[PuyoPiyo]

For this thread, I would like to know which cities that are very dense and are small in the size with many of buildings? I would have the Bellevue, Washington for the example.

http://chris.pirillo.com/_photos/Pink%20Bellevue%20Evening%20(1).jpg
(Note: I found this picture from this website http://chris.pirillo.com/_photos/ from google)

Bellevue are only at 33 square miles, smaller than Vancouver, Washington which are more larger and more population compare to Bellevue.

Another example, San Francisco.

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~nstoll/images/san_francisco_skyline.jpg
(Note: I found this picture from http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~nstoll/images/ through the google)

San Francisco are only at 47 square miles, with higher population compare to Seattle while Seattle have more than 80 square miles, which are nearly double San Francisco's area size.

Any more of the cities that are like those?

[Shawn]

Boston, Miami

[zimfar]

Hoboken and Jersey City are perfect examples in this region.

[Rufus]

Not in terms of population but built environment, downtown Pittsburgh is very small (.8 square miles?) and covered with tall buildings.

[Xing]

Clayton MO, a St. Louis suburb, is about 2.5 sq miles.

Our friend KCGridlock , Bill Cobb, 2006. http://www.urban-photos.com

http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/stlouis/stlouis_3720.jpg

[Evergrey]

Not in terms of population but built environment, downtown Pittsburgh is very small (.8 square miles?) and covered with tall buildings.

.68 sq. miles

http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/images/properties/Market%20Status%202005.pdf (page 7)

[Pavlov's Dog]

Hoboken and Jersey City are perfect examples in this region.Union City, which is also in Hudson County, has the nation's highest population density for cities with more than 50,000. from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_City%2C_New_Jersey): " According to the United States 2000 Census, the city had a total population of 67,088, living on a land area of 3.28 km² (1.27 sq mi). It is the most densely populated city in the United States, with a density of 52,977.8 per square mile - roughly twice as dense as the second densest city, New York City."

In fact Hudson County, with 608,975 people has a density of 13,044/sq mi. If it were a single city it would rank 19th in population and 3rd in population density (among cities with more than 150,000)

[zimfar]

^for context, here's a map of Hudson Co. NJ ;)
http://www.buyersadvisors.com/CountyMaps/hudson_county_map_files/image_map3.gif

[PuyoPiyo]

^^^Ohh nice map, thank you for sharing :)

Boston, Miami

Ohh good pick, Shawn.

Hoboken and Jersey City are perfect examples in this region.

Yupp I agreed.

Clayton MO, a St. Louis suburb, is about 2.5 sq miles.

Our friend KCGridlock , Bill Cobb, 2006. http://www.urban-photos.com

http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/stlouis/stlouis_3720.jpg

Wow, really cute and in good shape!

.68 sq. miles

http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/images/properties/Market%20Status%202005.pdf (page 7)

Only less than a mile, wow... I never know that about Pittsburgh..

Union City, which is also in Hudson County, has the nation's highest population density for cities with more than 50,000. from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_City%2C_New_Jersey): " According to the United States 2000 Census, the city had a total population of 67,088, living on a land area of 3.28 km² (1.27 sq mi). It is the most densely populated city in the United States, with a density of 52,977.8 per square mile - roughly twice as dense as the second densest city, New York City."

In fact Hudson County, with 608,975 people has a density of 13,044/sq mi. If it were a single city it would rank 19th in population and 3rd in population density (among cities with more than 150,000)

Interesting... While I read the Wikipedia you linked to, it appeared that the population in Union City haven't changed much for LONG time.

[IdahoMountainBoy]

"very dense and are small in the size with many of buildings"

...Here we ago again with the vagueness..
Many of the cities already mentioned are satelite cities or suburbs. I want to presume you'd like examples of dense, small cities that are not within a conurbation or proximate to larger metros. Ones that are more standalone? In that case, only a few come to mind..
*15 years ago I would have said Santa Fe
*Just about any mid-sized city that hasn't succombed to massive sprawl
*Juneau
*Honolulu (even though IMO that is not small city, regardless of population figures)

[totheskies]

Sydney Australia (at least the city proper) probably wins this debate

or maybe a number of the "smaller" Japanese cities

[MolsonExport]

Verona, Italy is a great example. Extremely dense urban environment tucked into a very small space.

