What is the BEST Density for Cities
video description
Date: 2026-07-10
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
city_beautiful
It was an excellent video. At 9: 42, he mentions that cities that are a low density lead to long commutes, pollution and ugly cities. That is apt. Many cities in Canada and The USA are full of big roads, strip malls, freeways and generic houses. Compared to Barcelona, Paris and Singapore, 3 places I visited, they are hideous. And I am baffled that so many people in Toronto, Houston and Los Angeles drive an hour to and from work, as opposed to walking or a quick subway trip. Also, a good thing about living in an apartment / condo tower is that each floor is often big, and thus people can have a large living room and large bedrooms, but still be in a dense neighborhood. Many houses in Toronto are narrow; 3 meters across, but still detached. Their rooms are tiny. But the McMansions in suburbia have large rooms, but are in boring neighborhoods where public transport is lousy or non existent. A large condo / apartment in a city has the best of both worlds: lots of space and in a dense city. I do not agree with the concept of a 4 story building. One of the best things about an apartment or a condo, that is extremely difficult to have from a detached house, is a spectacular view. People in Chicago and NYC, 2 places I visited, might have a view from their 90th floor unit. If the building is near a body of water, one does not have to worry about a larger building being built near and ruining the view. Regrettably, some people in Canada and The USA are obsessed with living in a detached house, despite the many problems (maintenance, boring neighborhoods, commutes, car expenses) I have 2 friends, a coworker and an acquaintance who HATED living in condos & insist on living in detached houses. They were all shocked when I pointed out that in Hong Kong, 99% of people live in skyscrapers. Lastly, I feel strongly about this issue. I grew up in a suburb and barely had a social life. It would take 70 minutes to walk to my best friends house, and and 90 minutes to walk to other friends houses. The bus only went in 2 directions, there were huge hills & my mom refused to drive me around. Where I grew up, a gorgeous 15 yo girl who has a sense of humor would sit at home on Saturday night, because her parents do not drive her around.
reply
It was an excellent video. At 9: 42, he mentions that cities that are a low density lead to long commutes, pollution and ugly cities. That is apt. Many cities in Canada and The USA are full of big roads, strip malls, freeways and generic houses. Compared to Barcelona, Paris and Singapore, 3 places I visited, they are hideous. And I am baffled that so many people in Toronto, Houston and Los Angeles drive an hour to and from work, as opposed to walking or a quick subway trip. Also, a good thing about living in an apartment / condo tower is that each floor is often big, and thus people can have a large living room and large bedrooms, but still be in a dense neighborhood. Many houses in Toronto are narrow; 3 meters across, but still detached. Their rooms are tiny. But the McMansions in suburbia have large rooms, but are in boring neighborhoods where public transport is lousy or non existent. A large condo / apartment in a city has the best of both worlds: lots of space and in a dense city. I do not agree with the concept of a 4 story building. One of the best things about an apartment or a condo, that is extremely difficult to have from a detached house, is a spectacular view. People in Chicago and NYC, 2 places I visited, might have a view from their 90th floor unit. If the building is near a body of water, one does not have to worry about a larger building being built near and ruining the view. Regrettably, some people in Canada and The USA are obsessed with living in a detached house, despite the many problems (maintenance, boring neighborhoods, commutes, car expenses) I have 2 friends, a coworker and an acquaintance who HATED living in condos & insist on living in detached houses. They were all shocked when I pointed out that in Hong Kong, 99% of people live in skyscrapers. Lastly, I feel strongly about this issue. I grew up in a suburb and barely had a social life. It would take 70 minutes to walk to my best friends house, and and 90 minutes to walk to other friends houses. The bus only went in 2 directions, there were huge hills & my mom refused to drive me around. Where I grew up, a gorgeous 15 yo girl who has a sense of humor would sit at home on Saturday night, because her parents do not drive her around.
reply
jr3wx
I've happily lived in DC without a car for 20 years and it's definitely one of the best places in the US to do that! Overall it's a fantastic place to live.
