Boy, population densities can be so misleading. The typical approach is to just take the number of people and divide it by a given area. This then gives you something like X number of "people per square kilometer." The problem with this approach is that there are countless factors that can skew your result.

Hong Kong, for instance, is really dense. But as a city, it also has a lot of green space, mountains, and other undeveloped areas. Only about a quarter of Hong Kong's land is developed. So when you divide total people by its administrative boundary area, it is going to appear less dense than it really is.

One alternative approach is to use a method known as population-weighted density. The way this works is that you take the average densities of smaller more granular subareas and then weight them by the population of each subarea. It is a little more complicated to calculate, but the overall intent is to try and capture a density figure that more accurately reflects what the average person experiences on the ground.

And this is exactly the method that Jonathan Nolan decided to use in his new website CityDensity.com. What his site allows you to do is compare population-weighted densities across various cities, and then see how it tapers off as you move outward from their city centers.

Once again, it is hard to beat Paris' supremely dense mid-rise built form:

Well, that is, until you check out Hong Kong:

Charts: CityDensity.com

Back in undergrad, I spent a summer living and working in Taipei and Hong Kong. It was my first time being in either of these cities and I absolutely loved it. I was studying architecture. I was really developing my love of big cities. And these felt like two very real and big cities.

Below is a cheesy tourist photo that I paid someone to take of me from the Kowloon Pier. I still have access to it because obviously my mom has it framed and prominently displayed in her kitchen:

I'm sharing this photo because one of the things that really stood out to me about Hong Kong, in particular, was how they lit their buildings. There were neon signs (which is something that Hong Kong is, or least was, famous for); lights shining up into the sky (bad, I know); and full light shows and animations across entire building elevations.

I immediately thought to myself: "Why don't we have fun like this? Especially considering that Toronto can get kind of dark during the winter."

Well, some twenty years later, we are now starting to have more lights. We fought hard for our placemaking sign at Junction House. The CN Tower has since been illuminated. And most recently, we got 160 Front Street West. But it turns out that building lights can be a little divisive:

My view is exactly what it was when I first landed in hot and humid Hong Kong. And so I respectfully disagree with Jocelyn Squires (though I have great admiration for her work). Architectural lighting adds color and dynamism to our cities. It can also help our cities from all looking the same.

Let's stop being so conservative and have some fun. Nice work, 160 Front.

Earlier this month, Resonance Consultancy published its 2024 World's Best Cities ranking. Or, in their words: its definitive power ranking of the 100 global cities that it believes are shaping tomorrow.

These are always fun to flip through, which is I guess why people do them and why people look at them; but I do think it's important to look at the underlying methodologies. Otherwise, what does "world's best" even really mean?

In this case, they're looking at global cities through the lens of three key categories: livability, lovability, and prosperity. More specifically though, the report looks at factors that are demonstrated to have moderate to strong correlations with attracting talent, visitors, and/or businesses.

This makes it distinct from rankings that are more focused on things like livability. Because according to Resonance, factors such as commute times, crime, and housing affordability don't tend to correlate strongly (at least in the short-term) with a city's ability to attract talent, tourism, and investment.

While this may seem a bit counterintuitive, it does also make sense. People don't move to London because they're looking for affordable housing and a reasonable commute. They move to London because they want to be in the center of the world.

And yes, London tops their power ranking:

The top of this ranking isn't all that surprising. It's the usual suspects. But I continue to be impressed by how quickly Dubai has transformed itself into a top global city. Also impressive is how Dublin punches above its weight of just over 500,000 people.

I am medium surprised to see Hong Kong nowhere on this first page (there are another 65 cities not shown here). It usually features as a top global city. But presumably this is the result of Beijing meddling. People are looking elsewhere -- like Singapore.

For the full list of cities and to download a copy of the report, click here.