Population Density 101: A Visual Guide to Suburbs and Skyscrapers

[@josephsands7938]

I feel that of all the urbanist channels yours is the most "shareable" with people who aren't already urbanists. You two always clearly explain the topic without communicating in a way that might make people feel defensive. I've been inspired to be less snarky online by your channel 😂

[@pbilk]

So true!

[@melvinlemay7366]

This so much. When I watch some other channels the vitriol and unnecessary backhanded-ness gets ME feeling defensive. And I agreed with most of the points I'm getting defensive against before starting the videos in question. It leaves my mouth tasting bitter when I reluctantly admit that I still agree with the points which have been made because I don't want to have something in common with those rude dudes.

[@Chocolate-wb1bu]

Apartment sizes impact population density a lot too, rather than just height. For instance an eight story building could have 24 average sized apartments or just a handful of luxury apartments. A great example for that is Paris, where they don't build higher than 7-8 stories but have a population density double that of NYC.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

The Paris vs. NYC comparison is tricky because (1) NYC isn't all high-rises, it also has tons of mid-rise (just like Paris), low-rise, and even detached homes, and (2) Manhattan has a lower density than you'd expect because a lot of the floor space is taken by jobs rather than homes (I guess the Paris equivalent is La Défense, which is outside of the city boundaries).

[@Chocolate-wb1bu]

@@OhTheUrbanity That's true but if i remember correctly then even with all the low and midrise buildings around, the median height in NYC is still around 15 floors, which is above that of Paris. Maybe i'm just remembering wrong, but if you have access to such data perhaps you could compare floor amount and apartment sizes of NYC and Paris or even other cities. Maybe i'd make for an interesting video. Thanks for the reply.

[@gamarad]

@@Chocolate-wb1bu The median height in NYC is definitely not 15 stories. I don't even think the median height in Manhattan is that high.

[@lizcademy4809]

@@gamarad It might be, if you look at ALL buildings, not just residential ones. The tallest office skyscrapers skew the average up.

[@drewh3224]

@@gamarad The media height is about 6 stories walk-up tenement buildings in NYC. Lots of them across the city. Im living in one of these.

[@JRCody-ds3ec]

I always struggle to help people visualize that more consistent missing middle can be a low rise way to get densities just as high as towers. This is a very helpful video.

[@JRCody-ds3ec]

@Raymond there are only 8 billion people, and I’m not against high density. I said low rise but lower building can be higher densities. The problem is in America when people think of high density they think of the the only kind of high density project you find in the USA with is 20-30 story towers, and often that wouldn’t be necessary if we could consistently build 4-6.

[@Andrew-gn9qp]

@Raymond In some cases we need people to settle in the hinterlands for geopolitical purposes. In Canada, we have a massive problem of not having enough people living in the north because everyone wants to live in the crowded US border, which hurts our ability to project power in the Arctic which make up 40% of our country. Medium density satisfies the needs for most Canadians, our problem is politics, climate, and geography which prevents us from expanding further north.

[@JRCody-ds3ec]

@@r.d.9399 ever heard of a condo?

[@iseytheteethsnake6290]

Centro American towns that are next to farms can visualize that very well!

[@tonywalters7298]

@@JRCody-ds3ec 10-12 billion is estimated to be the "carrying capacity" for the human population.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

For reference, here are the categories we used with conversions for square miles: Semi-rural: 500 people per square kilometre (1,300 per square mile) Lower density suburban: 1,000/km² (2,600/mi²) Medium density suburban: 2,000/km² (5,200/mi²) Higher density suburban: 4,000/km² (10,000/mi²) Lower density urban: 8,000/km² (21,000/mi²) Medium density urban: 16,000/km² (41,000/mi²) Upper medium density urban: 32,000/km² (83,000/mi²) High density urban: 64,000/km² (170,000/mi²) Very high density urban: 128,000/km² (330,000/mi²) The density figures we used come from the 2021 Canadian Census and 2020 US Census, and there were calculated based on census tracts, which are basically small neighbourhoods of a few thousand people. Census tracts in red were Canadian, and blue were American. For some of the highest densities, census tracts didn’t provide great examples so we used smaller units (dissemination areas in Canada and census block groups in the US). The data was accessed in R (with the “cancensus” and “tidycensus” packages).

[@no-lifenoah7861]

Neat

[@StLouis-yu9iz]

Interesting as usual! Yet, I’m still waiting for the StL shoutout since you snubbed us in the last video. :/

[@pjcanfield8]

You guys, RMtransit and City nerd have all become my favorite urbanist creators very quickly! You all provide your unique takes that are backed up by a bit of actual research with strong evidence to support your claims! Plus it’s nice to see all your unique personal flair and ability to communicate with a general audience without coming across as condescending. I wish I was a little more talented because I got a few video ideas up my sleeve but I hope more urbanists take your lead and help us keep fighting the good fight!

[@OhTheUrbanity]

We're flattered to be included with those two, they're wonderful channels!

[@pjcanfield8]

@@OhTheUrbanity of course:) Also it’s incredible to see how much you can really fit in the high density model like Manhattan. The 160,000 inhabitants of my hometown of Springfield,MO could fit into just a couple city blocks instead of 200 Square KM. It doesn’t seem overcrowded or cramped because of the relief the green space provides and it also doesn’t stick out kick a sore thumb when done well, it just adds to the walkability of a city! This was a really cool quick look on density and sent me on a google maps rabbit hole this morning lolol. Have a great day!

