easily cherry-pick neighbourhoods in Toronto that far exceed those numbers...St Jamestown, Harbourfront, Cityplace (not finished), which are actually more defined "areas" that represent real neighbourhoods where people actually live with the consequences of that density.

There are lots of telling facts and figures that shine a light on things....such as the fact that more than half of all the residential units in Toronto are in apartment buildings...the vast majority of which are highrise buildings...speaking of which, we have been building constantly at a Dubai pace, which would render many "density" figures fairly innacurate because they were taken from a census that is 6 years old. 

Also...look at where these densities are....they can be found in nodes around subway stations...better density promotes better transit use....and Toronto is certainly much better than LA in that regard.


I am not totally against your arguement, as I know that LA does not deserve the reputaion it has...it is not nearly as bad as people "imagine" it to be in terms of density. As you have quoted me as saying before...LA is more evenly spread out...not really high urban density...but not Atlanta style either. But falling for the Demographia line is not going to give anyone an enlightened view on the subject. It would be like trying to glean insights on the gay community by limiting your source to right-wing, conservative christian organizations.

And just pure density in and of itself is not good or bad...it depends on how it is done....high density that is made up of mixed-use, transit friendly, mixed-income, walkable, mixed-ethnicity...in other words...sustainable...is generally a good thing.

Areas of high density that is segregated, not mixed-use, high crime, or does not have adequate services and alternatives for those who live there...is not so good. 






KGB


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

*Some information about brazilian metropolis*



Lightness said:


> Great to see some pics from Fortaleza Kaique, keep them coming. Only been to Rio but wish I get the chance to visit up north next time. There is certainly density in Brazilian cities. Didn't know Fortaleza was so big though.




Yeah, brazilian cities use be really dense, this isn't very good, becouse we have some problems with public transportation sistems and traffic jams.

About the 'size' of the cities, well, we have 15 counties with a 1millon or more habitants. 

The Top 5 is: 

Name, state and population/ Region

1-São Paulo, São Paulo(Saint Paul) 10mi, southeast

2-Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro(January's River) 5mi, southeast

3-Salvador, Bahia(Savior) 2,45mi, northeast

4-Fortaleza, Ceará(Fortification) 2,35mi, northeast

5-Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais(Beautiful Horizon) 2,3mi southeast


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Aren't Recife and POA en par with Salvador in pop?


----------



## fiatbao (Sep 5, 2006)

Kuesel said:


> Aren't Recife and POA en par with Salvador in pop?


Nope those 2 have similar population, about half of Salvador's.


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

Kuesel said:


> Aren't Recife and POA en par with Salvador in pop?


We can compare in metro region. Recife and POA have around 3 millon people in metro region.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

That's what I meant... sorry, I see that you posted only city proper numbers. There's several metros between 2 and 4 mio in Brazil:

Porto Alegre - 3,978,263
Recife - 3,599,181
Brasília - 3,454,961
Salvador - 3,350,523
Fortaleza - 3,349,826
Curitiba - 3,141,366 
Campinas - 2,633,938
Belém - 2,042,530

I always have problems to put them in the right order :lol:

These numbers are from 2005, but I think Brasilia, Curitiba and Campinas are a bit exaggorated here...


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

Yes, Curitiba is too large here!!!

But we have some troubles with it, couse who says what is metro region or not, are the states, exception to Brasília, so evry state wanna have the larger city to recive more monay from Union.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Clear  And most of your cities have the area size of a whole Swiss Canton... to compare metros is very difficult. But it is interesting that the states and not the brazilian authorities define metro areas. For Sampa I knew it, but I didn't know that it's generally like that. But the municipality pop is calculated by the states according to the last census for the whole country, isn't it?


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

The TOP 15, only the population in county.

