A bunch of maps with detailed stats on Paris and London, as well a map comparing American cities at the beginning of the post:
I found a few density maps that might be of interest.
http://sabinawolfson.com/misc/Figure04_CensusPop.pdf
First, a density map of four US cities (DC, NYC, Boston and Chicago) mapped with their rapid transit lines (and for Boston, the Green Line, too) at the same scale. The units, people per meter squared, are rather goofy. It's easy to transform the numbers to more normal metric units, for people per hectares, multiply by 10,000. For people per square kilometer, multiply by 1,000,000. Here's the per square mile conversion so people who want those units don't have to convert:
Lightest color — 0 - 15,500 per square mile (0 -60 per hectare)
2nd Lightest color — 18,100 - 38,800 per square mile (70 -150 per hectare)
3rd Lightest color — 41,400 - 72,500 per square mile (160 - 280 per hectare)
4th Lighest color — 75,100 - 119,100 per square mile (290 - 460 per hectare)
5th Lightest color — 121,700 - 230,400 per square mile (470 - 890 per hectare)
Seems like the map maker rounded to the nearest 10s people per hectare so there is no in between. For each city:
1) DC has less dense areas (areas not the lightest color) than the other four cities. For whatever reason the map doesn't show subway lines past the city limits. A subway line covers the densest residential neighborhood, and a few others seem go close to dense neighborhoods but they don't seem follow population density too carefully. Perhaps they were placed to serve city attractions / centers?
2) Many of the denser areas of Boston have a subway line (or Green Line) but a large area in southern Boston (Dorchester) is poorly served. A bunch of denser areas in the Northeast outside of the city are missed as well. The Orange line north of Downtown seems to be placed in a way to miss the most residents possible, the Green Line E extension should fix the gap in between the Red and Orange line.
The densest neighborhoods of Boston around downtown are mainly to the west. There's nearly as much dense neighborhoods to the north (outside the city limits) as to the south (within the city limits) of that axis.
3) Chicago's dense areas take up almost the same amount of area as New York City, but those areas are much less dense; it could be described as Boston levels of density continued for the same area as New York City. The subway seems to cover the denser areas of the North Side, but is hit or miss for the rest of the city.
4) For New York City,
density and having a subway line proximity follow each other rather well. Most areas near a subway line are of the darker 3 colors (above 41k / sq mile) and few of those densities are found away from a subway line. The difference is stark that you could divide the city into the parts near and not near a subway. Of course many of the low density areas not covered by the subway could just be non-residential areas. This map shows a more nuanced picture, but I have no clue what the key is:
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/71/223...59509d3b_o.jpg
A lot of the no subway areas just have no residents (for example, parkland) but the remaining no subway areas still look less dense. Did subways cause growth, or were subways built in areas already dense and built-up? For all but Upper Manhattan, subways came after development in Manhattan. For parts of Brooklyn, the development doesn't seem to cluster around subways much; it's rather even; my guess is subways followed at least as much as it spurred development. For some of the Queens lines, I think it's obvious subways spurred development. By density, it looks the NYC metro could be divided this way:
I) Manhattan, blocks of 5-6 story buildings with no setback, often with mid-rise buildings mixed in. Some neighborhoods have high rises as well. A road lined with stores on the first floor of these buildings are almost always within 1-2 blocks away. Parts of the West Bronx is at a similar density.
II) Outer Borough subway neighborhoods. Mostly from 40,000 - 75,000 people per square mile, much of the building stock is attached 3-4 story attached homes with some higher (see above) and lower density housing mixed in.
III) Outer borough neighborhoods away from the subway. Lower density sections aren't too different from older inner-ring suburbs and are often thought as "suburban", especially by those living in parts I & II. Much of it is detached homes, but still denser and with more apartment buildings and attached homes than developments further out. Only transit is buses and low frequency commuter rail, but still has high transit usage for American standards.
IV) Newer, lower density suburbia, almost all outside the city limits. Detached homes have larger lots than (III), many older suburbs belong with (III).
Leaving the US, here's Paris (most links via Rozenn):
Here's a density map of the entire metro:
On this website, you have some Ile-de-France interactive maps:
IAU - Cartographie Interactive
Click on “Population, habitat et ville” on the “thématiques” list to the left. If you want to switch maps, click on « Liste des Cartes ».
“Les densités de population en 2006”: Ile-de-France population density map. To go from people / hectare to square miles, multiply by 260. To get the density of an individual district, first choose the i on the top left and select density. Now click on any district and you get the number.
judging from the map, it looks there's plenty of the metro living at Manhattan densities (> 300 per hectare). A more detailed map of just in and around Paris proper shows the highest density districts are clustered around the center, particularly to the northeast:
http://projet36belleville.hautetfort...1074293461.png
The low density in the middle shows where the CBD is. (Ditto with Manhattan, a large drop in residents is visible in Midtown). It's hard to judge from the map, but it seems like not too much of the metro is in the red color, which is roughly the same as the "3rd lightest color" for the American city map. This is roughly neighborhood type II of NYC —*outer boroughs near subway. There's a bit of red adjacent to the city, especially to the northwest, and some in centers of individual cities surrounding Paris, but otherwise it looks less common than higher and lower densities. So Paris seems to have mostly neighborhoods at densities similar to the above NYC types I and III but not so much II and IV. A glance at streetview also seems to show there isn't much that resembles types II and IV around Paris. Maybe not coincedentally, the Paris Metro barely goes past the city limits, and seems like it would only service the densest neighborhoods in the metro. The rest of the lower density metro is serviced by high-frequency "commuter" rail and buses. Paris metro outside the city looks rather even, dense pockets (older bocks or new apartment buildings) maybe near a train station surrounded stretches of relatively less dense land (50-100 people / hecatare). I wonder what explains the sudden drop between city proper and outside? Maybe:
1) Paris is older than New York City; the highest density areas (such as most of Paris) were built up at a time when the only transportation mode available was walking. There isn't as much as drop for in neighborhood density between the modes for New York City, but both cities built their rail system differently
2) Until some time, something like city walls or legal rules concentrated development similar to how water concentrats development on an island
On the map, if you choose "Liste des Cartes" and then “Cartothèque: La population de 1876 à 2009 » : population by district over the time, that might help give an answer if you knew more details on the city's history. One of the better visualization of city growth and suburbanization I've seen anywhere.
Now to London:
London LSOA Atlas
(click population density, obviously)
London doesn't really reach the high densities of much of New York City or Paris. It still has a dense core "Inner London", much of which is above 130 people / hectare (33k / sq mile). Again, like Paris and New York City, the CBD stands as a low density section surrounded by some of the highest density housing in the city. There's a break of residential between the Westminster CBD and the City of London CBD. Outside Inner London, population density is patchier and goes down to about half or a third of "Inner London". Looking carefully at parts of North London, the highest density patches are often near London Underground stops. London Underground stop spacing is larger than local NYC subway service, more like express service or Paris RER stop spacing, so it's not surprising that the build-up looks less continuous. From I remember, Outer London tended to have a dense concentration of housing and shops right near a London Underground station. Further away, the density was less until there was often undeveloped land or just non-residential land used for more auto-oriented, space consuming commercial or industrial development. It felt like a less urban system overall, with many of the outer parts surface rail rather than underground or elevated, and each stop was for a neighborhood center. Outer London's development looks rather patchy.
Prev
.
Linear Mode