[@pbilk]

Especially not coming across condescending aspect because I can feel that I can share this with people on the fence or oppose livable urban spaces because they are stuck in old ways of thinking.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

It would be interesting to provide data for “density of small businesses” or something similar alongside each of these metrics. Personally, I’ve found that reaching medium density makes it way easier for small shops and restaurants to survive. Even when they do go out of business, they get replaced very quickly because new investors see how much foot traffic there is and feel confident that they have a good chance at success.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Data on business density would be interesting! Too bad the census doesn't cover that

[@tonywalters7298]

And the smaller footprints of urban businesses means less overhead costs for things like landscaping and parking lots.

[@shuttsteven]

​@@OhTheUrbanity It's possible other sources like white papers or municipal development proposals would have the necessary information on what densities can support different types of businesses. That aspect of having a slew of neighborhood restaurants and shops is the most visible benefit of living in medium urban density or higher

[@TheAmericanCatholic]

I’m American suburbs that would be zero because of the zoning.

[@rudinah8547]

This is the main feature I love on Google/Apple maps, how they highlight businesses and other interest areas on their maps

[@Alltoc]

Great video showing how a small difference in building height or parking availability can have massive effects on density. I feel like more people need to see this.

[@Arkiasis]

Another thing is that Manhattan was a lot more populated and dense 100 years ago than today. Since back then an entire family of 4-6 people lived in a single room.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

That's a great example of how density is influenced not just by buildings but also by economic/demographic factors

[@gumbie007]

People living - yes, but when you factor that today there are far more tourists, commuters and visitors in Manhattan on any given day, then it becomes a wash….🤔🤨

[@موسى_7]

@@gumbie007 Tourists don't count as population because they aren't residents.

[@jeanbolduc5818]

Most condos in NYC are owned by foreigners not living in .NYC. Condos are empty. So , all data are not accurate

[@m.e.3862]

It’s really interesting re: Montreal suburbs. They’ve always had multi family dwellings even before the suburbs. the small south shore towns had duplex type houses dating back to the 1800s. and when newer burbs like Brossard began in the 50s the first house type were the duplexes you see in st. Leonard. It’s almost like we skipped the recommended Levittown town plan like the rest of NA.

[@KRYMauL]

Suburbs have always been a thing as the informal settlements favelas or villages outside a castle can atest. What's you're refering to is the modern suburb that is full of affluent people because of better policing that keeps crime down outside the city.

[@DevynCairns]

@@KRYMauL it has very little to do with better policing - if anything, suburbs would be harder to police because of the amount of ground to cover. A lot of crimes are crimes of poverty, directly or indirectly, and suburbs are much more difficult to live in if you don't have a car to get around in. If you need access to basic necessities of life but you only have your feet or maybe a bike, then an urban area is going to just be much easier to survive in. Living in a suburb is expensive even outside of the cost of housing, and that's why they tend to be wealthier.

[@KRYMauL]

@@DevynCairns If we're being pedantic, then yes car dependent suburbs are hader to police. However, I was refering to pre-industrial suburbs.

[@DevynCairns]

@@KRYMauL In that case, yeah, it's probably a mix of the police just picking anybody up who they don't want to be there and dumping them back downtown, and it also probably being easier to survive in the city centre. I'm from Vancouver and we really only have very high density and semi-car dependent suburb, with not a lot in between

[@RURK_]

Density is probably my favorite city topic ever. Good urban planning mixed with a very population is a recipe for a very lively and welcoming place. Great video!

[@henryleitch]

Love seeing the way your footage from your trip to Halifax has seeped into your videos! It's a treat every time :)

[@OhTheUrbanity]

It was wonderful to be back!

[@abdullahtshabal9522]

My neighbourhood in Tallinn has a population density of a bit over 15,000 people per km2 - Much of it is 9-story commieblocks, but there is a lot of open green space (covering at least a quarter of the lot), a dozen schools, several small and medium-sized shops, 4 major retail chains and where there's roads, there are easily accessible bus stops. Also much of the lot is easily walkable. The only thing that gets crowded is the limited free parking spots in front of the apartment blocks. Also few apartments are over 50m2 in size, so are just perfectly sized for individuals or families.

[@markuserikssen]

Very interesting video. One thing I noticed is that the denser it gets, the smaller the area gets shown in this video. At 7:44 there are literally a few buildings next to each other, but at 1:24 you show a much bigger area. I know it's all relative. I wouldn't say it's wrong to do that, but in this way, I can imagine that some very small areas like 7:44 are very dense. If you would use the same area size for each area in the video, from low to high density, then the density of dense areas would probably be much lower. Another thought: Density also changes when people go to work in other areas of a city or region. And sometimes people can be registered at a specific address, but don't really live there either. In for example London, you have many empty apartments bought by investors. My dad works abroad for 5 days a week, so his house is empty most of the week. Also, in our neighborhood almost all neighbors go on vacation abroad during summer vacation, so it's almost a ghost town. There are also holiday homes in this area, where people are allowed to "live" a maximum numbers of days per year, so sometimes houses are empty most of the time. But these things are hard to measure. Anyhow, great content!

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Two reasons for this: (1) Census tracts have roughly similar populations (it varies a bit but 4,000 people on average) so as the density gets higher, the area will get smaller. (2) The highest densities (64,000/km2 and above) didn't have as many good examples using census tracts, so we used smaller units (dissemination areas in Canada and census block groups in the US, housing more like 500 to 2,000 people).

[@neilirvine7129]

They're not picking and choosing the actual borders - these are administrative census blocks, which is smallest geographic area collected by the Bureau of the Census. I imagine these census blocks are chosen roughly by population or addresses. In Canada, for example, postal codes cover around 20 addresses. The effect is for a rural area with low density, the area ends up being huge, but in a downtown neighbourhood a single code could cover multiple high rise apartment buildings and thousands of people. You could argue that these census boundaries are themselves arbitrary, but if you re-draw them the population data wouldn't be valid (because you don't have population by household) and choosing which ones to combine would also be arbitrary. I think the overall point is to take these various neighbourhood samples and compare their appearance based on a common ratio (density). You already see patterns emerging, like mixes of high and low rise. They also pointed out your second point - that density is looking at residence, and can be thrown off or counterintuitive when combined with workplaces. They have the example of an airport or commercial district that technically have populations of zero, even though they might be continuously used by thousands of people.

