Largest US and Canadian Cities by Population Density

[dimondpark]

50 largest US cities and Canadian Cities with 400,000+ inhabitants by population per square mile...

I didnt realize the majority had under 5,000 per square mile.

Largest US and Canadian Cities by Population Density:
New York, NY 28,317/sq m
San Francisco, CA 18,569/sq mi
Vancouver, BC 14,226/sq mi
Boston, MA 13,938/sq mi
Miami, FL 12,599/sq mi
Chicago, IL 11,900/sq m
Philadelphia, PA 11,683/sq mi
Toronto, ON 11,226/sq mi
Washington, DC 11,148/sq mi
Montreal, QC 10,075/sq mi
Long Beach, CA 9,347/sq mi
Los Angeles, CA 8,484/sq mi
Seattle, WA 8,405/sq mi
Minneapolis, MN 7,660/sq mi
Baltimore, MD 7,598/sq mi
Oakland, CA 7,514/sq mi
Mississauga, ON 6,391/sq mi
Milwaukee, WI 6,186/sq mi
San Jose, CA 5,777/sq mi
Brampton, ON 5,772/sq mi
Sacramento, CA 5,059/sq mi
Detroit, MI 4,847/sq mi
Portland, OR 4,793/sq m
Las Vegas, NV 4,709/sq mi
Fresno, CA 4,563/sq mi
Denver, CO 4,521/sq m
Laval, QC 4,431/sq mi
San Diego, CA 4,325/sq mi
Surrey, BC 4,239/sq mi
Arlington, TX 4,100/sq mi
Columbus, OH 3,936/sq mi
Calgary, AB 3,888/sq mi
Dallas, TX 3,866/sq mi
Winnepeg, MB 3,700/sq mi
Houston, TX 3,613/sq m
Atlanta, GA 3,539/sq mi
Edmonton, AB 3,525/sq mi
Omaha, NE 3,356/sq m
Mesa, AZ 3,514/sq m
San Antonio, TX 3,238/sq mi
Raleigh, NC 3,163/sq mi
Phoenix, AZ 3,120/sq mi
Quebec City, QC 3,039/sq mi
Austin, TX 3,031/sq mi
Albuquerque, NM 2,972/sq mi
Charlotte, NC 2,757/sq mi
El Paso, TX 2,660/sq mi
Fort Worth, TX 2,491/sq mi
Wichita, KS 2,431/sq mi
Colorado Springs, CO 2,378/sq mi
Indianapolis, IN 2,366/sq m
Louisville, KY 2,339/sq m
New Orleans, LA 2,311/sq mi
Tucson, AZ 2,299/sq mi
Memphis, TN 2,056/sq mi
Tulsa, OK 2,048/sq mi
Virginia Beach, VA 1,850/sq mi
Kansas City, MO 1,528/sq mi
Nashville, TN 1,388/sq mi
Hamilton, ON 1,245/sq mi
Jacksonville, FL 1,178/sq mi
Oklahoma City, OK 1,053/sq mi
Ottawa, ON 867/sq mi
Halifax, NS 190/sq mi

Source: Wikipedia

[isaidso]

One should note that using city boundaries can lead to misleading numbers. Take Toronto and San Francisco, for instance. Does San Francisco have higher population density? The Old City of Toronto has high population density but is a bit smaller in land area than the present City of San Francisco.

If one also include the old City of York which is adjacent you end up with a swath of Toronto roughly equal in land area to the current City of San Francisco. That too has higher population density than the current City of San Francisco. I should add that the New York City is 303 sq mi so it has far higher population density over a much larger swath of land.


Old City of Toronto
Population: 797,642
Area: 37.51 sq mi
Density: 21,265/sq mi

Old City of Toronto + Old City of York
Population: 943,304
Area: 46.46 sq mi
Density: 20,304/sq mi

New City of Toronto (Post-amalgamation)
Population: 2,731,571
Area: 243.33 sq mi
Density: 11,226/sq mi

City of San Francisco
Population: 884,363
Area: 46.89 sq mi
Density: 18,860/sq mi

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by isaidso

One should note that using city boundaries can lead to misleading numbers Take Toronto and San Francisco, for instance. Does San Francisco have higher population density? It'd argue no.


