Maclean's has a graphic showing the relative density of Canadian cities. The premise is that it shows how much space the population of Canada would take up if it was packed in with the same density as various Canadian cities. It's probably inspired by this map comparing cities around the world.
The around-the-world version is more informative, since it's comparing similarity large cities that differ only in their location and age. They're not much that can be gleaned from comparing the density of Toronto and Iqaluit.
But it brings up a pet peeve of mine when people start comparing different cities. Often, large cities are held-up as paragons of environmental virtue because of their density and reliance on public transit. There is some truth to the concept, and the point is important because many people - including environmentalists themselves - often assume that big and artificial things are always worse.
The problem is that when it comes to environmental righteousness, Toronto and Vancouver kind of cheat. That's because the political entities known as "Toronto" and "Vancouver" are really just the centres of much larger cities. The suburbs of those cities spread out with miles of suburbs (just as any Canadian or American city does) but those suburbs aren't officially part of the city.
I looked it up, and if you include the entire Greater Toronto Area, Toronto's density drops from 4,149 people per square kilometre to only 850. That's actually less dense than here in the city of Kitchener. In contrast, they give the impression that Halifax is some sprawling, empty place. But that's just because it's city limits stretch far beyond the actual developed area. If you only count the urban area, the density again turns out to be more than 1,000 people per square kilometre.
No comments:
Post a Comment