Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you think it'll catch up eventually? And is it more like an msa?
Well the 20 million for NYC is more like its MSA but it is still a pretty large area.. Probably larger than the GTA... The thing with the GTA is its surrounded by farm/marshland that inhibit sprawly growth so it will probably never be the same size as most large U.S cities in area or their CSA's... This is part of the reason you are seeing a lot of highrise growth and densification within the GTA and why Toronto has higher levels of peak density than even L.A and Chicago and I think you will see that even more so as time goes by.
Projections are that the GTA will be around 9 million by 2036 but even than it won't be as large as NYC is now so no I think it would be generatios and generations before the GTA could match the population of NYC's MSA and of course NYC isn't going to be frozen in time - its growing too so no I don't it will.. Chicago on the other hand yes - I do think it will become larger in terms of population - particularly as a dense urbanized area - I don't think it will in terms of overall area or ultra low dense sprawl.. Toronto city proper is already larger than Chicago by a nose but if things continue the gap will widen.
Well the 20 million for NYC is more like its MSA but it is still a pretty large area.. Probably larger than the GTA... The thing with the GTA is its surrounded by farm/marshland that inhibit sprawly growth so it will probably never be the same size as most large U.S cities in area or their CSA's... This is part of the reason you are seeing a lot of highrise growth and densification within the GTA and why Toronto has higher levels of peak density than even L.A and Chicago and I think you will see that even more so as time goes by.
Projections are that the GTA will be around 9 million by 2036 but even than it won't be as large as NYC is now so no I think it would be several generations before the GTA could match the population of NYC's MSA and of course NYC isn't going to be frozen in time - its growing too so no I don't it will.. Chicago on the other hand yes - I do think it will become larger in terms of population - I don't think it will in terms of area.. Toronto city proper is already larger than Chicago.
Toronto could still become a Megacity in the future (megacities have populations of more than 10 million) if population continues to increase.
Toronto could still become a Megacity in the future (megacities have populations of more than 10 million) if population continues to increase.
Oh absolutely - By 2045-2050 Toronto will most likely become a megacity... When it does it will also likely be quite a bit more dense and compact of a megacity than Chicago or L.A or any other U.S city save for NYC..
Oh absolutely - By 2045-2050 Toronto will most likely become a megacity... When it does it will also likely be quite a bit more dense and compact of a megacity than Chicago or L.A or any other U.S city save for NYC..
What would be the peak population and is the local government preparing for this massive increase in population?
I was speaking of population mated with density.. Not megaregions with low density sprawl.. As I said, find me a U.S city other than the big 3 that'll put 6.5 million people (The Greater Toronto Area) in 3000 sq miles... What is typical is people quoting massive regions the size of small countries linked by nothing more than highway and attributing them as being a city - that is what I find laughable.. Nobody in Canada is going to claim Vancouver is its most important city btw - everyone knows its Toronto.
Btw I have nothing against Houston...
I agree with you completely. There is a strong tendency on City-Data for people to use a metro. In their opinions, a city proper is "arbitrary", another word that's overused here. The thing is, city boundaries are constant and provide a control when comparing to other cities whereas a metros boundaries can and do change. At least you get it
In terms of dealing with massive increase in growth.. The Greater Toronto area is no stranger to that and has been steadily growing by about 100K per year for a few decades now anyway so this is just going to continue.. What is happening and its good to see is that transit infrastructure is now being a more regionally focused endeavour (Metrolinx) instead of being left to smaller cities.
I agree with you completely. There is a strong tendency on City-Data for people to use a metro. In their opinions, a city proper is "arbitrary", another word that's overused here. The thing is, city boundaries are constant and provide a control when comparing to other cities whereas a metros boundaries can and do change. At least you get it
I get the tendency go outside of just a city proper.. Toronto for example doesn't just stop at the end of its city proper boundary and there's still a lot of higher density cities/boroughs connected to it that are highly built up (Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughn, Pickering etc - but once you start start getting into the boonies and there's wide open areas you have to start saying this is no longer an urban 'city' - its just linked to its anchor by a freeway.. Its kind of like is Pluto a planet or not - who cares!!
I agree with you completely. There is a strong tendency on City-Data for people to use a metro. In their opinions, a city proper is "arbitrary", another word that's overused here. The thing is, city boundaries are constant and provide a control when comparing to other cities whereas a metros boundaries can and do change. At least you get it
So, do you think that a population of 3.9 million accurately reflects the size and feel of Los Angeles? What about a population of 837,000 for San Francisco?
Is that the true extent of the impact of those two cities?
I get the tendency go outside of just a city proper.. Toronto for example doesn't just stop at the end of its city proper boundary and there's still a lot of higher density cities/boroughs connected to it that are highly built up (Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughn, Pickering etc - but once you start start getting into the boonies and there's wide open areas you have to start saying this is no longer an urban 'city' - its just linked to its anchor by a freeway.. Its kind of like is Pluto a planet or not - who cares!!
Could Mississauga and other cities create a chain of buildings like manhattan?
Or even larger?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