Old City of Toronto (Pre-amalgamation)

Population: 797,642
Area: 37.51 sq mi
Density: 21,265/sq mi

Old City of Toronto + Old City of York

Population: 943,304
Area: 46.46 sq mi
Density: 20,304/sq mi

New City of Toronto (Post-amalgamation)

Population: 2,731,571
Area: 243.33 sq mi
Density: 11,226/sq mi

City of San Francisco

Population: 884,363
Area: 46.89 sq mi
Density: 18,860/sq mi

If these^ Toronto densities were closer to say Brooklyn and Manhattan Id be more impressed but seeing as how they seem only marginally higher than SF even after you chop off 82% of Toronto's land mass to technically be more dense than SF, your supposition just kinda seems rather meh to me

The city im most impressed with on this list is Miami btw.

[Steely Dan]

As others have said, using WIILDLY varied and arbitrary city limits makes this a rather meaningless list.

Weighted urban area density would be a billion times more apples to apples.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

If these^ Toronto densities were closer to say Brooklyn and Manhattan Id be more impressed but seeing as how they seem only marginally higher than SF even after you chop off 82% of Toronto's land mass to technically be more dense than SF, your supposition just kinda seems rather meh to me

Why are you assuming that my intention is to impress any one? That's rather lame as far as I'm concerned. My post is clearly (although apparently not to some people) to show how the boundary used can change the population density figure substantially. I included another example using Halifax too.

Do people really look at this as some playground competition?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Why are you assuming that my intention is to impress any one? That's rather lame as far as I'm concerned. My post is clearly (although apparently not to some people) to show how the boundary used can change the population density figure substantially.

No Im just saying given that the densities are still rather close Im not that impressed--Whether you meant it that way or not isnt really pertinent.

Also, I would imagine most people know cities have areas that are denser in some areas and less dense than others, no?

[GreaterMontréal]

The city of Montréal (140 mi²) , 1.8M in 2018 (1.765M in 2016) , = 12,857 / mi²
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_...e-decret2017-1

The Island of Montréal (186 mi²) , 2.05M in 2018, = 11,021 / mi²
http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiq...n_06_00_an.htm

[Sun Belt]

Not again! This must be a broken record on this site.

Taking a the population within some random city limits and then dividing it by it's area is never a great way of determining a city's population density. Cities with large geographical areas, especially in the west do not account for the huge amounts of empty, non-developable lands within the city limits.

Long Beach is more dense than Los Angeles because Los Angeles has a huge area within the city limits that is sparsely populated.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Not again! This must be a broken record on this site.

True but it would be interesting if we had a thread about the population density for roughly 100 sq km of the central city. It wouldn't be perfect either but much closer to reality.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Not again! This must be a broken record on this site.

Taking a the population within some random city limits and then dividing it by it's area is never a great way of determining a city's population density. Cities with large geographical areas, especially in the west do not account for the huge amounts of empty, non-developable lands within the city limits.

Long Beach is more dense than Los Angeles because Los Angeles has a huge area within the city limits that is sparsely populated.

What do you mean "random city limits"?

These are the municipal land areas under the jurisdiction of these cities-many of these cities deliberately annexed themselves into bloated fat asses for various reasons so you dont get to brag about large populations and then complain because density numbers are too low for your liking.

Ironically that's when people start creating their own "random city imits" by carving out the sections they want while chopping off in some cases millions of people like they dont exist.

Hell, Oakland has a huge 10,000+ppsm cluster that takes up a huge section of the city while the entire eastern fifth of the city is regional parkland but I dont sit around complaining, I like those parks. lol

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Ironically that's when people start creating their own "random city imits" by carving out the sections they want while chopping off in some cases millions of people like they dont exist.

