[Hed Kandi]

There has already been a plethora of threads discussing urban sprawl, mainly cities that have been a victim of urban sprawl.

However, there hasn't yet been a thread focussing on city's that have managed to limit urban sprawl.

Let's a get a list going. There's a sh*t load of cities out there, let's find the one that has the smallest sprawl.

I'll start, let's see if anyone cand find city's with a min population of 500 000 and the smallest possible land area. (Again this is just minimal sprawl, not population density).


Vancouver, Canada
Area: 115 sq km
Population: 600 000


Kingston, Jamaica
Area: 25 sq km
Population: 660 000


Lisbon, Portugal
Area: 84.8 sq km
Population: 564 477

[glowrock]

Somehow, I find that Kingston number to be a little off. 25 sq km is only about 9 sq mi, so Kingston's got a density of roughly 70k+/sq mi??? Hmm...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[JRinSoCal]

San Francisco, California, USA
Area: 122 sq km
Population: 798,000

[unusualfire]

Sprawl is usually outside the city, so i don't see a point in this thread.

[CGII]

Yeah, this should be by metro if you want it to be at all close to valid.

[MayorOfChicago]

yeah this thread is really stupid if you're just looking at the random city limits of some central city. Vancouver is nowhere near the most compact urban center in the whole world.

[LSyd]

Sprawl is usually outside the city, so i don't see a point in this thread.

the probable point? city boosterism.

-

[DrJoe]

yeah this thread is really stupid if you're just looking at the random city limits of some central city. Vancouver is nowhere near the most compact urban center in the whole world.

Not only that, it is 3rd in Canada alone.

[glowrock]

Agreed... Metro densities are a far better indicator of sprawl than core city densities.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[staff]

Is these numbers for city propers? In that case it's pretty useless.

Yeah, this should be by metro if you want it to be at all close to valid.
Get some numbers for the urban areas instead and it's starting to get interesting.

From what I know - Vancouver (the urban area) is quite sprawly, right?

I don't know how large the built-up area (ie. urban area) for Hong Kong is but I guess it's less than 100 km2 (~39 sq. miles) (?) and has a population of over 7 million people. That's density for you right there.

My hometown Malmö has an urban area of some 42 km2 (~16 sq. miles) and holds approx. 300.000 inhabitants. The metro area (Malmö alone, not including Copenhagen) is probably more than 10 times that size by area, and only holds 600.000 - so metropolitan areas are not the best definition when comparing density.

[SHiRO]

World city with the least amount of sprawl?
Hong Kong.

[toddguy]

This site for urban areas has Vancouver(urban area) at over 400 square miles.

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

[bryson662001]

World city with the least amount of sprawl?
Hong Kong.

Rome doesn't have much sprawl. Outside of EUR, most development on the outskirts in in big apartment houses.

[WonderlandPark]

Well by the inane logic of this thread, the smallest, and thus least sprawling city in America is West New York, NJ, 1.0 square miles with 45,000 people in it. Probably the least sprawling city anywhere in the world.

California and the Northeast region seem to have the most small cities, thus the least sprawl!!

--incorporated city (square miles)--
1. West New York Town, NJ (1.00)
2. Maywood City, CA (1.20)
4. Hoboken City, NJ (1.30)
4. Union City City, NJ (1.30)
5. Central Falls, RI (1.50)
6. West Hollywood City, CA (1.90)
7. Lawndale City, CA (2.00)
9. Garfield City, NJ (2.10)
9. Long Beach City, NY (2.10)
10. Chelsea City, MA (2.20)

BTW, I know it is supposed to be 500K, but I put this up just to show how pointless this can become.

[LostInTheZone]

I hate these kind of threads.

[SHiRO]

Rome doesn't have much sprawl. Outside of EUR, most development on the outskirts in in big apartment houses.

Rome 4 million
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9435/romemp0.png

Hong Kong 7 million
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2673/hongkonghs2.png

:)

[urbanflyer]

These threads are retarded.

[staff]

Actually I think they can be interesting if people get their shit together and provide facts that can be used for honest comparissions.

Saying that Vancouver is one of the world cities that has the smallest sprawl is not an example of above.

And I love it everytime I get to see SHiRO's excellent "red maps". :D

[glowrock]

Rome 4 million
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9435/romemp0.png

Hong Kong 7 million
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2673/hongkonghs2.png

:)

I think.... I think I can see.... A PONY!!!!!

:haha:

Aaron (Glowrock)

[relnahe]

Rome 4 million
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9435/romemp0.png

Hong Kong 7 million
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2673/hongkonghs2.png

:)

One of these looks like the thing on Gorbachev's head. The bottom one I'd say.