1 São Paulo - 11.016.703
2 Rio de Janeiro - 6.136.652
3 Salvador - 2.711.372
4 Fortaleza - 2.416.920
5 Belo Horizonte - 2.375.329
6 Brasília - 2.363.108
7 Curitiba - 1.788.559
8 Manaus - 1.688.524
9 Recife - 1.501.008
10 Porto Alegre - 1.440.939
11 Belém - 1.405.871
12 Guarulhos - 1.283.253 (parte da Região Metropolitana de São Paulo)
13 Goiânia - 1.220.412
14 Campinas - 1.059.420
15 São Luís - 998.385

Metro Region with more than a millon
1. São Paulo (SP) - 20.500.000
2. Rio de Janeiro (RJ) - 11.350.000
3. Belo Horizonte (MG) - 5.250.000
4. Porto Alegre (RS) - 4.110.000
5. Recife (PE) - 3.600.000
6. Fortaleza CE) - 3.400.000
7. Salvador (BA) - 3.350.000
8. Curitiba PR) - 3.250.000
9. Brasília (DF) [1] - 3.000.000
10. Campinas(SP) - 2.635.000
11. Belém (PA) - 2.100.000
12. Goiânia (GO) - 2.000.000
13. Manaus (AM) [2] - 1.685.000
14. Vitória (ES) [3] - 1.650.000
15. Santos (SP) - 1.475.000 
16. São Luís (MA) - 1.300.000
17. Natal (RN) - 1.240.734
18. Maceió (AL)- 1.116.075
^^^^^^^ 
We can consider this the largest brazilian's cities.
Here the suburbs are very linked with the main city, evry day you have to go to the main county to do evrything.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

I know, that's why everything outside of the metros is called "interior" :lol:


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

Kuesel said:


> I know, that's why everything outside of the metros is called "interior" :lol:


Yeah , couse we are a "sea shore" country, almost 75% of the population lives around 300km from the ocean, as we have some places as far as 3000km from the Atlantic, we call it "interior".

The population is "calculated" by the IBGE(Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estat?*stica) Goeography Estatistics Brazilian Institute.

So the country is really large, we do the census after 10 years from the last one, more than 2 millon people works and the work spend around 2 years, couse de "resenseadores" "censors" do some questions like How meny people lives in the house, How much money earn, How many Freezers, TV, cars, etc. does it has....


----------



## y_nigel (Aug 29, 2005)

Some Vancouver Images


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

I like this pics 









Ile de France is the region of Paris  

What is the density of the densest part of Vancouver ?


----------



## vox20 (Jun 27, 2006)

Densest district of Moscow is Bibirevo, 45000 ppl/sq.km. It is three times more than overall city density.


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

minato ku said:


> I like this pics
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this Paris?

:nuts: 

Looks like a brazilian city!!


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Nope this picture is in Brazil  
but look at this car


----------



## Kaique (Aug 15, 2006)

Thanks becouse I was being desperat:gaah: 

Paris looking like Salvador :nuts: 

I like cities from my country, but only in my country 

We are having a french car invasion, I love it. 
My favorit is the new Megane But If I had a peugeot 206 I'd be happy


----------



## Shanghai City (Jan 22, 2006)

Huangpu is Shanghai`s densest Part
around 200.000 ppl per sq


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Mr_Denmark said:


> *Copenhagen:* It stays roughly the same in all the central districs ( 5695/km² )


Whaaaat!? 

http://www.sk.kk.dk/tal_fakta/befolkning1b.html

According to kobenhavn.dk, Ydre Nörrebro is the most dense district in Copenhagen with *19.712 inhabitants/km2*, or 41.397 people on 210 hectares. That's *51.746 inhabitants/square mile*.

If you narrow it down even more I'm sure you'd get even more crazy density numbers.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

^ I guess I live in the densest part then... could have fooled me though... 

In terms of houses I still stick to the inner city...


----------



## Sister Ray (Apr 22, 2006)

Seoul has some very dense commercial and residential regions. Here are some commercial pics.










Central Seoul, around Namsan mountain.










The old downtown core. Jongno area. Northern business district.










Teheran Valley. New downtown in Gangnam. Southern business district.










View across the Han River towards Gangnam (South).










Yeoeuido. Western business district.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Sister Ray said:


>


 Wow, looks like Avenida Paulista! Beautiful!!!! I think Seoul is the most underrated Megacity apart from Osaka.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Tehran Road is definitely one of my favourit "skyscraper-canyons" on the planet.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

staff said:


> Tehran Road is definitely one of my favourit "skyscraper-canyons" on the planet.


Mine too - especiall from the air it looks ASTONISHING


----------



## Sister Ray (Apr 22, 2006)

Kuesel said:


> Mine too - especiall from the air it looks ASTONISHING


You mean like this?


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Exactly - my pic disappeared (a daytime one), sorry


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

anyone from Seoul?

