Population density patterns in cities (NYC and Chicago as a starter)

[ChiSoxRox]

For a smaller city, population 67,862, Iowa City has a very dense core. The University of Iowa is located downtown, so several downtown neighborhoods are filled with students living in three story apartment block and converted older houses with three or more bedrooms.

The three downtown census tracts over 10,000 people per square miles (11, 16, and 21 on the New York Times' map) have 14,985 people on 1.09 square miles, giving a core density of 13,722 ppsm. No other census tract in Iowa is even over 8,000 ppsm.

However the density drops off quickly outside of downtown; only one other census tract (the hospital campus and university dorms immediately across the river) has a density over 5,000 at 6,476 people per square mile. Downtown is ringed by neighborhoods in the 4,000 ppsm range.

[nei]

Originally Posted by 10023

Segun's exactly right. There are a lot of non-residents in LP because it's next to the park and the beach, it's got shops, restaurants and bars, there are students, etc. Same reason the West Village can seem more a hub of activity than the Upper East Side, despite the lesser population.

Yea, residential density alone doesn't create a super-crowded feel. Park Slope felt busy to me without being packed. Though certain events looked rather packed.

Just out of curiosity, what's the density figure for Carroll Gardens? I've got a friend that lives on Union St. and that area seems similar to me as well (not that there aren't plenty of non-residents on Smith Street especially).

Most of the tracts around Union St in Caroll Gardens (west of Court St., east of BQE) average around 52,000 people per square mile. Union st east of Court is a bit less, 40k per square mile. Go closer to Brooklyn Heights and the density goes up, way up.

50k per square mile seems close to average Brooklyn rowhouse density if not overcrowded.

[10023]

^ Thanks. That's a bit surprising, but I guess part of it is New York's tiny, cramped apartments.

edit: just Googling for stats for the West Village, I found this. What's the difference between ~30k/ppsm for Park Slope/Carroll Gardens here and the numbers above (other than being 2000 data which I doubt makes much difference)?

http://www.demographia.com/db-nyc-wardrank.htm


The London comparison was interesting, although I'm not sure you can compare whole boroughs to census tracts like that. I much prefer London's density to New York's.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ Thanks. That's a bit surprising, but I guess part of it is New York's tiny, cramped apartments.

There are probably some "tiny, cramped apartments", but I would say that Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens doesn't have particularly many.

The vast majority of housing consists of brownstones, walkups and the like, which are usually rented or sold as floor-throughs.

There aren't a ton of studios in these types of neighborhoods, the way you see in some Manhattan neighborhoods with the big postwar brick buildings or with the tenements.

It's more of a family neighborhood, with bigger apartments.

[10023]

My friend's place is a 2-bedroom floor-through, but there's got to be some smaller apartments no? I don't see how you get to 50k ppsm densities with 4 and 5 story buildings otherwise.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don't see how you get to 50k ppsm densities with 4 and 5 story buildings otherwise.

families. 4 people per unit instead of a bachelor or childless couple does the trick. rogers park in chicago gets to ~30,000 ppsm with not much above 3 stories. add in NYC's penchant (need) for using every square inch of non-public real estate for buildings and an additional 1 or 2 floors on all the buildings, and i can see how you get to 50,000 ppsm if you've got a decent percentage of families with children living in the area.

[10023]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

Camden: 235,400 in 8.4 sq miles, 28k ppsm
Greenwhich: 228,500 in 18.4 sq miles, 12k ppsm
Hackney: 219,200 in 7.3 sq miles. 30k ppsm
Hammersmith and Fulham: 169,700 in 6.3 sq miles, 27k ppsm
Islington: 194,100 in 5.74 sq miles, 34k ppsm
Kensington and Chelsea: 169,500 in 4.68 sq miles, 36k ppsm
Lambeth: 284,500 in 10.36 sq miles, 27k ppsm
Lewisham: 266,500 in 13.5 sq miles, 20k ppsm
Southwark: 287,000 in 11.14 sq miles, 26k ppsm
Tower Hamlets: 237,900 in 7.6 sq miles, 31k ppsm
Wandsworth: 289,600 in 13.23 sq miles, 22k ppsm
Westminster: 253,100 in 8.29 sq miles, 31k ppsm

2,834,800 in 114.94 = 24,663 ppl/sq mile
Or 123 sq miles by ONS definition with ~3 million people.

For comparison, Paris is over 2 million people in about 40 square miles, making it much denser than London.