Isn't that what city limits are though? I mean, San Francisco's density isn't "that impressive" either when you consider that it excludes the other 7 million people in the metro area.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Isn't that what city limits are though? I mean, San Francisco's density isn't "that impressive" either when you consider that it excludes the other 7 million people in the metro area.

Not really:

1. Individual cities have their own municipal govt, their own taxes, their own downtowns, etc. Why are we acting like they are made up boundaries? No, in fact they actually exist.

2. Metro areas in the US are not determined by cities but rather counties, futhermore it's possible to rank metro areas in their own list-why conflate cities and metro areas? They are 2 different things.

3. I think maybe a better measurement might be urban area density when talking about metro areas.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

What do you mean "random city limits"?

These are the municipal land areas under the jurisdiction of these cities-many of these cities deliberately annexed themselves into bloated fat asses for various reasons so you dont get to brag about large populations and then complain because density numbers are too low for your liking.

This:


The city limits of Los Angeles are pretty random. So why are we discussing and comparing the population density of Los Angeles in an attempt to rank and come to a conclusion based off these random city limits, where a lot of the land is not developed or at a very low level of development due to the terrain.

E] Denver International Airport -- 52.4 sq mi -- population: 0
San Francisco, California -- 47 sq mi -- population 880k
If S.F. had a DIA within SF's borders, it would have a pop. density of only 8,800/sq. mile

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

This:


The city limits of Los Angeles are pretty random. So why are we discussing and comparing the population density of Los Angeles in an attempt to rank and come to a conclusion based off these random city limits, where a lot of the land is not developed or at a very low level of development due to the terrain.

E] Denver International Airport -- 52.4 sq mi -- population: 0
San Francisco, California -- 47 sq mi -- population 880k
If S.F. had a DIA within SF's borders, it would have a pop. density of only 8,800/sq. mile

Again I refer you to what I already said:

These are the municipal land areas under the jurisdiction of these cities-many of these cities deliberately annexed themselves into bloated fat asses for various reasons so you dont get to brag about large populations and then complain because density numbers are too low for your liking.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Again I refer you to what I already said:

These are the municipal land areas under the jurisdiction of these cities-many of these cities deliberately annexed themselves into bloated fat asses for various reasons so you dont get to brag about large populations and then complain because density numbers are too low for your liking.

Lol, that's a good one, bro.

I'm not bragging about anything because I'm not the one constantly publishing lists.

Carry on, now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

These are the municipal land areas under the jurisdiction of these cities-many of these cities deliberately annexed themselves into bloated fat asses for various reasons so you dont get to brag about large populations and then complain because density numbers are too low for your liking.

Wait, for real?

That's your response?

You sound like a 12 year old kid.

And I know you're not a 12 year old kid.

[isaidso]

Then there are examples like Halifax which is last in your list and by a considerable margin. Is population density really that low? The problem is that they use Halifax County as the boundary which is 2,119.84 sq mi. The actual city only takes up a small sliver of that land.

[dc_denizen]

Cook County, Chicago:
945 sq miles
population 5.211 million

population density: 5514/sq mile

[BG918]

I know Denver’s population density is skewed because of DIA which the city/county annexed from an adjacent county. Take out DIA and Denver is probably closer to Seattle in its density.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by BG918

I know Denver’s population density is skewed because of DIA which the city/county annexed from an adjacent county. Take out DIA and Denver is probably closer to Seattle in its density.

While smaller, this is true of Salt Lake City as well. The City has within its boundaries mountains, lake area, swamp and wetlands, an airport and more that all restrict development.

Currently the developed area of the City sits on roughly 40% of the accessible land. This is out of a total City area of 106 square miles.

The Western section of the City is beginning to see development with the State building the new State ($1 Billion) Prison in the area. They are bringing in infrastructure and raising the ground to avoid possible flooding. The State also has created an Inland Port to assist with the development of the area.

So while the City may show development in the area in the next many years, it will be warehouses and shipping. Salt Lake City has been preferring to add density to existing neighborhoods rather than sprawling within city boundaries for residential growth.