Except for several big urgent policy failures, including:
Our housing prices are a nightmare, some of the worst in the country. The height act desperately needs an update to allow for a lot more new housing without sacrificing the sunlight and smallish-city vibe. Despite how pressed we are for housing and land to build it on, there are somehow still a mind-boggling number of one-story grocery stores with big parking lots within DC's borders. And it's a constant fight to keep Metro funded enough to provide better than only 30-min bus service in a shocking number of neighborhoods. The Trump administration firing so many federal workers and moving so many more away from the DC area means our employment density is taking a significant hit, and when considered alongside the concentrated ICE presence and repeated egregious challenges to Home Rule, it feels like a purposeful attack against DC and our overwhelmingly progressive residents. We just elected a Democratic Socialist mayor (in the Democratic primary, but the Dem primary winner almost always goes on to win the general election here) and I'm hopeful that Janeese Lewis George will be able to make headway on these problems in the near term while we keep fighting for statehood and future presidents who won't be hostile to our city.
reply
I've happily lived in DC without a car for 20 years and it's definitely one of the best places in the US to do that! Overall it's a fantastic place to live.
Except for several big urgent policy failures, including:
Our housing prices are a nightmare, some of the worst in the country. The height act desperately needs an update to allow for a lot more new housing without sacrificing the sunlight and smallish-city vibe. Despite how pressed we are for housing and land to build it on, there are somehow still a mind-boggling number of one-story grocery stores with big parking lots within DC's borders. And it's a constant fight to keep Metro funded enough to provide better than only 30-min bus service in a shocking number of neighborhoods. The Trump administration firing so many federal workers and moving so many more away from the DC area means our employment density is taking a significant hit, and when considered alongside the concentrated ICE presence and repeated egregious challenges to Home Rule, it feels like a purposeful attack against DC and our overwhelmingly progressive residents. We just elected a Democratic Socialist mayor (in the Democratic primary, but the Dem primary winner almost always goes on to win the general election here) and I'm hopeful that Janeese Lewis George will be able to make headway on these problems in the near term while we keep fighting for statehood and future presidents who won't be hostile to our city.
reply
jeremy6732
Video request: I have had a similar topic on my mind but about road intersection capacity. My current commute is one lane in each direction with no turning lanes at intersections. I can tell the traffic is slowly increasing to the point that the green light does does not clear in one or sometimes 2 cycles. Every time it happens I always wonder if there are levels of capacity an intersection. Where an intersection has a 2way stop sign, then 4 way stop, then light, light with a turn lane / signal, then a larger jump ie more lanes for the full length of the road or bike network options start being faster than waiting for the lights or public transit that would not get stuck in the same traffic. related to your video on the density being related to other transit options being available at what point does the existing car options become unreasonable because the area of 30 mins of travel would keep getting smaller and smaller with more traffic. And as long as the other options don't also get stuck in that traffic your could grow out of cars. But if everything is by car and other modes of transit also are stopped by the car, is there a density that makes it unlivable assuming no mixed zoning where you need to commute but there are no jobs in that commute radius. Sorry that was long, would love to hear your thoughts and others. Thanks for the videos.
reply
Video request: I have had a similar topic on my mind but about road intersection capacity. My current commute is one lane in each direction with no turning lanes at intersections. I can tell the traffic is slowly increasing to the point that the green light does does not clear in one or sometimes 2 cycles. Every time it happens I always wonder if there are levels of capacity an intersection. Where an intersection has a 2way stop sign, then 4 way stop, then light, light with a turn lane / signal, then a larger jump ie more lanes for the full length of the road or bike network options start being faster than waiting for the lights or public transit that would not get stuck in the same traffic. related to your video on the density being related to other transit options being available at what point does the existing car options become unreasonable because the area of 30 mins of travel would keep getting smaller and smaller with more traffic. And as long as the other options don't also get stuck in that traffic your could grow out of cars. But if everything is by car and other modes of transit also are stopped by the car, is there a density that makes it unlivable assuming no mixed zoning where you need to commute but there are no jobs in that commute radius. Sorry that was long, would love to hear your thoughts and others. Thanks for the videos.
reply
mikescar2
There is no real scientific evidence that the density targets for transit are true. There are plenty of areas like suburban Toronto that have very frequent bus service at lower densities than those targets. The book Transport for Suburbia goes into detail how these density goals have no real correlation to transit service and use.
Toronto's inner city, I feel strikes a good balance between density, providing a little space for a yard, and walkable neighbourhoods. Very streetcar suburban in spots. But these are the neighbourhoods people constantly rank as places they would like to live in.