[Minato Ku]

Paris

Officialy Paris is 87 km² 33.5 sq mi for a population of 2,153,600 inhabitants.
24,800 inh/km² or 64,300 inh/sq mi
It is the densest city over 1 million inhabitants in the western world.

I can add every inner suburbs of Paris wich are very small and very dense.

Courbevoie : 4.17 km², 1.61 sq mi, 80,710 inh
Neuilly-sur-Seine : 3.73 km², 1.44 sq mi, 60,700 inh
Boulogne Billancourt : 6.17 km², 2.38 sq mi, 109,400 inh
Montrouge : 2.07 km², 0.79 sq mi, 42,200 inh
Vincennes : 1.91 km², 0.73 sq mi,46,400 inh
Saint Mande : 0.92 km², 0.36 sq mi, 19,697 inh
Le Pré-Saint-Gervais : 0.70 km², 0.27 sq mi, 16,377 inh
Levallois-Perret : 2.41 km², 0.93 sq mi, 62,500 inh
Clichy : 3.08 km², 1.19 sq mi, 57,000 inh


All of these have a density over 16,000 inh/km² or 41,400 inh/sq mi.
etc...
Inner suburbs have a density between 25,900 inh/km² 67,200 inh/sq mi and 6,000 inh/km² 15,500 inh/sq mi

But saying that Paris is only 2.15 million inhabitants in 33.5 sq mile is like saying that New York is only Manhattan.
The inner suburbs are in fact the oulter districts of Paris. ;)

A street in Levallois Perret by Metropolitan
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Levallois_streets.JPG/450px-Levallois_streets.JPG

[PuyoPiyo]

^^^Seems like many of the district area (was I right?) are pretty tight in Paris! Also I didn't realize that Paris are actually smaller compare to New York.

"very dense and are small in the size with many of buildings"

...Here we ago again with the vagueness..
Many of the cities already mentioned are satelite cities or suburbs. I want to presume you'd like examples of dense, small cities that are not within a conurbation or proximate to larger metros. Ones that are more standalone? In that case, only a few come to mind..
*15 years ago I would have said Santa Fe
*Just about any mid-sized city that hasn't succombed to massive sprawl
*Juneau
*Honolulu (even though IMO that is not small city, regardless of population figures)

Well any area that are small with dense population or many of buildings in small area, but I don't expect to count the sprawls, or suburbs, I have to agree with you, they are just making the city look larger but actually the city's core are not really..

But... For example, I don't count, let's say, New York. They have many buildings in big area full of buildings, that is not tight and tiny. I hope you understand what I mean :) If still not, you are welcome to ask ;)

And... About Juneau, I agree, btw.

Sydney Australia (at least the city proper) probably wins this debate

or maybe a number of the "smaller" Japanese cities

Don't you mind to explain why Sydney can win this debate?

And I agree, there is lot of cities in Japan that are tight and tiny, but what's funny is that they have the world largest metropoliation area, the Tokyo and the surrounding area? :cool:

Verona, Italy is a great example. Extremely dense urban environment tucked into a very small space.

Ohh yeah, Europe have lot of tight and tiny cities as well.

[brickell]

Sunny Isles Beach, FL
It's the cluster on the upper right side of the picture.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/1994706684_94d6d8c803_b.jpg

[MayorOfChicago]

Venice, Italy was very tight and dense. Most people have been driven away from living there, but the city itself is still intact.

[PuyoPiyo]

^^^Ahh really... I guess not everyone like small spaces in Europe.. I wonder what about Vicent(sp?) City? I heard it is really small country and the area with only about 1,000 people living there with those beautiful architecture buildings.