Another comparison with the closest amount of square mileage would be NY's three boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and The Bronx at 136 sq miles with 5,526,595 people. This is clearly much, much denser than Inner London as well.

I hope this information was enlightening or helpful in some way.

Some more London/NY comparisons:

The only London borough that matches Brooklyn's density is Kensington & Chelsea, and it's only 4.7 square miles (vs. Brooklyn's 71 square miles).

"Inner London" by the ONS defintion has 2,985,700 people in 123 sq. miles (24,274 ppsm). Even without Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx have 3,924,647 people in 113 square miles (34,731 ppsm). Brooklyn alone is almost as populous as and significantly denser than Inner London with 2,532,645 people in 71 square miles (35,671 ppsm).

Greater London has 7,753,600 people in 607 square miles (12,774 ppsm). New York City's five boroughs have 8,244,910 people in just 305 square miles (27,032 ppsm). NYC crams more people into roughly half the space.

For a close-ish comparison by area, the five NYC boroughs plus the New Jersey counties of Hudson, Essex and Union* have a population of 10,199,644 people in 581 square miles (17,555 ppsm). If you added enough of inner Westchester or Nassau counties to get to Greater London's area exactly, there's probably close to 10.5 million people.


* These three surround the harbors and include Hoboken, Jersey City, Union City and Newark. All of the other suburban counties around NYC are much larger in area (e.g., Westchester is 500 square miles, Nassau is 453 square miles) and include a lot of open space, so densities are only a few thousand ppsm).

[nei]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ Thanks. That's a bit surprising, but I guess part of it is New York's tiny, cramped apartments.

edit: just Googling for stats for the West Village, I found this. What's the difference between ~30k/ppsm for Park Slope/Carroll Gardens here and the numbers above (other than being 2000 data which I doubt makes much difference)?

http://www.demographia.com/db-nyc-wardrank.htm

I'm using census tract data, whose boundaries are drawn to include roughly 4000 people in each tract. The 30k/ppsm for Park Slope/Carroll Gardens includes a bunch of undeveloped and industrial land. Play around here an you'll see what I mean:

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

The London comparison was interesting, although I'm not sure you can compare whole boroughs to census tracts like that. I much prefer London's density to New York's.

I like brownstone Brooklyn densities myself, Manhattan is a bit too much, but in many areas it's the way it's done (roads have lots of traffic). Well, to live in, to visit in some ways the density makes it a better city core. 5 story apartment buildings with a little of trees and landscaping as well as low traffic it would be quite appealing with a density close to 100k / sq mile. West Village is the closest to this.

[10023]

And one more note on the stupidity of U.S. census metro area definitions...

The census-defined NYC metro area has a population of 18,897,109 people in 6,720 (!) square miles (2,812 ppsm).

If you take the 5 boroughs and add the following suburban counties - Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen, Middlesex, Passaic, Morris, Somerset (NJ), Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk (NY) and Fairfield (CT) - you get to 18,872,455 people in 5,244 square miles (3,599 ppsm).

That's still a huge area that contains a lot of non-urban space (most of Suffolk and Fairfield counties are farmland), but what justifies adding almost 1,500 square miles with a total population of less than 25k to the metro area?

[10023]

Originally Posted by nei

I'm using census tract data, whose boundaries are drawn to include roughly 4000 people in each tract. The 30k/ppsm for Park Slope/Carroll Gardens includes a bunch of undeveloped and industrial land. Play around here an you'll see what I mean:

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

I like brownstone Brooklyn densities myself, Manhattan is a bit too much, but in many areas it's the way it's done (roads have lots of traffic). Well, to live in, to visit in some ways the density makes it a better city core. 5 story apartment buildings with a little of trees and landscaping as well as low traffic it would be quite appealing with a density close to 100k / sq mile. West Village is the closest to this.

But the London boroughs include undeveloped and industrial land as well. It's not a fair comparison to look at U.S. census tracts and London boroughs.

[nei]

Originally Posted by 10023

But the London boroughs include undeveloped and industrial land as well. It's not a fair comparison to look at U.S. census tracts and London boroughs.

Agreed. The community districts listed by demographia are a fairer comparison to London boroughs, though I think the London boroughs are still bigger.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by 10023

My friend's place is a 2-bedroom floor-through, but there's got to be some smaller apartments no? I don't see how you get to 50k ppsm densities with 4 and 5 story buildings otherwise.