Paris, NYC, etc are all great places. But most people don't want to live in apartments. Even in Greater Paris, many people live in single family home areas the are similar to streetcar suburban areas in North America. So that is why, I feel Toronto offers a good balance.
I was on a planning field trip years ago in Montreal. As beautiful as the duplexes are, and there is a market for them. The planner from Montreal was saying they have a hard time keeping families in the inner city, because people want a house with a small yard. So they have much higher numbers of families relocating to the suburbs than say Toronto's inner city, where one can have a house with a small yard and still walk places, etc.
reply
There is no real scientific evidence that the density targets for transit are true. There are plenty of areas like suburban Toronto that have very frequent bus service at lower densities than those targets. The book Transport for Suburbia goes into detail how these density goals have no real correlation to transit service and use.
Toronto's inner city, I feel strikes a good balance between density, providing a little space for a yard, and walkable neighbourhoods. Very streetcar suburban in spots. But these are the neighbourhoods people constantly rank as places they would like to live in.
Paris, NYC, etc are all great places. But most people don't want to live in apartments. Even in Greater Paris, many people live in single family home areas the are similar to streetcar suburban areas in North America. So that is why, I feel Toronto offers a good balance.
I was on a planning field trip years ago in Montreal. As beautiful as the duplexes are, and there is a market for them. The planner from Montreal was saying they have a hard time keeping families in the inner city, because people want a house with a small yard. So they have much higher numbers of families relocating to the suburbs than say Toronto's inner city, where one can have a house with a small yard and still walk places, etc.
reply
city_beautiful
Rural dweller here, from a village of 100
We historically had land devided into allmende(common lands, gewann(privatly used fields, and gemarkung(village perimiter.
Theres a bit of a pattern among village perimeters that they dont get much larger than 20 hectares(tough they do commonly enclose some commons, a pattern known as a Angerdorf)
The nearest city to my home was slightly larger than that, with the original gemarkung being like 15 hectares, eventually expanded to about 30 hectares tough(added 5 hectares of fortifications, and 10 hectares of city. Those 30 hectares historically had a population of 4500, so a density of like 13 thousand people per square kilometer. Before suburbanisation melted it into its hinterland over the last century
But anyway, long story short, i have come to belive that cities schouldnt dip below ten thousand people per square kilometer in regards to population density. 10 thousand people per square kilometer feels kinda like a minimum population density necessary for dignified urban life.
And in regards to area, i guess i would prefer a city thats no larger than 20 hectares, but if thats too big a ask, id atleast want it to be smaller than a square kilometer
reply
Rural dweller here, from a village of 100
We historically had land devided into allmende(common lands, gewann(privatly used fields, and gemarkung(village perimiter.
Theres a bit of a pattern among village perimeters that they dont get much larger than 20 hectares(tough they do commonly enclose some commons, a pattern known as a Angerdorf)
The nearest city to my home was slightly larger than that, with the original gemarkung being like 15 hectares, eventually expanded to about 30 hectares tough(added 5 hectares of fortifications, and 10 hectares of city. Those 30 hectares historically had a population of 4500, so a density of like 13 thousand people per square kilometer. Before suburbanisation melted it into its hinterland over the last century
But anyway, long story short, i have come to belive that cities schouldnt dip below ten thousand people per square kilometer in regards to population density. 10 thousand people per square kilometer feels kinda like a minimum population density necessary for dignified urban life.
And in regards to area, i guess i would prefer a city thats no larger than 20 hectares, but if thats too big a ask, id atleast want it to be smaller than a square kilometer
reply
city_beautiful
Tokyo achieves massive density with primarily 3-6 floor residential buildings on side streets, with most businesses along main streets. IMO this is the way to go. Tokyo can have crazy busy streets, but then you turn a corner and it's totally quiet and clearly primarily residential so ppl respect the conditions.
By contrast, I live in downtown Vancouver, where we have primarily 20 story buildings all throughout downtown and I'll tell you it is WAY louder and less enjoyable because when buildings are over 10 stories cars and pedestrians stop realising they're on a primarily residential block; you start feeling invisible when buildings are at that height or taller because it's past human scale. It also seems to make housing more expensive because the city is progressively rezoned to allow that increased density in small patchwork changes, one neighbourhood at a time. This drives up the value of the land as suddenly you're allowed giant dense towers, as opposed to Tokyo where basically the entire city would technically allow it, but it's not worth it because it's cheaper to build 5 cheap low rises on cheaper land than 1 giant concrete monster on small patches of prime high-density-allowed land.
reply
Tokyo achieves massive density with primarily 3-6 floor residential buildings on side streets, with most businesses along main streets. IMO this is the way to go. Tokyo can have crazy busy streets, but then you turn a corner and it's totally quiet and clearly primarily residential so ppl respect the conditions.