[@markuserikssen]

@@OhTheUrbanity Thanks for explaining, that makes sense to me!

[@markuserikssen]

@@neilirvine7129 I understand that they are not picking and choosing the boundaries. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just something I've noticed and wondered why it was like that. Your explanation makes sense to me.

[@Codraroll]

@@OhTheUrbanity I can see the arguments for using census tracts for data. However, as the tracts get smaller and smaller for the higher-density examples, they tend to exclude infrastructure like roads or plazas (even if they are in the area), so the census tract cannot be scaled up to a district scale, as it were, without reducing the density. There are large city districts with extremely high densities out there, though. But they are primarily found in developing countries, so good data and footage could be hard to find. The most extreme example listed by Wikipedia is the Imbaba district of Cairo, with 1.47 million people in 8.28 sq. km - roughly 180,000 people/square kilometer. Google Maps only has 2D imagery and no street view of the area, though. There is slightly better pictures available of Lalbagh in Dhaka, whose density is only slightly below that of Imbaba. And of course, no good discussion of population density can leave out Kowloon Walled City. That thing was pretty much the upper limit of how densely packed together humans can feasibly live. Fifty thousand people in less than three hectares, that's almost two million people per square kilometer. It's somehow a bit reassuring how far off the scale that example was. Even the densest neighbourhoods of Western cities barely reach one fiftieth of that monstrosity.

[@kennj321]

it would be interesting to see how car ownership varies with these densities. once your over a certain number it becomes expensive to find a place to park. my favorite neighborhoods were in Rio De Janerio. there are lots of 12floor apts with small elevators but nice stairwells. walking down the steps from high up was no problem. only time i really needed elevator was to go up high with groceries. what made it really nice was all the gardens and plants growing in narrow alleys that had little light. I realized later they were plants that normally lived in the forest with high tree canopies that shaded the forest floor instead of tall apartments.

[@mindstalk]

Tokyo and Osaka have a lot of very narrow streets iwth a lot of potted plants like that, too. Tokyo has one car per very 4 people, IIRC. Which is still kind of a lot! But also these cars won't get used as often as in typical US cities. I think that past 3000 people/km2 it gets physically impossible for everyone to efficiently and safely drive to work at once, there's just not enough room.

[@Mrnevertalks]

It was really cool to show the different configurations of density. It seems difficult for people to wrap their heads around the concept of missing middle housing, and just how much density you can fit into duplexes, triplex, and quadplexes the size of a larger single family home. The neighborhood I live in has a population density of almost 16,000 per square mile, but is still primarily SFH. We have lots of duplexes and small apartment builds spread throughout the area, so transit ridership and local commercial corridors can do alright. Putting buildings closer together and adding even a single floor does wonders for providing homes for people.

[@Snappy1143]

Great video and examples! I was stunned to see your very first example of neighborhoods at 500ppl/sqkm all look denser then where I live haha, and I looked it up out of curiosity and my area is 170ppl/sqkm!! Density here in Oklahoma is soooo low. I don't even live in a rural area-I'm right on the edge of Tulsa-it's just that low in our "exurbs" here. It's so bizarre living in what is considered practically a rural neighborhood, and yet having to commute into the city every day for everything. I love watching urbanist content like yours because it's such a refreshing contrast with what I've had to live with, and this really put it in perspective even more lol.

[@winstonsolipsist1741]

You say you have to live with. Can you not move to the city?

[@oakblaze433]

@@winstonsolipsist1741 City centers are often artificially expensive when it comes to North America due to investors trying to increase profits from housing and also a lack of supply in areas that match an urban environment that a lot of people are looking for but also a high demand for said areas as well. The commenter might also be young and not able to move to the city because of that.

[@winstonsolipsist1741]

@@oakblaze433 If the new urbanism is cause prices to go up, it makes it seem like urbanism is associated with gentrification.

[@star24ize]

great video!! it's so much easier to understand density as it's sometimes abstract without good definition and visualization

[@HigherQualityUploads]

1:25 Fort Myers mentioned 🥳 The city leadership just promised that they were looking into becoming a "15 minute city" yesterday, which makes me very excited.

[@Taladar2003]

I think if you look at density for areas that small there should also be some sort of measurement that describes the density of the surrounding area. After all a very dense building right next to a large park or forest is very different than a slightly less dense building embedded in other areas of similar density that has to provide its own green spaces.

[@mindstalk]

Look up "population-weighted density".

[@Jay-jq6bl]

That part of Edmonton you show at 2:33 has part of the CP rail yard that's getting decommissioned. The whole industrial area between 91st and Calgary Trail is ideal for being rezoned to mixed use when they bring the airport to downtown express rail line. It's right along the corridor to Calgary, so any intercity rail service could use the right of way too.

[@jacobcowan5969]

Hey! I used to live in your example of a medium density urban neighborhood in Minneapolis! I didn't realize it was even that dense. Regardless, it's getting a lot denser in the last few years, lots of new apartment buildings being built.

[@blune6244]

I also just saw my building as an example for high density. What are the odds!

[@fourzerozerozero]

Was just in Dinkytown too lol

[@dextervincent2433]

Something you didn’t quite cover in this is multi-family detached houses. ‘Triple Deckers’ are the bread and butter of New England cities and they allow Providence, for example, to reach Philly densities.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

There are so many interesting housing typologies that we had to skip over to cover the whole spectrum in a reasonable amount of time

[@aarons3008]

Thanks!

