https://www.vox.com/2015/1/2/7480993/population-density-visu...
It helps explain the low-density feel that a city like London has compared to most large non-European cities.
The original source is the third panel here: https://issuu.com/lsecities/docs/hongkong2011newspaper/9
I don't think this takes into account water around cities. For NYC harbour south of downtown pull us down?
Higher density cities are the ecologically least damaging mode of housing and provide more of what makes cities great: more people doing interesting things, more opportunities for interactions, education, access to health care, etc.
Now there are plenty of people who don't want that, but then they don't want to be in an urban environment at all. So I'm not saying it's winning for every person. But on a continuum from ultra-rural to ultra dense I think a graph of "quality of life for residents-by-choice" would be a saddle curve. Less dense cities, and most suburbs (by the US definition) are neither fish nor fowl.
Question/challenge: can anyone find any other city with a greater density? Dhaka is close but has a lower peak and tapers off faster.
You can change it to other measurements, including straight density.
For instance, as I add cities to my comparison, the colors of the cities I already have in the chart keep changing. Did anyone bother testing it, because that led to some serious confusion?
"80.000 people live within 0 km of Paris." (ditto, 2 millions live there).
There are many other cities where the numbers are absurdly wrong. Don't take this tool too seriously, if at all.
Disconnected from the server.
Reload