Sunny Isles Beach, FL
It's the cluster on the upper right side of the picture.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/1994706684_94d6d8c803_b.jpg

That's interesting picture, is it just me or there is just too many white buildings?

[tackledspoon]

Union City, which is also in Hudson County, has the nation's highest population density for cities with more than 50,000. from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_City%2C_New_Jersey): " According to the United States 2000 Census, the city had a total population of 67,088, living on a land area of 3.28 km² (1.27 sq mi). It is the most densely populated city in the United States, with a density of 52,977.8 per square mile - roughly twice as dense as the second densest city, New York City."

In fact Hudson County, with 608,975 people has a density of 13,044/sq mi. If it were a single city it would rank 19th in population and 3rd in population density (among cities with more than 150,000)

This is all the more impressive when you consider that a large chunk of Kearny is taken up by meadowlands, brownfields and industrial complexes.

[brickell]

That's interesting picture, is it just me or there is just too many white buildings?


I prefer the white stucco to the drab brick and concrete of other cities, but maybe that's just me...

[Echo Park]

At 1.9 square miles and with a density of 19,000ppsm and a population that swells to about 80,000 during some nights and weekends, West Hollywood is an island of urbanity surrounded by Los Angeles. You won't find any tall buildings there but lots of 2-4 story apartments.

[arbeiter]

In fact Hudson County, with 608,975 people has a density of 13,044/sq mi. If it were a single city it would rank 19th in population and 3rd in population density (among cities with more than 150,000)

And if it weren't for the Meadowlands, defunct factories, and Kearny's nastiness, it would probably #1 in density!

[Xing]

Hartford and Providence are pretty small, aren't they?

[caltrane74]

Monte Carlo, Monaco.

[Canadian_Bacon]

I am not sure if this counts, but I heard Hong Kong is pretty dense with a small land to population ratio. Since the city on the mainland side was surrounded by mountains, they have to build up and can't build out or sprawl like other cities can, because they don't have the room. Kowloon peninsula is the desist part. I read it is less than 25% developed, because of the hilly terrain etc.

On wikipedia it says its third in density rankings:

6,352/km²
16,469.6/sq mi

Total population: 6,921,700

I don't know if this city counts... But..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/Hongkongpeak.JPG/200px-Hongkongpeak.JPG

[IdahoMountainBoy]

I guess I'm having a difficult time differentiating "Tight and Tiny Cities" from measurements of density...

[Canadian_Bacon]

Oh a wise guy eh...:rolleyes:

Well like I said... I wasn't sure! But it is still very dense either way. Just not "tiny"

[PuyoPiyo]

I am not sure if this counts, but I heard Hong Kong is pretty dense with a small land to population ratio. Since the city on the mainland side was surrounded by mountains, they have to build up and can't build out or sprawl like other cities can, because they don't have the room. Kowloon peninsula is the desist part. I read it is less than 25% developed, because of the hilly terrain etc.

On wikipedia it says its third in density rankings:

6,352/km²
16,469.6/sq mi

Total population: 6,921,700

I don't know if this city counts... But..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/Hongkongpeak.JPG/200px-Hongkongpeak.JPG

Well not WHOLE Hong Kong is a tiny and tight, but Kowloon IS tight and tiny.

It had a population of 2,019,533 and its population density was 43,033/km² in 2006. The peninsula's area is approximately 47 km² or 18.1 mi². Together with Hong Kong Island, it contains 48% of Hong Kong's total population.

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


Good pick :)

[WonderlandPark]

When I think of tight and tiny, Male comes to mind immediately. It is less than a mile long, and packed to the gills with buildings. Not supertalls, but check out the overall density in the pics below:

Facts-just one mile long by .6 miles wide.
Over 81,000 persons on the island

That puts is well over 100,000 people/sq. mile. Will leave the exact math to someone else if they want.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/307198219_4c764af6f7.jpg?v=0
thovie333 flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1064/540481271_426b6e390f.jpg?v=0
ash4ak flickr

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/360818925_205f483a29.jpg?v=0

xion flickr


-- I have always found this place fascinating. An island that is essentially ALL city. But not like Manhattan in NYC, but all alone in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Amazing to contemplate that that little speck is it for hundreds of miles around.