By contrast, I live in downtown Vancouver, where we have primarily 20 story buildings all throughout downtown and I'll tell you it is WAY louder and less enjoyable because when buildings are over 10 stories cars and pedestrians stop realising they're on a primarily residential block; you start feeling invisible when buildings are at that height or taller because it's past human scale. It also seems to make housing more expensive because the city is progressively rezoned to allow that increased density in small patchwork changes, one neighbourhood at a time. This drives up the value of the land as suddenly you're allowed giant dense towers, as opposed to Tokyo where basically the entire city would technically allow it, but it's not worth it because it's cheaper to build 5 cheap low rises on cheaper land than 1 giant concrete monster on small patches of prime high-density-allowed land.
reply
Player4Yellow
As far as I can tell, the best way to go is to allow multiple levels of density within a city. The design that speaks to me the most is that there's a really dense CBD, aka downtown (or even more than one) that has lots of mixed-use, high-rise apartment buildings and maybe skyscrapers too, but then as you go further out, the building heights gradually decrease until you reach the outer edges and find more single-family homes, duplexes, etc. The surface-level transit would also switch from trams to buses as you go less dense.
This doesn't work for every city, though; I've noticed that Amsterdam is greatly lacking in high-rise buildings, and I'm told that's because of the wet soil that wouldn't support them well. My idea, however, is what I'm planning to build in Cities: Skylines. And yes, it is important that the lower-density areas are still walkable, bikeable, and diverse! Vast swaths of nothing but stroads, parking lots, and isolated single-family neighborhoods, have no place in any urban or suburban area.
reply
As far as I can tell, the best way to go is to allow multiple levels of density within a city. The design that speaks to me the most is that there's a really dense CBD, aka downtown (or even more than one) that has lots of mixed-use, high-rise apartment buildings and maybe skyscrapers too, but then as you go further out, the building heights gradually decrease until you reach the outer edges and find more single-family homes, duplexes, etc. The surface-level transit would also switch from trams to buses as you go less dense.
This doesn't work for every city, though; I've noticed that Amsterdam is greatly lacking in high-rise buildings, and I'm told that's because of the wet soil that wouldn't support them well. My idea, however, is what I'm planning to build in Cities: Skylines. And yes, it is important that the lower-density areas are still walkable, bikeable, and diverse! Vast swaths of nothing but stroads, parking lots, and isolated single-family neighborhoods, have no place in any urban or suburban area.
reply
aerob1033
One thing I'd like to note that you touched on in the beginning a bit but didn't go into depth on in the density level examples themselves: Density can take many different forms. There are plenty of roughly one-acre blocks in Philadelphia with 35, 40, sometimes even 50 little townhomes/rowhouses on them. Each of those buildings could comfortably support as few as one but perhaps as many as four or even five people (depending on the specific height of the building and floor plan. On average, that easily clears the density needs to support a metro system, without ever getting into 5 over 1s or having somebody living above or below you. I only mention it because sometimes people have a reflexive I hate this response to apartment buildings like you see in DC or Paris. Most of Tokyo is planned around this idea of tightly packing narrow/small footprint single-family homes right next to each other, and their subway system is legendary. Good urbanism comes in many forms.
reply
One thing I'd like to note that you touched on in the beginning a bit but didn't go into depth on in the density level examples themselves: Density can take many different forms. There are plenty of roughly one-acre blocks in Philadelphia with 35, 40, sometimes even 50 little townhomes/rowhouses on them. Each of those buildings could comfortably support as few as one but perhaps as many as four or even five people (depending on the specific height of the building and floor plan. On average, that easily clears the density needs to support a metro system, without ever getting into 5 over 1s or having somebody living above or below you. I only mention it because sometimes people have a reflexive I hate this response to apartment buildings like you see in DC or Paris. Most of Tokyo is planned around this idea of tightly packing narrow/small footprint single-family homes right next to each other, and their subway system is legendary. Good urbanism comes in many forms.
reply
city_beautiful
I know it's probably a crazy sounding opinion here, but I think many cities could learn from Phoenix, when it comes to density.