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Thank you!

[@doomcat6426]

Would you mind making a video about density and crime? My brother-in-law's one problem with urbanism is that he believes that higher density causes more crime and I cant seem to find much about it.

[@lewisroach8723]

Well that sounds pretty accurate to me since logically more people in a given area would have a higher number of criminals and chances for people to commit crimes against each other. Although I don't think this necessarily means the areas are worse in terms of crime measured....per capita? As in number of crimes per, say 1000 people in an area. My instinct would be that higher density equals more total crimes but fewer crimes per 1000 people, though definitely many cities have good and the 'bad' parts so density is likely to be far from the only factor in determining crime rates regardless.

[@Chocolate-wb1bu]

Well, Tokyo is very dense but very safe. Meanwhile you have Rio de Janeiro which is also dense but has a lot of crime. If you have multiple examples of dense places with completely different levels of crime, i'd argue density itself is not the problem.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

It's an interesting topic, we'll keep it in mind

[@beback_]

It’s definitely true. If you really want to “refute” it you can point out the greater context of all violent deaths in a dense city: you are indeed more likely to be murdered by a stranger, but that’s overwhelmed by how less likely you are to die in a car crash.

[@MrAronymous]

Sounds to me it's connected to American socio-economic status quo. The cities live in higher densities than the suburbs and in the cities more crime happens than the suburbs, therefore higher density breeds more crime. What that fails to realize is that America is very segregated socio-economically. So much so that saying in a lot of places someone or something looks "urban" is the same as calling someone black or poor. A lot of middle down the road American suburbs are more unsafe than a lot of European dense city neighbourhoods. It's not a density issue per se.

[@radishpineapple74]

Regarding the "frickin' lake" might I suggest you do a video on Madison, Wisconsin? Madison is one of the 3 platinum cities rated by the Bike League and the city is in the process of overhauling its bus routes and creating some new BRT lines.

[@gphoops1]

Love the video as always! Really appreciate your point about how socio-ecomoic factors impact density. Here in Seattle, Washington the most dense tract is the student housing for the University of Washington with a density of 124,339.3 people per square mile. None of the residential buildings here are even 10 stories tall. As this area starts to see nearly 30 story towers catering to students it will be interesting to see how dense the U district in Seattle will get.

[@mariusfacktor3597]

3:12 They could have made that parking lot half the size and fit the same number of spaces and then they'd have green space for a garden or shared patio. I can't stand arrogance of space.

[@smallstudiodesign]

Very thorough and thoughtful analysis of a much often misunderstood & hotly debated concept in urbanism/NIMBY neighbourhood town hall meetings.

[@bearcubdaycare]

Thanks! A very helpful visualization.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Thank you!

[@cartermoberg3092]

Really enjoyed this slightly different video from your usually line up!! Amazing work as always

[@anonuser12345]

I think this might be the best video you guys have made yet, the graphics are very helpful in understanding density

[@loveinseattle]

Can you do a video on the rise of remote/hybrid work and how that could impact and ideally benefit city cores?

[@winstonsolipsist1741]

From what I have read, most remote workers in the States are moving away from the city cores to smaller towns and suburbs.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

Very informative video,a nice change of pace for the channel

[@matthays9497]

Fascinating examples! If you ever do a video with 500 more, I'll watch it, particularly in urban districts. It's interesting to watch how new buildings affect street activity. One lesson after watching a few cycles is that truly busy sidewalks take a metric ton of new housing (with other uses) -- what I used to think 500 units would accomplish might take over 2,000 in the same area. I seem to need 100,000 per square mile at the census tract level.

[@Joskemom]

This was so informative. I live near Los Angeles and I do work in Riverside. I have seen just about all the different densities mentioned here. As a Gen Contractor who draws his own blueprints, I have to design within the confines of the client's space. Also, as a builder I have to deal with density issues such as the over crowded residential streets in Long Beach, the narrow one 'lane' streets in some parts of LA where you or the other car coming the opposite direction has to pull over some drive way so as to pass, to the breath of fresh air when I go to Riverside where the density is the lowest on the scale. Foot note: a couple of years ago I read where someone, who did the math and figured, you could put the entire population of the world, using the density ratio of New York city, in the State of Texas.

[@shh5440]

I really love my "high density ecological sustainable" apt. I just love hearing my neighbors loud music, screaming kids, auto exhaust fumes, looking at the tops of roofs and windows of apts across the street, homeless peeing on the sidewalk, lovely. I feel so responsible for saving the environment at the cost of mental stability. I have my drugs...thank you No yard work..no long commute,.,.no commute at all since i cannot function in this environment. Oh...gosh...I heard a bird...saw a rat...wildlife. I have "walkability" to the market but it closed due to mob looting...thanks again.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Where in the world do you live?! Have you ever been to a city?

[@elliotwilliams7421]

​@@OhTheUrbanitythat's exactly what a city is. Have you ever been to a city? It's the inevitable outcome without social and economic segregation, but that raises other issues such as lack of employment. if everyone in one area has closer wage demands then it's common sense to realise that there won't be enough work locally and they'll have to travel god knows where and on public transport wasting time and money. Ive lived on council estates, washing machine is broke, throw it out the window.........will be worse when people can't drive to their door. Stuff will just be dumped outside. Mixed zones bring rodents, dirty neighbours bring rodents.

[@TomPVideo]

Wow! This video is really informative. I have a funny feeling it'll become part of the "welcome to urbanism" package when people discover this topic. For me though, this video highlights what I'm seeing happen around me. The City of Vancouver is not shy about rezoning detached houses along arterial streets and I'm watching 5 detached medium-density suburban homes get replaced with over 110 apartments in a mid-rise building. That single building will have more people than several blocks of houses. And bring it on! We already have great commercial options here and more people will just make it better.