[PuyoPiyo]

^^^Ohh yeah I have heard about this, very interesting...

[Frisco_Zig]

Male photos are incredible

[Canadian_Bacon]

Wow. Never heard of that place. Looks very interesting.

I'll have to learn more about it.

Thanks PuyoPiyo... for clarifying what I said about Hong Kong.:)

[LeftCoaster]

Thats one of the coolest things I have ever seen. Thanks!

[Steely Dan]

wonderland park, thanks for those pics of male. that is a spot on the world i have never heard of before. it's very cool and very apt for this discussion, made even more amazing by its isolation out in the ocean. how does such an outpost sustain itself in terms of food, water, sewage treatment, and all the other infrastructure and support services a city requires?




as for the thread, i'd nominate madison, wisconsin as a tight and tiny city, at least the part on the isthmus. no, it's not terribly remarkable in comparison to some of the other world cities posted in this thread, but in the unceasingly flat and consistent geography of the american midwest, madison does stand out as one of the more interesting cities in the region from an urban geography standpoint. it's obviously nowhere remotely near the level of boston or hong kong, but by midwest standards, madison's tight and tiny urban isthmus is still pretty cool.

http://www.columbia.edu/~cbl2103/misc/Aerial_Madison.jpg
photo credit: http://www.columbia.edu/~cbl2103/blog/2005/08/go-whitefish.html

[Capsule F]

Johnstown PA, I couldnt really find a good picture.

[totheskies]

New Orleans is another example of being defined by a small amount of space.

[hymalaia]

If you are thinking in terms of city limit sizes than it's hard to top Cambridge MA, at a whopping 6 sq. miles and over 100k population that puts it's population density amongst the highest in the country. The Kendall Sq./MIT area has a decent skyline, not too much over 20 floors but very dense.

[MonkeyRonin]

-- I have always found this place fascinating. An island that is essentially ALL city. But not like Manhattan in NYC, but all alone in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Amazing to contemplate that that little speck is it for hundreds of miles around.

Not really, it is surrounded by small atolls, and there is a large artifical island just off the city (with the airport and residential areas under construction).

[MonkeyRonin]

As for tight & tiny, I'd have to go with Macau. 520,000 people living in 21 km² (of which maybe half is actually lived on), yet still looks and feels like a huge metropolis.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2646/305970240591ba0876dbuc3.jpg

[PuyoPiyo]

Thanks PuyoPiyo... for clarifying what I said about Hong Kong.:)

No problemo :)



as for the thread, i'd nominate madison, wisconsin as a tight and tiny city, at least the part on the isthmus. no, it's not terribly remarkable in comparison to some of the other world cities posted in this thread, but in the unceasingly flat and consistent geography of the american midwest, madison does stand out as one of the more interesting cities in the region from an urban geography standpoint. it's obviously nowhere remotely near the level of boston or hong kong, but by midwest standards, madison's tight and tiny urban isthmus is still pretty cool.

http://www.columbia.edu/~cbl2103/misc/Aerial_Madison.jpg
photo credit: http://www.columbia.edu/~cbl2103/blog/2005/08/go-whitefish.html

This one is in good shape too!

As for tight & tiny, I'd have to go with Macau. 520,000 people living in 21 km² (of which maybe half is actually lived on), yet still looks and feels like a huge metropolis.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2646/305970240591ba0876dbuc3.jpg

Pretty tight, but some of those building doesn't look nice..

[MolsonExport]

For tight and tiny, the (departed) Walled City of Kowloon comes immediately to my mind:
http://artkhammarita.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/kowloon-walled-city-2.jpg

see SSP thread on topic here http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=55357

in 1984, The walled city had 50,000 inhabitants on 0.026 km², and therefore a very high population density of 1,900,000 / km². At its height, it was the most densely populated urban areas on Earth

[Rico Rommheim]

^here we go again!

