# Hyper Building Density



## monkeyronin

foadi said:


> toronto doesnt seem to have more density tahn ohter NA cities of comparable size sorry.


Whatever it may seem like, Toronto's urban area in 2001 was 1,655 sqkm. and had 4,367,000 inhabitants (2,638 people/sqkm), which would now be about 5+ million in that area (average annual growth in the metropolitan area of 100,000 in this time, though not all of that growth necessarily would have been in the urban area, plus that urban area would have expanded). US urban areas of comparable population at that time (3.8-4.9 million in 2000) would be Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Miami, and DC, which range in density from 900 people/sqkm to 1,700 people/sqkm. The only urban area of any size in the US with a higher density is Los Angeles with 2,728 people/sqkm. http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-area-125.html

Alternatively, if we do that 1,600 sqkm. population as was done in that other thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=866450&page=11), Toronto would have ~5 million people in that area compared to Los Angeles' 6.4 million and New York's 10.5 million...not bad considering that its total metro pop. is half the size of LA's and a third the size of NYC's.


----------



## mhays

Toronto is impressively dense by NA standards, both "metro" and "core/peak". However, I agree with those who point out that by world standards it's not "hyper-dense." 

I also agree that 9 pictures in a thread like this is rude. I wouldn't have said that but Ale26's latest post makes me think he's a kid, who could use some feedback.


----------



## Chrissib

Ok, 4000/km² in the city of Toronto is good at NA-standards, but look at Chicago or SF, they're more dense.


----------



## foadi

monkeyronin said:


> Whatever it may seem like, Toronto's urban area in 2001 was 1,655 sqkm. and had 4,367,000 inhabitants (2,638 people/sqkm), which would now be about 5+ million in that area (average annual growth in the metropolitan area of 100,000 in this time, though not all of that growth necessarily would have been in the urban area, plus that urban area would have expanded). US urban areas of comparable population at that time (3.8-4.9 million in 2000) would be Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Miami, and DC, which range in density from 900 people/sqkm to 1,700 people/sqkm. The only urban area of any size in the US with a higher density is Los Angeles with 2,728 people/sqkm. http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-area-125.html


this thread is about building density not population density. but on population density, i notice yo leave out bay area.


----------



## monkeyronin

Chrissib said:


> Ok, 4000/km² in the city of Toronto is good at NA-standards, but look at Chicago or SF, they're more dense.


They're also a much smaller portion of their metro areas and lack the vast amounts of greenspace and industrial land found in the outer areas of Toronto. Looking at the population of municipalities as a percentage of the total metro population: 

San Francisco: 19% (808,976/4,203,898)
Chicago: 29% (2,836,659/9,785,747)
Toronto: 44% (2,503,281/5,639,274)

If the City of Toronto therefore only included the centre-most 1,071,462-1,635,389 people in the metro instead of 2.5 million...it'd be much denser than 4,000 people/sqkm. The 3 central [former] boroughs for example have about a million people in 141 sqkm, and as such, 7,000/sqkm, which is comparable to San Francisco. 




foadi said:


> this thread is about building density not population density. but on population density, i notice yo leave out bay area.


There is no Bay Area on that chart (as it is a CSA, not an urban area), and the San Francisco-Oakland urban area isn't really of comparable size. And building density and population density are generally related.


----------



## emagdnim

Honk Kong's density is insane.


----------



## foadi

monkeyronin said:


> They're also a much smaller portion of their metro areas and lack the vast amounts of greenspace and industrial land found in the outer areas of Toronto.


sf has a lot of greenspace as well. golden gate park, golden gate recreation area, presidio, candlestick, laek merced, some of teh hills, etc. 






monkeyronin said:


> There is no Bay Area on that chart (as it is a CSA, not an urban area), and the San Francisco-Oakland urban area isn't really of comparable size.


meh yo know wat i meant (sf ua plus sj ua)


----------



## staff

Yet another thread -- *about "hyper building density" at that!* -- hijacked by Toronto boosters?

Sure, Toronto has dense pockets, especially by North American standards, but it really doesn't belong in this thread among monsters like Hong Kong.


----------



## monkeyronin

Staff whining again because someone mentioned Toronto? No way! 

Nobody is saying that the population density of Toronto as a whole is "hyper-dense" (I was merely correcting claims that the CDB is "surrounded by McMansions" and that similarly-sized North American cities are denser), but the CBD as depicted on the first page could indeed be considered hyper _building_ density. Its not quite at the level of density or size of New York or Hong Kong's CBDs, but otherwise, how many skyscraper clusters of that size and density exist around the world? 




foadi said:


> meh yo know wat i meant (sf ua plus sj ua)


That would be 4,767,000 people in 2,039 sqkm. (2,338/sqkm)


----------



## staff

^^
Actually I wasn't referring to your posts this time.