[@DevynCairns]

It's just sad that they only do it along arterials. That's my biggest complaint with them. They're often not very comfortable streets for non-automobiles (just look at Main St) and it also means that you have less within walking distance, because everything is in a line rather than on a grid. I would much rather they rezone entire areas/blocks at a time rather than thinking that every apartment has to have a bus stop immediately in front of it

[@mindstalk]

@@DevynCairns "Okay, we'll build more housing but they'll all have to breathe the worst pollution, because poor people's lives don't matter."

[@dropatrain]

Crazy how fidi has the highest density lot and yet feels like a ghost town on weekends.

[@williamstevens548]

Interesting video, being from britain its interesting to see how urban form differs in the US. Typical suburbs in the UK are around 5000-8000 people per km^2, especially semi-detatched edwardian era suburbs built in the interwar period.

[@eCitaroFan]

At the end of the day, density doesn't do much to improve walkablity and transit usage unless commercial/mixed use development is allowed in more areas, including residential streets in a small scale. Parts of the east and north side of my city are around the same density but in general, the east side is more walkable because commercial/mixed use is more allowed on the east side

[@rileynicholson2322]

Something else to consider is that neighbourhood density can be substantially different than census tract density, since census texts are usually drawn to include an approximate number of people, not land. All the examples of very high density were really just a building or two, where you would likely find a much lower average density if you expanded the search area to cover the footprint of a few suburban blocks. It's basically the same situation as the residential neighbourhoods with higher population densities than their city or metro area. It leads to a weird situation where you could have an apartment in the middle of nowhere and depending on how you draw the tract, the density will look very different.

[@rlclark50]

This is such a great idea to cover visually, showing what density really looks like. It also is a good primer into how density can be composited from uniform vs. stratified building styles in a single census tract to average a given density. I do also like medium urban density comprised mostly by good land utilization without the need to build up many floors. It seems like the most affordable way to achieve density meaning increasing inventory at affordable prices. It also offers good flexibility. However, as you've stated in videos past, we also cannot turn our nose up to the high-rise as this can sometimes provide the catalyst to convert surrounding lower density with bad lot usage into more medium, lower-rise density. Plus, they are pretty grand and cool to look at. Yay for density!

[@MultigrainKevinOs]

Great video and future reference. Will be sure to call back to this video when talking urbanism online to help quantify just how much more density we can handle in a space and how the character of an area changes very little when doubling or quadrupling populations.

[@LisaMiza]

Wonderful use of google earth's video making tools! 👌🏼👌🏼

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Thank you! It's Google Earth Studio, which provides much cleaner imagery (without all the interface elements of regular Google Earth)

[@LisaMiza]

@@OhTheUrbanity In Google Earth Pro, right? The program. Straight screencaptures do look really rough, so it's always a delight to see some more presentation mode things. Just wish you could change the ease of the keypoints, it is a bit jerky sometimes

[@ChasmChaos]

Thank you. I was wondering about what software they used for making the visuals.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

@@LisaMiza Google Earth Pro might have some of the same functionality, but Google Earth Studio is standalone and web-based (www.google.com/earth/studio/). You have to request access - we got approved pretty quickly but I'm not sure if having a KZbin channel helped.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

@@ChasmChaos www.google.com/earth/studio/

[@acchaladka]

Nice work as usual...a next question for me is which configuration is most energy, carbon, and land-efficient. I know that's not an easy topic but have understood that the more dense, the more ecologically efficient so to speak.

[@CABOOSEBOB]

Can you include some European examples of these densities in another video? I’m curious what the densities of some places I’ve been to there are

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Would love to if I can access the data! If anyone's reading this, feel free to suggest an R package for accessing European census data

[@jaredsussman8112]

I would love for you to explore some DC areas. Based on the pictures my neighborhood is similar to yours in Montreal. 25,000 people per square mile. I love it. Walking, biking, and metro makes getting anywhere a breeze.

[@jaredsussman8112]

Actually the density is closer to the Brooklyn neighborhood, but it seems less so, just like that neighborhood.

[@jonpata9869]

Super enjoyable video! Would love a deeper dive of each with more street views of each Also how each could in theory achieve a "15 minute city" (if possible at all)

[@SeaToSkyImages]

Great visualization of rural to urban densities. Thanks!

[@knarf_on_a_bike]

Now THAT was educational! Thanks for this.

[@yukko_parra]

After your video I decided to analyse what kind of density people live in Australia. The halfway point (as in, 50% of people live above this density) in density is around 2Kpp/km (Mid-Suburban) for Australia 4Kpp/km (High-Suburban) for Sydney 3.5Kpp/km-ish (High-Suburban) for Melbourne. Sydney also has most of the most dense pockets of land, some not within the CBD and instead near train stations, though most in predominantly Asian places (Haymarket, Rockdale, Strathfield, Blacktown (East)?). Melbourne also has some insanely dense areas in Southbank, the locality south of its CBD. However I could only find 2016 data for SA1 area (smallest locality possible), so if anyone wants to out do me, feel free to get your excel hands on. (Based on ABS data)

[@JoshuaHeagleDev]

Always happy to hear my town of Ajax mentioned. Our council are always trying to improve accessibility, alternative means of transit, and increase housing. We still have a long way to go, but I am happy to see the direction they are going. They have committed to not develop on the remaining unused land and to preserve it in a natural state. This means that currently designated residential land will have to increase in density.

[@michaelbodell7740]

I live in Santa Clara, although not in the place that was the higher density suburban example, but cost would be another interesting way to split some of these examples. The higher density example in Santa Clara has those houses estimated at about US$1,250/sq ft and generally somewhere about $1.5-$2 Million or so. Be interesting to see how both the cost to individual purchasing, as well as the per person cost to the municipality to maintain the amenities and support of the neighborhood changed in each of those densities.