[muppet]

two words: Hong Kong - 7 million people living on a few threads of highrise land, the densest in the world, while the precious rest of it is protected and sometimes so devoid of human habitation or thickly forested that every year people get lost and die of 'out' there. Can you believe getting lost and actually dying of exposure/ thirst in the densest city in the world?

If that isnt the extreme opposite of sprawl I dont know what is.

[Crawford]

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union didn't really have sprawl, but that has since changed.

[The Chemist]

According to Wikipedia, the most densely populated 'countries' with populations greater than 500,000 people in the world are Macau and Hong Kong. Since these are tiny municipalities, I think we can safely say that these two places have the lowest amount of sprawl of any city in the world.

[EtherealMist]

Well by the inane logic of this thread, the smallest, and thus least sprawling city in America is West New York, NJ, 1.0 square miles with 45,000 people in it. Probably the least sprawling city anywhere in the world.


Yeah, northern New Jersey has lots of small municipalities, my hometown is also a square mile.

[Jersey Mentality]

New Jersey has the most cities per capita in the nation by state. 596 from what I read.

[Altauria]

Population density and sprawl are only loosely connected. I would most certainly consider Hong Kong having massive urban sprawl. Couldn't sprawl be upwards as well? And why not? Living in a slabbed up complex of a dozen, usually ugly, residential towers with 20,000+ people in each tower, living in less than 100 square feet of space means the same thing to me as living in Plainfield, IL.

I don't think there has ever been a major city that hadn't experienced sprawl. The way I would define sprawl is by the rapid creation of similar-looking structures, not because it's a style, but because it makes things easier, by developers in a way that does not reflect the way people live, rather how efficiently and rappidly they can be created. But that is only the tip of the iceberg.

[antinimby]

I hate these kind of threads.I see what you mean.

Kinda like, "what's the largest cities with trees that have rail transport but don't have skyscrapers taller than 20 stories in their CBD and has less than 1 million inhabitants." :haha:

[Buckeye Native 001]

^What he said.

the probable point? city boosterism.

Surely, you jest.

All that's missing is the obligatory blanket statements from the usual gang of idiots.

[staff]

Population density and sprawl are only loosely connected. I would most certainly consider Hong Kong having massive urban sprawl. Couldn't sprawl be upwards as well? And why not? Living in a slabbed up complex of a dozen, usually ugly, residential towers with 20,000+ people in each tower, living in less than 100 square feet of space means the same thing to me as living in Plainfield, IL.
Agreed. The reason why the word 'sprawl' has become related to suburbia is because of the sprawling (!) suburbs of North America and Australia (mostly).

There's both suburban and urban sprawl.

Athens, for example, is a very sprawling city in my opinion, albeit hyper-dense.
http://static.flickr.com/7/9195917_7f2a967b76_o.jpg

[Urban Zombie®]

I see what you mean.

Kinda like, "what's the largest cities with trees that have rail transport but don't have skyscrapers taller than 20 stories in their CBD and has less than 1 million inhabitants." :haha:

You forgot to add "with a formal dress code" to that. :cheers:

[SHiRO]

And I love it everytime I get to see SHiRO's excellent "red maps". :D
Thanks!
I'm actually working on one showing all the urbanization in the EU, still takes a couple of days before it's done though...

[LeftCoaster]

Not only that, it is 3rd in Canada alone.

While I agree that this is a pointless thread, i must correct Dr. Joe in that Vanouver city is not in any way the 3rd most dense city in Canada.

Statscan info (from 2001 census):

Montreal: 5590.8 per sq/km
Vancouver: 4758.7 per sq/km
Toronto: 3939.4 per sq/km

Wikipedia.org:

Vancouver: 5252 per sk/km (from 2006 BC government census)
Montreal: 4326.5 per sq/km (2006 demerged city estimates)
Toronto: 3939.4 per sq/hm (obviously statscan info from 2001)

I think we can safely say at the very least Vancouver is not 3rd in the country, and the infrence can be made that it is infact the most dense.

[DrJoe]

^ You've just proven the basic flaw with this thread. The "city" of Vancouver has hopelessly small boundaries which inflate the density numbers. Toronto was bordering 7000 per sq/km until it was amalgamated.

[MayorOfChicago]

Can we rename this thread

ORDERLY CHAOS?

[staff]

Thanks!
I'm actually working on one showing all the urbanization in the EU, still takes a couple of days before it's done though...
Everything on the same map?
Damn, I can't wait!

[Buckeye Native 001]

Can we rename this thread

ORDERLY CHAOS?

More like:

ORDERLY CHAOS?!!!!