South Philadelphia has that solid 30-40 k ppsm with 2-3 story buildings. It depends on how many people occupy each unit. The NY Times Census Map has an option to select how many units have a single person living in them. I bet many of those units have more then one person in them.

[memph]

Originally Posted by 10023

My friend's place is a 2-bedroom floor-through, but there's got to be some smaller apartments no? I don't see how you get to 50k ppsm densities with 4 and 5 story buildings otherwise.

There's a neighbourhood in a suburb of Barcelona where buildings average 4 stories and the density is a bit above 200k ppsm. If most of the ground is covered by buildings, you can get very high densities with midrises. With a neighbourhood/district wide residential FSI of only 1.0 and about 500 sf of living space per person (a decent amount, far from cramped), you'd get densities of 50k ppsm.

One of the main differences between Southern and Northern Europe is that Southern Europe has high % coverage. The streets are narrower, there are no setbacks and little open space in the form of courtyards/yards inside city blocks. I suspect that besides wealth, climate and lattitude might be a bit of a factor. In Southern Europe, it's often hot, so it's no big deal (or even a good thing) if the buildings are so close they shade all the streets and courtyards. Meanwhile in Northern Europe with its short, cold winter days where the sun is low might find it more desirable to have wider streets and bigger courtyards.

Street this narrow are extremely rare in Northern Europe: https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Naples...8.91,,0,-13.31

[mhays]

Wider streets can be windy and rainy if there aren't big awings. With narrow streets, particularly without big straightaways or highrises, wind can die down. Also, pretty much everywhere can get too hot. I'll take narrow streets regardless of weather.

[memph]

Originally Posted by whiteford

btw it is very unlikely we will ever see the type of density shown of NY or Chicago in any other north american cities. that is a bygone era and only a few other cities have success in this way. such as Montreal or Philadelphia for example. although on a smaller scale. the best any of the newer density nodes can ever hope for is what they are doing in Toronto or Vancouver and what i envision for Calgary's beltline.

Depends what you mean by "type of density". For instance, Toronto probably won't have large midrise apartment neighbourhoods similar to those of Northern Manhattan or the Bronx, but many neighbourhoods in downtown Toronto will be of comparable or even higher density.

The census tracts in Northern Manhattan and the Bronx make up much of the densest (residential density) census tracts in NYC. Some census tracts in the upper east side are also very dense, but much of those tracts consist of rowhouses with just a few highrises along the avenues to bump up the density. I don't think there are any census tracts in NYC that are predominantly highrise residential, only some that are predominantly high rise office.

Here's a model of Entertainment District projects from "insertnamehere" at urbantoronto.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthr...505#post646505

These are all condos in the 30-50 storey range that would create several city blocks in the 200-400k ppsm range if they get built (possibly in only a bit more than 5 years). I think Downtown Toronto will achieve Manhattan-like densities in a couple decades, as well as a few other nodes (Midtown & Uptown), although it will look different and be over a smaller area.

As for Chicago, its job/built densities inside the loop might go unmatched for a while, but I don't think it's residential densities are that high. I would consider Montreal, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston and Toronto in the same league.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

I don't think there are any census tracts in NYC that are predominantly highrise residential, only some that are predominantly high rise office. .

I'd say there are quite a few predominantly highrise residental census tracts in NYC.

Your characterization of the Upper East Side isn't really correct. The UES is primarily mid- and highrise residential. It has relatively few townhouses/rowhouses, especially east of Lexington Avenue (which is the vast majority of the UES).

Even off the avenues, apartments dominate on the UES, and east of Lexington, mid- and highrise apartments are common on the side streets. This is, by far, the densest part of the UES (east of Lex).

And, while the Upper West Side has more townhouses than the UES, they're definitely in the minority. The UWS is primarily mid- and highrise, like the UES, though the ratio of midrise is higher than on the UES.

There's various other primarily residential highrise tracts in Manhattan, such as parts of Chelsea, East Side from 14th Street through Midtown, far East Harlem, Hudson Yards, Turtle Bay/Sutton Place, Battery Park City, waterfront Lower East Side and Roosevelt Island.

Then, in the boroughs, there's Co-op City, Spring Creek/Starrett City, Rochdale Village, Lefrak City, Parkchester, and various public and Mitchell-Lama (subsidized middle income) housing complexes.