[@coocoo3336]

I like the vancouver style tall buildings and open space model.

[@transportationland6395]

8000 people per km² seems perfect for me, pretty dense for a suburb, but low density urban wise. I personally like the aesthetics of dense SFH. What do you guys think of Pocket neighbourhoods? (Cottage Courts)

[@kyleh698]

This video was just gold. FAVE VIDEO OF 2024

[@matthewbuneta7579]

Honestly I wish more urbanist creators discussed the role truly rural communities (not just suburban commuter types) play in urban design philosophy, and the world of the future.

[@billyte1265]

I really wanted to see more street level views like at 2:27 for all the density types. It really helped visualize how a community like that would feel much more than the satelite view.

[@Plazmageco]

Love seeing Madison, WI here! Super good urbanist city (although not particularly dense)

[@pbilk]

Thank you for this informational and visual video! This was great to watch!

[@jlpack62]

I have lived in low density suburbia, higher density suburbia but still single family homes, higher density mixed housing but still housing, and in midrise/highrise/mixed use neighborhoods. I am most comfortable in a density in the 12,000/m2 or 31,000/km2 that also has lots of mixed uses that attracts others that come to the neighborhood at certain times and/or certain days. I love the action that these additional people contribute, but I also enjoy some downtime in my neighborhood where I can exhale and recharge.

[@Zedprice]

I've constantly thought we need new vocabulary for this. Semiurban: What you're calling "lower and medium density urban" Urban: What you're calling "upper medium density and high density urban" Superurban: What you're calling "very high density urban"

[@Zedprice]

@Nick Gerz I think that's true, but that makes these extra words helpful. A lot of people hear "urban" and think Tokyo, when you may be meaning "Paris" or "Rotterdam." Having the extra words, "Superurban" for Tokyo and "Semiurban" for Rotterdam helps.

[@mindstalk]

@@Zedprice So, uh, Tokyo's official density is 6300, while Paris's is 21,000. The "23 wards" of Tokyo which is more like the proper urban area is still 15,000. Sure, Tokyo has a lot of buildings taller than Paris's 8 story max, but it also has a lot of two story houses (albeit on small lots). Tokyo and Osaka tend to pile up tall buildings right by train stations, while having single-family houses a 10 minute walk away, vs. Paris's 6-8 stories _everywhere_. They also have a lot of small neighborhood parking lots, which blot out a lot of potential by virtue of being surface parking: 30 m2 of parking lot is displacing at least 60 m2 of building (since buildings would start at 2 stories).

[@Zedprice]

@@mindstalk This is a good point, which is why these words might be better suited to describing architectural forms in specific neighborhoods, rather than entire cities. For example, a tall skyscraper full offices and no housing is "superurban" even if no one lives in it.

[@dxelson]

Where I live, Macau, my building alone can house 608 people or more. 38 floors, 4 apartments per floor, about 4 people per household. We are a complex of six 38floor x 4 apartments, and six 28floor x 6 apartments.

[@sheltonnthaks7689]

here in China, developers would often build 7-33 storeys residential buildings according to profit, the preference for Storey numbers are 18 and 33 because the higher you built the more regulations you have to obey which increases the cost. 18th floor: From the 11th floor onwards, safety exits are required, and from the 18th floor onwards, two are required. Additionally, the stairwells from the 11th to 18th floors also need to be designed with enclosed exits. So the one that earns money, spends less money, and has less trouble is the 18th floor 33rd floor: What about those without restrictions? How about going up again? According to the "General Rules for Design of Civil Buildings" in China, when the height of a building exceeds 100m, both residential and public buildings are super high-rise buildings. (Foreign countries still need to meet the requirement of 40 floors or above), and the 33 floors are more than 100 meters up, which is another standard in terms of both specifications and safety. Therefore, the 33 layers earn more money and have less trouble.

[@badhombre4683]

Density is tricky as it can easily be skewed by extremes such as high-density buildings or large swaths or unpopulated lands. Madrid for example has a density of about 5500 ppl/sqkm but it feels much denser than that, and in fact, if you remove the massive parks from the calculation, it indeed becomes denser.

[@allamasadi7970]

Such a great video!! I think the urban density in some places may increase as the high housing costs will mean some people will start living in their cars

[@DanielSRosehill]

Fantastic visual presentation. Thank you!

[@qolspony]

I like Montreal best. It takes advantage of all available space for living. It allows businesses to establish on ground level. While towers in a park design segregates the buildings from the surrounding area making the space surrounding it useless. It prevents any chance of establishing a local business on the ground floor. So it's like living in a gated community without a gate. That makes it less attractive for a vibrant area. It is easier for garbage control. But other than that, it's a useless design.

[@MrAronymous]

The biggest problem with tower in the park design is that the space in between becomes undefined. It's not a real park, because buildings too close and not enough greenery. But it's also not a private green space, because not enclosed enough so doesn't feel private. The land use is therefore not optimal. Both a proper park or a proper enclosed private garden would have a bigger effect on the usefulness of the green space for inhabitants. If you want to "look out on green" you can also just make streets themselves very lush and green. Don't need so much undefined space for that.

[@philipvargas478]

I cant believe my neighbourhood was shown in a video, so cool!!

[@KannikCat]

Hahaha, what is it about Quebec that has the backyard pools be so ubiquitous? I noticed this difference when I was young and visiting my relatives every year, and looking out the car window I see that nearly everyone had a pool. Very amusing. :) Also cool that Quebec equally embraces (or at least resists less) mid-density urban to create more livable cities. Great video, merci!