The city definitely is the most underrated - its the worlds second biggest city for chrissakes.

Anyway, what is that massive church building/ cathedral on the left?


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

the spliff fairy said:


> Anyway, what is that massive church building/ cathedral on the left?


A church?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yeh thanks, I thought for a second it was a rugby stadium :sly:


----------



## rst22 (Jul 28, 2008)

polako said:


> The Upper East Side, NYC's densest neighborhood:
> population:207,543
> area:1.8 sq. miles/4.7 sq. km.
> density:118,184 sq. mile/44,518 sq. km.
> ...



Thats interesting. In most cities the densest area is lower income.


----------



## memph (Dec 11, 2010)

rst22 said:


> Thats interesting. In most cities the densest area is lower income.


Toronto's densest census tract as of 2006 is low income (St Jamestown), but the second densest census tract is just SW of Yonge and Bloor and the third is in North York Centre, both of which are fairly well to do areas and many of the other areas seeing lots of condo construction will likely match those densities by the 2011 census and are also not poor.

Also, regarding the densest cities in North America, I think the best method of measurement is to look at the density at which the average person of the urban or metropolitan area lives at. Austin Contrarian ran the numbers for the average census tract density, weighted by population, for the USA's biggest urban areas:
http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2008/03/weighted-densit.html

Here's how the top cities ranked, I calculated the Canadian cities myself:

New York: 33,029 ppsm
SF-Oakland: 15,032 ppsm
Montreal: 14,121 ppsm*
Toronto: 14,030 ppsm
Toronto-Oshawa-Hamilton: 12,940ppsm
SF-Oakland-SJ: 12,906 ppsm
Los Angeles: 12,557 ppsm
Honolulu: 11,989 ppsm
Los Angeles-Inland Empire: 11,846 ppsm
Chicago: 10,270 ppsm

*The methodology I used to determine Montreal's urban area was slightly different from the methology for US urban areas, but it shouldn't change much. I'll try to update the Montreal numbers soon. I also didn't do Vancouver, but I suspect it would be similar to Honolulu.


----------



## jeromeee (Oct 16, 2009)

The densest populated neighborhood of Frankfurt is the Nordend.
54000 people live on 4,75 km². That makes a population density of 11350/km².
In the eastern part the density is about 15500/km².
Most central neighborhoods have a density of 5000-7000/km².









http://www.flickr.com/photos/loop_oh/566022905/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/roomman/4568712498/


----------



## rst22 (Jul 28, 2008)

For LA I think its Koreatown/Westlake.


----------



## CarltonHill (Dec 11, 2011)

Nordend neighborhood of Frankfurt looks really nice....


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Well it is maybe somewhere in the central part of the city where there are more highrises, but there are not specific data about that, so talking about a complete borough or county it would be Nezahualcóyotl in the State of Mexico with a population density of *47,200 in/mile2* or *18,224 in/km2*, they are 1,161,597 inhabitants living in 39.60 mi2 or 63.74 km2

Here is the list of the top 10 counties or boroughs where the city is



```
ESTADO               MUNICIPIO/DELEGACION    DENSIDAD (HAB/KM2)
Estado de México	Nezahualcóyotl	   18 224
Distrito Federal	Iztacalco          17 032
Distrito Federal	Iztapalapa	   16 044
Distrito Federal	Cuauhtémoc	   15 948
Distrito Federal	Gustavo A. Madero  13 599
Distrito Federal	Benito Juárez	   13 295
Distrito Federal	Venustiano Carranza 13 248
Distrito Federal	Azcapotzalco	   12 687
Distrito Federal	Coyoacán	   11 613
Estado de México	Chimalhuacán	   11 441
```
The density of the whole city is of 8127 in/km2 or 13081 in/mile2, it has 20 million inhabitants and an area of 2462 km2 or 1529 miles2


----------



## memph (Dec 11, 2010)

gabrielbabb said:


> Well it is maybe somewhere in the central part of the city where there are more highrises, but there are not specific data about that, so talking about a complete borough or county it would be Nezahualcóyotl in the State of Mexico with a population density of *29,328 in/mile2* or *18,224 in/km2*, they are 1,161,597 inhabitants living in 39.60 mi2 or 63.74 km2
> 
> Here is the list of the top 10 counties or boroughs where the city is
> 
> ...