[PuyoPiyo]

Yeah that Wall City of Kowloon look so ghetto...

[dktshb]

West Hollywood:

At 1.9 sq miles in 2000 it had a population of 35,716 and probably now is around 40k... anyway, that's a density of 19 thousand people per sq mile.

[PuyoPiyo]

^^^Agreed that's pretty tight and tiny.

[Spocket]

Monaco. Macau.

Suburbs don't cut it to me and so far that's what's been mentioned mostly.

[latinfreak]

theres a couple semi-tall towers on the sunset strip, no? but im not sure its within the West Hollywood area

[LSyd]

the "city" of London (not greater London.)

-

[dave8721]

Sunny Isles Beach, FL
It's the cluster on the upper right side of the picture.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/1994706684_94d6d8c803_b.jpg

Yes Sunny Isles Beach definitely fits the bill. It is just about 1 square mile in size and is completely packed with highrises (except for a small single family development of about 100 homes). It fits over 15,000 people into the almost 1 square mile.

Or how about North Bay Village another Miami suburb that fits over 8000 people into its less than 1/3 of a mile area for a density of over 20,000 people per square mile. Pretty crazy for a suburb.

[hk_ayu]

I am not sure if this counts, but I heard Hong Kong is pretty dense with a small land to population ratio. Since the city on the mainland side was surrounded by mountains, they have to build up and can't build out or sprawl like other cities can, because they don't have the room. Kowloon peninsula is the desist part. I read it is less than 25% developed, because of the hilly terrain etc.

On wikipedia it says its third in density rankings:

6,352/km²
16,469.6/sq mi

Total population: 6,921,700

I don't know if this city counts... But..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/Hongkongpeak.JPG/200px-Hongkongpeak.JPG


The figure is just the average. It doesn't take into account that 75% of land in Hong Kong is uninhabited.
If we only look at the rest of 25%, the density of Hong Kong is ~100,000/km².

The area enclosed by a white line is Hong Kong SAR. Anywhere out of the border is China Republic.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2110/2102991245_0dc65eed76.jpg



A corner in a suburb in Hong Kong
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/224946069_c44824ad1f.jpg

Another suburb with mountains surrounded
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/424828529_32fb71228e.jpg

[MolsonExport]

^There is nothing 'sub' about these 'urbs'!!

[J. Will]

The old (pre-1998) city of Toronto is only 37 square miles and has about 700,000 people - about 19,000/square mile.

[MonkeyRonin]

The figure is just the average. It doesn't take into account that 75% of land in Hong Kong is uninhabited.
If we only look at the rest of 25%, the density of Hong Kong is ~100,000/km².

Your math isn't quite adding up. For that density, only 70 km² of Hong Kong would be urbanized (6%). That, or your figure of 275 km² of urbanization would be home to 27,500,000 people!

Going by a 25% urbanization rate, the density would be roughly 25,000 people/km². However, I was under the impression that the density was around 40,000/km² (so 175 km²/15% urban area), or is this just the "inner city" area of HK Island + Kowloon?

[totheskies]

Male photos are incredible

Yeah, but WHYYYYY do they even have cars??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[krudmonk]

Yeah, but WHYYYYY do they even have cars??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
soccer practice

[caltrane74]

Monte Carlo, Monaco.


You guys are way off topic.

There is no way you can call, New York, Paris, or Hong Kong tight and tiny cities. Unless you smoke crack before you do the measurements.

[LivingIn622]

[QUOTE=hk_ayu;3220547]

A corner in a suburb in Hong Kong
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/224946069_c44824ad1f.jpg

I can't even imagine a suburb in the US looking like this!?

[caltrane74]

[QUOTE=hk_ayu;3220547]

A corner in a suburb in Hong Kong
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/224946069_c44824ad1f.jpg

I can't even imagine a suburb in the US looking like this!?


That's because the US isn't 99% mountain, 1% buildable land.