[@fatherfountain1906]

I know it would be a lot harder to find the data, but it would have been really cool and helpful to include some examples from Europe too, specifically the UK! Would have helped broaden the perspective

[@fatherfountain1906]

@user-vo9wd6tx6c The video isn’t about whole cities though it’s about individual areas and what that density looks like. Density varies massively across both London and NYC.

[@pianoman47]

Would be cool to see some examples of low/medium/high density neighbourhoods with shops/offices/etc. mixed in vs. without. And then compare to transportation mode shares. It would be tough to find that type of data, though. I enjoyed the video!

[@definitelynotacrab7651]

Those were really helpful, thanks!

[@inund8]

Do you think you could do a pop dens 102, where you look at places outside of US and Canada? I'm curious how places like Sydney, Australia can have many of the same (or better) amenities as Los Angeles, despite having a much smaller density. Or rather, how and when does population density affect residents.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

The sequel, focusing on Australia and New Zealand, is in the works!

[@inund8]

@@OhTheUrbanity Oh be still my beating heart! 💗💗💗💗💗💗💗

[@mindstalk]

So, it can be risky to just look up official population density (e.g. on Wikipedia) without knowing what's really included. US cities like Boston or Chicago or San Francisco tend to be fully surrounded by suburbs and water so you can be fairly sure that the official area is in fact urban. (Helps that I've lived in those places.) But elsewhere you can get city boundaries that include a bunch of undeveloped or rural land and thus give a low density that doesn't reflect the 'real' city. Again from my experience, La Serena Chile is officially 100/km2. (No typo: one hundred.) But that's not because everyone is spread out; the actual housing is quite compact. Wikipedia uses some huge definition of its land which must include farms and mountains. Wiki claims 433/km2 for Sydney, but I spent 3 weeks there; everything I was was a lot denser than that. E.g. various Bondi suburbs of Sydney are 7000-11,500 people/km2. Waverley Council is 7400. Over to the west, the Municipality of Burwood is 5700. Meanwhile, the city of Los Angeles is 3200. So, probably, the parts of Sydney that have better amenities are the parts that have reasonable density, even if "Sydney" also includes rural land between train stations or something.

[@soundoftoday10]

Thanks for adding English subtitles. English is not my native language. Greetings from South America

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Not a problem, we know how useful subtitles can be for second languages from our experience watching videos in French

[@soundoftoday10]

@@OhTheUrbanity Oh, great! I could have realised it before. It was an interesting vide

[@lizcademy4809]

My neighborhood is less dense than I thought - 15,000 per mi² or 6,000 per km². It's an urban neighborhood, 2 miles from downtown, very walkable. I'm in a duplex, there are lots of duplexes and triplexes, low rise apartments, and single family houses on small lots. I guess there are more single family houses than I thought! [And fewer kids ... there are few children around here; if there were more the density would be higher.] Most buildings are also set back from the street enough for small front yards. Most also have mature trees, so the feel is almost suburban. Yet I can walk 2 short blocks to 2 different major shopping streets.

[@inesalag]

I love that ypu take turns to talk.

[@josecampos7157]

Since square kilometer means nothing to me I was forced to convert it to acres by dividing the number by 250. Semi-rural comes in at 2 per acre all the way up to 512 per acre(85sq ft per person) in very high urban. Divide by 3 once again to get the amount of housing units.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

We also provided square miles in the video and in the pinned comment

[@MrAronymous]

You don't need to convert, you can simply take it as is. You can see that one is double the other, and there is imagery provided. It is contextualised with each other in a single video.

[@ttopero]

The last two minutes showing the ground level is actually more important to the typical resident. We planners just tend to see the city more from the bird’s eye & forget that it represents 1% of people’s view of their cities.

[@antonburdin9756]

What is the lower density boundary, witch makes infrastructure viable (basic infrastructure, different forms of public transport)?

[@mindstalk]

The US has 8500 people per supermarket. Suppose that a walkable neighborhood should have at least 2 supermarkets in a 12 minute walk (two for competition and redundancy if one closes.) On a street grid, the area of a diamond is 2*r^2, r being the 'radius' from center to corner. If you walk 1 km in 12 minutes, that's 2 km2. So you want around 8500 people/km2. Around the density of nice places I've lived. For an even lower bound: accept only one supermarket, and say it's a bit smaller, just 8000 people. At 4000 people/km2, a 1km 'radius' diamond will have enough people to support it. Note that if biking is made safe, even slow biking of 15 kph (3x walking speed) can get you nearly 10x the area of walking.

[@antonburdin9756]

@@mindstalk , thank you for your suggestions - you are proposing interesting approach. At the same time I see some problems with it. On one hand, Amsterdam has a population density of less than 5000 p/sq km and a very advanced infrastructure, so I would expect much lower targets. On the other hand, you don't really need supermarkets at all - you can leave with some smaller corner stores instead.

[@mindstalk]

@@antonburdin9756 True, my approach is crude. OTOH, the Dutch bicycle a _lot_, which increases accessible area by 10x. There's also whether the official density is just 'urban' or is diluted by outer green space or farms. There's also that I'm estimating density for a walkable neighborhood; a city will have a lower density, diluted by industrial and major commercial districts even if the borders don't include farmland. My decently walkable neighborhood in Chicago had nearly twice the density of Chicago as a whole (9200 vs. 5000-ish at the time)

[@antonburdin9756]

@@mindstalk , it is more about averages rather then minimums.

[@caseybechtel7518]

I'd like to see a video where you analyze the "critical mass" needed to have quality walkable neighborhoods with essential services nearby. It seems that the density has a huge factor in certain business succeeding.

[@charleskummerer]

No examples of Chicago which has several of the highest density census block group is wild...