No, I don't think Phoenix is the ideal density. But it has certain aspects that I think no city should be without. Almost everywhere you go, you can see some form of natural surface, the ground, a mountain in the distance, and a wide open sky. I think any city in which you can't see the Earth at all, because everything in view is an artificial built surface (like Midtown Manhattan, is too dense. A healthy level of density that doesn't totally obscure natural views can be achieved with most buildings being around 4 floors. In all areas, there should at least be some ground in view. Walking on the sidewalk, you should be able to see the ground nearby. If all you can see is an occasional tree surrounded by sidewalk, that's too dense.
reply
I know it's probably a crazy sounding opinion here, but I think many cities could learn from Phoenix, when it comes to density.
No, I don't think Phoenix is the ideal density. But it has certain aspects that I think no city should be without. Almost everywhere you go, you can see some form of natural surface, the ground, a mountain in the distance, and a wide open sky. I think any city in which you can't see the Earth at all, because everything in view is an artificial built surface (like Midtown Manhattan, is too dense. A healthy level of density that doesn't totally obscure natural views can be achieved with most buildings being around 4 floors. In all areas, there should at least be some ground in view. Walking on the sidewalk, you should be able to see the ground nearby. If all you can see is an occasional tree surrounded by sidewalk, that's too dense.
reply
ericdew2021
I’m in San Francisco. At city hall planning meetings regarding housing, we often get derisive NIMBY comments that we don’t want to Manhattanize San Francisco. And I can see that. But I counter that we should Parisify San Francisco. Paris and San Francisco are roughly the same size: 41 sq mi versus SF’s 48 sq mi. However, Paris has 2 million-plus residents versus SF’s 830k. And there’s no skyscrapers in Paris. So we can increase density, make beautiful skyline, and make SF more livable by increasing density.
You also use public transit as a metric of density and good city planning. I want to add number of small late-night restaurants. Restaurants seating about 20 people max that can stay open 24/7. If a city isn’t dense enough, you can’t support such businesses. And having such businesses makes for enjoyable living.
reply
I’m in San Francisco. At city hall planning meetings regarding housing, we often get derisive NIMBY comments that we don’t want to Manhattanize San Francisco. And I can see that. But I counter that we should Parisify San Francisco. Paris and San Francisco are roughly the same size: 41 sq mi versus SF’s 48 sq mi. However, Paris has 2 million-plus residents versus SF’s 830k. And there’s no skyscrapers in Paris. So we can increase density, make beautiful skyline, and make SF more livable by increasing density.
You also use public transit as a metric of density and good city planning. I want to add number of small late-night restaurants. Restaurants seating about 20 people max that can stay open 24/7. If a city isn’t dense enough, you can’t support such businesses. And having such businesses makes for enjoyable living.
reply
pierrehenry8208
I disagree with lack of towers being the reason Paris lack affordable housing:
Firstly Paris doesn't lack housing as 20% are empty.
Secondly the prices are mostly drove up by tourism and the laws that allow to increase that much the prices:
as there are a lot of tourist, people renting appartments to tourists can rent them at very high prices. So they can buy housing at very high prices at it still will be profitable.
So has there is some people who bought housing at that price, other sellers follow suit, and increase their price, and that's for every one.
If the laws go back to a reglemented housing market as it is an essential goods the prices will decrease a lot. Right now it is treated as an investissement by the law, so a lot is done so that the housing price increase
reply
I disagree with lack of towers being the reason Paris lack affordable housing:
Firstly Paris doesn't lack housing as 20% are empty.
Secondly the prices are mostly drove up by tourism and the laws that allow to increase that much the prices:
as there are a lot of tourist, people renting appartments to tourists can rent them at very high prices. So they can buy housing at very high prices at it still will be profitable.
So has there is some people who bought housing at that price, other sellers follow suit, and increase their price, and that's for every one.