[nei]

Originally Posted by memph

The census tracts in Northern Manhattan and the Bronx make up much of the densest (residential density) census tracts in NYC. Some census tracts in the upper east side are also very dense, but much of those tracts consist of rowhouses with just a few highrises along the avenues to bump up the density. I don't think there are any census tracts in NYC that are predominantly highrise residential, only some that are predominantly high rise office.

Technically, the UES is more tenements/ walk-up apartments together with high rises. The more espensiv western part of the UES has more rowhouses but not as many high rises. This things aren't much lower in density than Upper Manhattan / West Bronx buildings:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Upper...5.58,,0,-10.94

add together high-rises and the density will be very high.

There are probably a few census tracts in the UES that have a high proportion of high rises but not only high rises. Tower in the park developments might be the place for them.

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by 10023

Some more London/NY comparisons:

The only London borough that matches Brooklyn's density is Kensington & Chelsea, and it's only 4.7 square miles (vs. Brooklyn's 71 square miles).

"Inner London" by the ONS defintion has 2,985,700 people in 123 sq. miles (24,274 ppsm). Even without Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx have 3,924,647 people in 113 square miles (34,731 ppsm). Brooklyn alone is almost as populous as and significantly denser than Inner London with 2,532,645 people in 71 square miles (35,671 ppsm).

Greater London has 7,753,600 people in 607 square miles (12,774 ppsm). New York City's five boroughs have 8,244,910 people in just 305 square miles (27,032 ppsm). NYC crams more people into roughly half the space.

For a close-ish comparison by area, the five NYC boroughs plus the New Jersey counties of Hudson, Essex and Union* have a population of 10,199,644 people in 581 square miles (17,555 ppsm). If you added enough of inner Westchester or Nassau counties to get to Greater London's area exactly, there's probably close to 10.5 million people.
[/I]

Yeah, I think a lot of people think that London is closer to NYC than it actually is, including Boris Johnson when he went a little provential in his recent interview with Charlie Rose.

Originally Posted by 10023

And one more note on the stupidity of U.S. census metro area definitions...

The census-defined NYC metro area has a population of 18,897,109 people in 6,720 (!) square miles (2,812 ppsm).

If you take the 5 boroughs and add the following suburban counties - Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen, Middlesex, Passaic, Morris, Somerset (NJ), Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk (NY) and Fairfield (CT) - you get to 18,872,455 people in 5,244 square miles (3,599 ppsm).

That's still a huge area that contains a lot of non-urban space (most of Suffolk and Fairfield counties are farmland), but what justifies adding almost 1,500 square miles with a total population of less than 25k to the metro area?

Yeah, they are terrible for many, many reasons.

Originally Posted by memph

There's a neighbourhood in a suburb of Barcelona where buildings average 4 stories and the density is a bit above 200k ppsm. If most of the ground is covered by buildings, you can get very high densities with midrises. With a neighbourhood/district wide residential FSI of only 1.0 and about 500 sf of living space per person (a decent amount, far from cramped), you'd get densities of 50k ppsm.

Which neighbourhood are you referring to? I was just in Barcelona and it's amazing how dense it is compared to London.

[nei]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

Yeah, I think a lot of people think that London is closer to NYC than it actually is, including Boris Johnson when he went a little provential in his recent interview with Charlie Rose.

Looking at numbers, the best US equivalent to London might be Philly as their both rowhouse cities. Except much of inner London is similar to densities found in or slightly near Center City while Philadelphia declines much faster.

Both London and New York are two English-speaking that have a very big pedestrian-friendly center as well as a big subway system, which is probably why people assume they're similar in density. If you look at the stats, London's subway ridership is somewhat lower than NYC and the outer stop spacing is greater with some park and rides at the end (the NYC subway system has no park and rides whatsoever). The ratio of bus:subway passengers in London is higher. I've taken a bus from the center of London to an outer borough (Barnet — about 10 miles). There was a subway available to do the same route. In NYC, few would choose a local bus over the subway if there was a subway available. Density might explain the difference.

New York is more similar to Paris than London density-wise.

[ChiSoxRox]

The smallest level for which I found density data in Moscow is the 125 districts (raioni) of the city, which are summarized in this table on the Russian Wikipedia, density in the sixth column. I can try and put a map of densities together, but the average density of a district is around 30,000 people per square mile with five of the 125 over 60,000 ppsm.

Interestingly, there isn't much of a density buildup in the core, but rather the high density areas seem to be scattered in pockets around the city, likely reflecting the location of enormous Soviet housing projects.