[@mic1240]

Many of the older US cities have suburbs which are densely populated, sone more than the city’s they’re next to…they have densely populated multi unit buildings on small lots, often bordering city proper and on transit lines. The majority of US residents live in suburbs (not cities) and the range of density is wide, just are differences in city densities with NE US generally more densely populated.

[@dumbguy1007]

My suburban town in the uk has a population density just under 4000 but feels more compact than the examples in this video, possibly due to large back gardens and a couple of big grass field parks bringing the side down. I think the UK in general is pretty bad at getting the density Vs space right, with cramped homes but not the positive effects of dense neighbourhoods to make up for it, and a phobia of building anything above 2 stories (3 at a push) now we have so-called new build estates popping up on the edges of towns with no bus access for the car-brained as a naff, tiny town version of American suburbs. Just with tiny gardens in the back and massive cars (with even bigger loan payments) out front. These are supposed to be for families but offer very little for older kids or teenagers to do.

[@BluePieNinjaTV]

What's also interesting is that transit becomes viable around 2,000km^2 and goes up from there. What is also interesting is here in Australia, there are many locations that appear suburban (1-2 storey detached homes) but could have densities approaching 6,000km^2

[@DevynCairns]

Do you know what level of density maps up with each mode of transit? That would be interesting Tell me more about the 6000km^2 suburban neighborhoods

[@BluePieNinjaTV]

@@DevynCairns I'm not too sure what level of density maps up to what but you can definitely have transit serve communities well from 2,000km^2. As for this suburb, I'm thinking of Craigieburn in Melbourne, Australia. There are 66,000 people living there over an area of 11.3km^2. It's a growth suburb on the fringe of the city so the population there will only increase. It's basically single-family homes with pockets of townhouse developments that cluster near parks or supermarkets. Homes normally take up like 90% of the lot area though so back/front yards are pretty much non-existant which is common in new-build areas. Unfortunately transit development is lagging behind but a bus review recently redid the 5 or so bus routes through the suburb to make them every 20min or so throughout the day, but much more needs to be done.

[@simonpascaud3715]

Do you think you could talk in another video about the population density of little cities, towns and villages ?

[@ChasmChaos]

I love your content!

[@eidfz]

What determines that 16k people per sqkm is classified as medium density? Is there like a unified set of standards applied globally?

[@puddingtame1787]

This is great, remind me of the Eamses' Powers of Ten film!

[@minimappering]

This is very informative! I love it! this will help a lot with building in City Skylines!

[@linuxman7777]

And what is kind of ironic is that at all density levels you can find walkable and unwalkable places. My camp out in a rural area is more walkable than my parents high density suburban home, as the closest shop to my parent's suburban home is over 2 miles away, while my camp has 4-5 restaurants, a General Store, a convinence store, and a few bars within walking distance, of about .5 mi radius.

[@TartarianTopG]

This was really good!!

[@dukeloo]

What about Los Ranchos De Albuquerque?

[@TereniaDelamay]

Why are there so many pools in Quebec?

[@OhTheUrbanity]

Here's an article: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/explaining-quebecs-love-of-the-backyard-plunge/article4432113/

[@shauncameron8390]

@@OhTheUrbanity Too bad Quebec also has the distinction of having the most pool drowning deaths in Canada.

[@Adamsmithv]

How many of the examples shown actually occupy 1 km2 of land? when you reach the high density examples seems like none of them are, which skews the results.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

How does it "skew" the results? We're showing what different levels of density look like. The highest levels of density only exist in smaller pockets, as opposed to being consistent across a whole neighbourhood. If we can only show larger neighbourhoods, that means cutting off the list and not showing the higher densities.

[@Adamsmithv]

Basing density/km² on a couple buildings seems arbitrary to me. For example, if you put the 2 manhattan skyscrapers in the laval census tract with the golf course it would be high density suburban. If you factored in the rest of the manhattan census tract of 0.02 km² it would be lower density urban, etc. Basing population density on neighbourhoods, blocks, districts seem to make more sense to me. The population density of the wider Manhattan community 1 board district is still insane at 117,000/km² over 4km². Anyways great content.

[@oggyreidmore]

A population density of 5,000 per square kilometer is the break even point to generate the tax revenue to sustain the paved roads, water/sewer system, trash collection, electrical grid, etc., without property taxes getting too high or the infrastructure/services suffering from neglect. That new, spacious suburb looks great today, but 30 years from now the city will go bankrupt trying to maintain it without raising taxes to astronomical levels.

[@RextheRebel]

Geeze, I don't care how bad a suburb might get or look. It is never as bad an ugly, dense, high rise area in the city. I want land. I want space. I want to be left alone, or at least have enough space between my neighbors that we don't bother each each other. Duplexes and fourplexes and bungalow courts do seem like great options for people however, who want a balance between density and individuality.

[@Kizarat]

If it weren't for Euclidian zoning laws, what density trend would we have seen in North American cities after WW2? Would it have been a continuation of medium density / missing middle housing?

[@taxevader4095]

yes in most cases 3-5 stories is the cheapest per foot of floorspace so capatalism woulve done its thing

[@baddriversofcolga]

The thing I hate about single family housing (other than the sprawl and what now) is how wasteful people are with their land. People cover their property in ecologically useless non-native turfgrass despite most people having no use for it. Then they use vast amounts of resources to maintain it. Instead they could be doing something good like growing native plants or having an edible garden.

[@steemlenn8797]

What? In the end you even want them to have natural flowers or even bushes, HAAHHH!!!???!! Think how ugly this is if people can't see if you painted your frotn door in the right shade of white-gey while driving past in tehir mobile thrones!

[@baddriversofcolga]

@@steemlenn8797Lol!

[@erins9271]

Can you do a top 10 list of dwelling units per square km?