If the laws go back to a reglemented housing market as it is an essential goods the prices will decrease a lot. Right now it is treated as an investissement by the law, so a lot is done so that the housing price increase
reply
busysaru888
Yeah, nah, I'd have to say Winterthur, Switzerland is how most medium-sized cities should be built. But if you're going for the Paris-style, they need balcony promenades shading sidewalks, and further stepped mini-balconies on up to green roofs with green walls and plants and handing plans on the balconies, well-maintained. Solar-awnings and roofs should be standard with mini-wind power generators that are more common now, balanced and silent. Geo-thermal to heat and cool with extensive hempcrete for insulation and carbon negative construction. Yes, they actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere. But they also need wind-corridors to help cool things. An roundabouts as they require no traffic lights, and allow traffic to flow continuously while calming it.
reply
Yeah, nah, I'd have to say Winterthur, Switzerland is how most medium-sized cities should be built. But if you're going for the Paris-style, they need balcony promenades shading sidewalks, and further stepped mini-balconies on up to green roofs with green walls and plants and handing plans on the balconies, well-maintained. Solar-awnings and roofs should be standard with mini-wind power generators that are more common now, balanced and silent. Geo-thermal to heat and cool with extensive hempcrete for insulation and carbon negative construction. Yes, they actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere. But they also need wind-corridors to help cool things. An roundabouts as they require no traffic lights, and allow traffic to flow continuously while calming it.
reply
rickemmet1104
Hi Dave, I watched this the other day and found it really interesting. Having walked some of those streets in Paris, I can attest to the beauty of both the architecture and the urban planning. And having just finished a video on Christopher Alexander and his concepts of urban design, it occurred that you may be talking about his work in many of your videos. You have talked about New Urbanism before, and it seems that a video specifically on Alexander would be worth making. His ideas look to be the curation of the thinking of thousands of builders and architects covering millennia and therefore should contain a great deal of wisdom. It also seems to fit in with most of your ideas on urban design. Hope to see such a video soon: )
reply
Hi Dave, I watched this the other day and found it really interesting. Having walked some of those streets in Paris, I can attest to the beauty of both the architecture and the urban planning. And having just finished a video on Christopher Alexander and his concepts of urban design, it occurred that you may be talking about his work in many of your videos. You have talked about New Urbanism before, and it seems that a video specifically on Alexander would be worth making. His ideas look to be the curation of the thinking of thousands of builders and architects covering millennia and therefore should contain a great deal of wisdom. It also seems to fit in with most of your ideas on urban design. Hope to see such a video soon: )
reply
AndrewChuter
The biggest (and probably false) assumption you made is that transit infrastructure is a fixed function of density. It isn't. It entirely depends on collective decisions we can make. We can make driving pay the full cost of its negative externalities, we can provide free public transport, narrow roads, widen footpaths, shorten wait times at pedestrian crossings etc etc.
Density improves the economics of public transport, but mode share is produced by a whole system: service frequency, network connectivity, parking supply and price, road priority, walking and cycling safety, land-use mix, access to destinations, and the legal and fiscal privileges given to driving.
reply
The biggest (and probably false) assumption you made is that transit infrastructure is a fixed function of density. It isn't. It entirely depends on collective decisions we can make. We can make driving pay the full cost of its negative externalities, we can provide free public transport, narrow roads, widen footpaths, shorten wait times at pedestrian crossings etc etc.
Density improves the economics of public transport, but mode share is produced by a whole system: service frequency, network connectivity, parking supply and price, road priority, walking and cycling safety, land-use mix, access to destinations, and the legal and fiscal privileges given to driving.
reply
RyanJacobs496
It’s much better when discussing density to use population weighted density rather than simple density. Population weighted density reflects how people actually perceive the density.
A classic example is Sydney. Greater Sydney area divided by population gives a density of 430/sq km which is roughly the same as Jacksonville, Florida. However, the population weighted density is actually 4, 000-4, 200/sq km. Roughly comparable to Chicago or Miami.
This is because the Greater Sydney statistical area takes in large swaths of national park surrounding the city that that is completely devoid of people.
reply
It’s much better when discussing density to use population weighted density rather than simple density. Population weighted density reflects how people actually perceive the density.
A classic example is Sydney. Greater Sydney area divided by population gives a density of 430/sq km which is roughly the same as Jacksonville, Florida. However, the population weighted density is actually 4, 000-4, 200/sq km. Roughly comparable to Chicago or Miami.
