Riga: city in Latvia
What exactly constitutes the spatial extent of the city? For these aggregations, we used the Global Human Settlement Layer Urban Center Database (GHS-UCDB) to define the boundaries of the city. These cities -- or urban centers -- cover areas that are densely populated and built-up, and so may extend beyond the spatial borders of these cities that we may be familiar with. The GHS area is shaded in blue.
View Riga, Latvia on the sprawlmap
Most recent snapshot: Taking into account the entire (i.e. aggregate) street network in Riga as of 2014, the overall level of street-network sprawl is 0.92, which is relatively well-connected.
Trends in street network construction: The SNDis of street construction for the respective time periods are 0.84, 1.1, 1.27 and 2.04. In each period, new street development in Riga steadily grows more disconnected than in the last.
Quantity of street network construction: The street network in Riga spans a total of 1297 kilometers. It is dominated by roads constructed prior to 1975. These roads have an SNDi of 0.84, which is relatively well-connected.
Effect on the aggregate network: New construction in each period adds to the total stock of streets, but does not change streets that have already been built. Therefore, it has a limited effect on the street network as a whole. The SNDis of the aggregate street network in the respective time periods are 0.84, 0.89, 0.89 and 0.92. Overall, the SNDi of the aggregate street network has risen: the street network in Riga has become more disconnected. This increase has slowed: between 1975 and 1976-1990, SNDi rose by 0.05 points, but between 1991-2000 and 2001-2014, it rose by just 0.03.
Riga and Riga do not follow the same trend in the disconnectivity of their street network constructions. The SNDi in Riga rose steadily, while the SNDi of street constructions in Riga peaked in 1991-2000.
How do development practices in Riga fare in comparison to others in Riga? Most recently in 2001-2014, street construction in Riga was the 1st-most disconnected out of the 1 cities in Riga. Its position in the ranks since 1975 has not changed. Riga ranked 1st in 1975, 1st in 1976-1990, 1st in 1991-2000 and 1st in 2001-2014.
Riga and Latvia follow the same trend in the disconnectivity of their street network constructions. The SNDi for both of these rose steadily.
How do development practices in Riga fare in comparison to others in Latvia? Most recently in 2001-2014, street construction in Riga was the 3rd-most disconnected out of the 3 cities in Latvia. Its position in the ranks since 1975 has fallen; relative to other cities in Latvia, street construction in Riga has become more connected. Riga ranked 2nd in 1975, 2nd in 1976-1990, 2nd in 1991-2000 and 3rd in 2001-2014.
Riga and Riga follow the same trend in the disconnectivity of their aggregate street networks. The SNDi for both of these rose steadily.
To date, Riga is the 1st-most disconnected out of the 1 cities in Riga. Its position in the ranks since 1975 has not changed. Riga ranked 1st in 1975, 1st in 1976-1990, 1st in 1991-2000 and 1st in 2001-2014.
Riga and Latvia follow the same trend in the disconnectivity of their aggregate street networks. The SNDi for both of these rose steadily.
To date, Riga is the 2nd-most disconnected out of the 3 cities in Latvia. Its position in the ranks since 1975 has not changed. Riga ranked 2nd in 1975, 2nd in 1976-1990, 2nd in 1991-2000 and 2nd in 2001-2014.
As of 2015, Riga had a built-up area of 75.16 square kilometers, and a population of 556671 people.
These are some other cities with approximately the same population: