Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Where Calgary would fall on any list relies heavily on what the criteria are and which cities are included. If someone was talking about population density in North American cities that have 500,000+ in population, I could see Calgary being one of the lowest density if you're talking about cities and not metro areas.
Just glancing at some densities for city populations around North America I can only find a few of any size (Nashville, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma) that have a lower population density within their city limits than Calgary. And I believe at least some of those cities (Nashville for sure) have consolidated city and county governments so there are large rural areas included within their city limits; the vast majority of the population there lives in a much higher density than the average. So it's possible if one made a list with that criteria that Calgary would finish on the top 5 of lowest population density.
|
The problem with comparing density within city-limits is that you're not actually comparing apples to apples. For instance, most core "city" boundaries are completely built up and surrounded by built up areas. Calgary on the otherhand maintains a 30 year unbuilt land supply. So while Calgary's "city" boundaries are 740 square km less than 500 is actually built. Similarly, Ottawa upon amalgamation has a "city boundary" of well over 2000 sq km, does this mean it's one of the least dense cities on the planet? Of course not. The empty land severely dilutes population density numbers in these kinds of comparisons.
In fact, Calgary has far denser new subdivisions than their American counterparts, which have massive swaths of unregulated ex-urban sprawl.
If you want evidence, check out this absolutely fantastic series of Aerial photographs of American Suburbs entitled "USA Sprawl Festival"
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=398065