This is because the Greater Sydney statistical area takes in large swaths of national park surrounding the city that that is completely devoid of people.
reply
totolino85
amsterdam is a dense city but livable, so is London in a way or Wien or Frankfurt or Munich. Paris is crowded AF. I however, as personal preference off course, remain of the idea that cities with 1\4 to 1\2 million people or so are much better to live in expecially in EU. You tend to have higher life standard, comparable salaries, much bigger homes and much more green around. ex Graz\friburg\Torino ( my city) \ verona \ padova\ bologna\ porto\ bilbao\ etc. You still have normally all services (universities \airports nearby\train connections) without having to live in 35 m2 and pay 1\2mill for it
reply
amsterdam is a dense city but livable, so is London in a way or Wien or Frankfurt or Munich. Paris is crowded AF. I however, as personal preference off course, remain of the idea that cities with 1\4 to 1\2 million people or so are much better to live in expecially in EU. You tend to have higher life standard, comparable salaries, much bigger homes and much more green around. ex Graz\friburg\Torino ( my city) \ verona \ padova\ bologna\ porto\ bilbao\ etc. You still have normally all services (universities \airports nearby\train connections) without having to live in 35 m2 and pay 1\2mill for it
reply
SamuelJPBock
That Hong Kong example shows why the definition matters so much. Hong Kong is only not dense in your example because you are considering the entire territory. However, that land is undeveloped because it is not legally allowed to be developed. In the actual habitable land of Hong Kong, it is insanely dense.
Imagine you have an insanely dense core and the boundary stops right there. Now imagine you have that same core and you extend the boundary out several miles in every direction. Practically speaking, these have the same level of density, but the defined level of density has huge variance.
reply
That Hong Kong example shows why the definition matters so much. Hong Kong is only not dense in your example because you are considering the entire territory. However, that land is undeveloped because it is not legally allowed to be developed. In the actual habitable land of Hong Kong, it is insanely dense.
Imagine you have an insanely dense core and the boundary stops right there. Now imagine you have that same core and you extend the boundary out several miles in every direction. Practically speaking, these have the same level of density, but the defined level of density has huge variance.
reply
cantina-band-cush
I recently saw a post from a group protesting the building of a 5 story apartment building (1st floor commercial with 4 floors of housing above) being proposed just one block from one of the busiest CTA stations in Chicago. Such a prime location with great transit access should be able to support even more than what's proposed for this one building, but the NIMBYs complain about neighborhood character, property values, and traffic congestion. The lot is currently a single story commercial building, which is such a waste of space for such a prime location.
reply
I recently saw a post from a group protesting the building of a 5 story apartment building (1st floor commercial with 4 floors of housing above) being proposed just one block from one of the busiest CTA stations in Chicago. Such a prime location with great transit access should be able to support even more than what's proposed for this one building, but the NIMBYs complain about neighborhood character, property values, and traffic congestion. The lot is currently a single story commercial building, which is such a waste of space for such a prime location.
reply
Simon-ow6td
Personally, I have a fondness for the 5-6 floor height with ample enclosed court yards.
I would argue that 6 floors tall is still within the natural boundary where the buildings don't create a claustrophobic feeling at street level without really wide streets. Compared to 10 floors that I think for sure creates that tunnel feeling (at least when you live closer to the poles and have the sun very low in the sky significant parts of the year, especially if it is the median height, and not just the occasional building.
reply
Personally, I have a fondness for the 5-6 floor height with ample enclosed court yards.
I would argue that 6 floors tall is still within the natural boundary where the buildings don't create a claustrophobic feeling at street level without really wide streets. Compared to 10 floors that I think for sure creates that tunnel feeling (at least when you live closer to the poles and have the sun very low in the sky significant parts of the year, especially if it is the median height, and not just the occasional building.
reply
tasnimnt4
I have lived in several high-rises, and I've really enjoyed it! I'm sure it is more removed from street life, but because our roads are too wide and noisy with cars, it was nice to have some quiet. I don't think I went out less than I do at my current place, which is mid-rise. The elevators make it pretty nice, and because my previous place was smaller, I think it incentivized me going out more. I would say that high-rises can appeal to people who might otherwise choose a single-family home for that exact separation.
reply
I have lived in several high-rises, and I've really enjoyed it! I'm sure it is more removed from street life, but because our roads are too wide and noisy with cars, it was nice to have some quiet. I don't think I went out less than I do at my current place, which is mid-rise. The elevators make it pretty nice, and because my previous place was smaller, I think it incentivized me going out more. I would say that high-rises can appeal to people who might otherwise choose a single-family home for that exact separation.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