----------



## _00_deathscar

staff said:


> Yet another thread -- *about "hyper building density" at that!* -- hijacked by Toronto boosters?
> 
> Sure, Toronto has dense pockets, especially by North American standards, but it really doesn't belong in this thread among monsters like Hong Kong.


That's not fair - if we stuck to 'monsters' like Hong Kong, we'd only be posting pictures of Hong Kong, New York, and four or five more cities.


----------



## Chrissib

There are loads of cities that are also dense. There's no need for pics of Toronto.


----------



## 2co2co

are Shanghai and Mumbai getting close?


----------



## Skybean

*Shanghai* ( 2004 )




































source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lowcola/sets/72157605855641696/


----------



## eklips

Although the buildings are not that high, the fact that La Paz in Bolivia is in a bowl gives it a very special feeling of density.





























Pictures don't do it justice, but it surely is impressive, maybe more than a skyscraper city, given that when you are in the lowest zones, you are litteraly surrounded by 800m tall urbanized hills.


----------



## Xusein

Manhattan...nothing like it in the US for sure.









Full size: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4051/small4xmto3.jpg


----------



## Küsel

I just visited CAIRO and I always thought Sao Paulo is dense...
(not my pics)


----------



## jefferson2

i wonder what's more dense cairo or istanbul.. istanbul has more room to expand probably


----------



## Küsel

Cairo is expending extremly into the desert (which will be irrigated). Driving to Port Said you can see a lot of New Towns and Alphavilles newly planned and built.


----------



## jefferson2

Küsel said:


> Cairo is expending extremly into the desert (which will be irrigated). Driving to Port Said you can see a lot of New Towns and Alphavilles newly planned and built.


didn't know that about Cairo, interesting


istanbul pics


----------



## FREKI

Copenhagen








Yeah not "hyper" dense I know 

( roughly 15.000 per km², )


----------



## the spliff fairy

still impressive, beautiful city!


----------



## TXSkyWatcher

foadi said:


> yes it causes the computers im on to crash sometimes. not this thread but sometimes in the picture forums when theres 100 hi res pics on a page or large pano. i dont have computer myself so i access site mostly through public computers (internet cafe or business center at hotel or something) and these computers arent the best.
> 
> 
> toronto doesnt seem to have more density tahn ohter NA cities of comparable size sorry.


Toronto is a dense city as Canadian cities go....but no more dense than a few of you guys....jeeze. We're on a site where pics are king and in EVERY thread there are TONS of pics....so what's the big deal? At least there are not too many quoting the pics again and again in the thread


----------



## TXSkyWatcher

I'd say HK and Sao Paulo are the most dense in pics....especially Sao Paulo....that's insane the number of buildings they have.


----------



## Manila-X

TXSkyWatcher said:


> I'd say HK and Sao Paulo are the most dense in pics....especially Sao Paulo....that's insane the number of buildings they have.


As I said earlier in previous threads, Sampa has alot of buildings but don't have the height that HK has. It needs taller and more iconic buildings. A place to start would be around *Avenida Paulista*


----------



## TXSkyWatcher

WANCH said:


> As I said earlier in previous threads, Sampa has alot of buildings but don't have the height that HK has. It needs taller and more iconic buildings. A place to start would be around *Avenida Paulista*


Very true... I think a few supertalls would be great in SP. Is Sampa the nickname of choice?


----------



## Manila-X

TXSkyWatcher said:


> Very true... I think a few supertalls would be great in SP. Is Sampa the nickname of choice?


Yes its the *slang term*


----------



## sm987

wow!! love all the pics that show the density of cities! kay:
...here are some from *Athens*

_pics are not mine_


----------



## SE9

*London*


----------



## emathias

ReiAyanami said:


> ^^Taipei looks awesome, but 101 looks like a troll siting there,:lol:


I'd like the see the bridge that troll would fit under ...


----------



## Manila-X

SE9 said:


>


That's a whole lot of public housing.


----------



## Yörch1

The first pic Küsel posted is actually not Mexico City... The city despite of its 18 million inhabitants does not look that dense...


----------



## xXFallenXx

^ That looks pretty damn dense to me. :dunno:
Maybe not Hong Kong dense, but still very nice.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob




----------



## usek25

*Barcelona*
Density: 15,936 hab./km² (2008)


----------



## gincan

^^
The lower half of that photo show a part of the Sagrada Familia neighbourhood (1.03km²) which according to latest census has a population of 52521.


----------



## Rupmulalauk

Love that aerial of Barcelona!


----------



## scorpiogenius

WOW! BARCA... Gorgeous shot.


----------



## Hasse78

Yörch said:


> The first pic Küsel posted is actually not Mexico City... The city despite of its 18 million inhabitants does not look that dense...



I do consider Nezahualcoyotl to be part of Mexico city metropolitan area. And Neza is dense as hell. :cheers:


----------



## dnobsemajdnob




----------