Actually 1 mile2 is 2.59km2, it's one mile that's 1.61km, so the densities in mile2 would be even higher.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

It's just the city center of my town.


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

memph said:


> Actually 1 mile2 is 2.59km2, it's one mile that's 1.61km, so the densities in mile2 would be even higher.


wow I changed it and it would be 47,200 in/mile2 in Nezahualcoyol 1,161,597 inhabitants living in 39.60 mi2, and the density of the complete city would be of 20,240 in/mile2 20 million inhabitants living in 950miles2

This is what a part of Nezahualcoyotl looks like from satellite



Uploaded with ImageShack.us










but on street level it doesn't look that dense they are just houses, so I can't imagine how dense highrise residential neighbourhoods are :S


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Mong Kok was mentioned but the statistics were missing.

Mong Kok has the highest population density in the world (mean 130,000 per km 2 or 340,000 per mi 2) .


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

For Metro Manila, The *6th District *of The City of Manila is the densest in the metro. This includes the areas of Paco, Pandacan, San Miguel, Santa Ana and Santa Mesa. 

Area: 7.79 km², Population: 261,294


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

Brussels overall population density is 7077 inw/km2
The densest part is the district of Sint-Joost-Ten-Node. 24.000 people living on 1.13 km2 gives a population density of 20900/km2
It consists of densely build 19th century rowhomes for the most part.



Mong kok numbers are insane!


----------



## kaifensong (Dec 28, 2011)

Once upon a time, a sailor with his fellows sailed on the beautiful blue sea. Suddenly the sky turned dark, 
wedding dresses2012 a fierce gale sprang up and waves of the sea got terribly high. lace wedding dress All the people on the ship were in great panic and the captain thought their voyage might offend the deity of this place， simple wedding dresses so after a short discussion, mermaid wedding dresses they decide to threw the most handsome sailor into the sea to sacrifice to the deity.


----------



## archiphile (Oct 17, 2011)

Sydney - Suburbs of Potts Point / Elizabeth Bay have a comined density of over 12,000 people in one km2. This area is located 2 or 3 kms east of the cbd and part of it can be seen in the bottom right corner of the photo below. The suburbs of Darlinghurst and Surry Hills which have similar but slightly lower density are located to the south (or the bottom middle / left of this pic)








www.flickr.com/photos/sheetbrains/5440617583/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Elizabeth Bay with the city in the background. 








http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightcliff/3232684804


----------



## Lindemann (Sep 11, 2002)

I live in a small city (Leon, 135.000 inhabitants).
Actually the whole town (except the historical area) is like this, so there's not really a densest area that stands out.
The municipality includes big empty and deserted areas in the outskirts, so the official density is not accurate; but if we only measure the inhabited areas (around 14km²), the density of the town is 9.691 in/km², or 25.211 in/mi².


----------



## bacolod (Jan 9, 2012)

You guys got a nice photos there. Any pictures of Beijing or New Delhi?


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

For Vienna it would be the fifth district (Margareten) with 26.196 inhabitants per km2.

It used to be over 50.000/km2 around 1900...


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Try the Upper East Side of Manhattan! This is one that will blow your brains out, 45,649/km2! And best of all? It's the richest part of the city! Median income is $90,000 per person. Making this neighborhood the largest concentration of wealth on Earth.


----------



## woutero (Jan 14, 2008)

In Amsterdam it is the Van Lennepbuurt (statistical area E19) with 27.220 inh/km2. It is one of the rather standard 19th century row house neighborhoods. I think this neighborhood turns out the densest because of the lack of parks or squares within its borders. I have taken the numbers that exclude water (there are canals in the neighborhood).


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ Good moove to show this in bird's eye.

The densest administrative area in inner Paris is the 11th district, with a density of 41 536 hab/km2 and a total population of 152 436. The building density is not different from many other inner Paris districts, even though it's a 'trendy' district with lots of bars and nightclubs, it is also very residential in other areas and very little space is taken by offices.

Here a bird's eyes picture:


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

royal rose1 said:


> Try the Upper East Side of Manhattan! This is one that will blow your brains out, 45,649/km2! And best of all? It's the richest part of the city! Median income is $90,000 per person. Making this neighborhood the largest concentration of wealth on Earth.


Massive!


----------

