Does Chicago feel like the third largest city? (Burbank, Lincoln: low income, how much)

[5Lakes]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Do you have Google Earth? If you don't, download it, and use the 3-D building function.

You will see that Torontos highrises are simply a bit more spread out.

And what is "urban landscape" has been under debate here. Those who love skycrapers feel that that is what gives a place the urban feel. But the low rise areas of Chicago and Toronto, are just and dense, but the high-rise areas are just distributed differently.

Personally I could care less about skyscrapers and "downtown" when it comes to whether I am amazed by a city. I'm interested in other things when it comes to a city, like historical contributions to American culture, and present day economic niches that attract unique types of people, among other things.

Even if you don't have google earth, I'm sure there are many oblique areal photos you can look at if you just google them.

Yeah, Toronto and Chicago are laid out pretty different. Chicago feels bigger in the central business district and the high density areas stretch consistently along the lake. In Toronto there is more built up density running perpendicular to the lake. Toronto also has quaint neighborhoods that are adjacent to the downtown core, which makes it feel like it loses its urban density quicker.

One thing Toronto does well that Chicago pretty much has none of are high density nodes along transit stops that are far outside of downtown.

For example:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...56.22,,0,-0.67

Google Maps

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by 5Lakes

Yeah, Toronto and Chicago are laid out pretty different. Chicago feels bigger in the central business district and the high density areas stretch consistently along the lake. In Toronto there is more built up density running perpendicular to the lake. Toronto also has quaint neighborhoods that are adjacent to the downtown core, which makes it feel like it loses its urban density quicker.

One thing Toronto does well that Chicago pretty much has none of are high density nodes along transit stops that are far outside of downtown.

For example:

Google Maps

Google Maps

Toronto looks like a pretty cool place, I would put this city on the map of places to see!

Looks clean- its almost exactly chicago's population but the metro according to google was half the size?

Looks like an old city as well. cool place at least from what i have googled

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

No kidding einstein, did you just stop reading my post in the middle? You have changed the context of my point, please read what I said and it makes sense...

"I have been to Toronto a few times and it just seems so damn small to me. I remember walking from one side of the city clear to the other. Maybe I was confined to a downtown area and there are areas outside the downtown that are big, I don't know. "

Again, I admit my lack of knowledge of the city of Toronto, but I've been there and walked around many times, and, it *seems* very small.

My guess, and maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is the parts of Toronto that are considered *urban landscape* are much less than the parts of Chicago that are considered "urban landscape*. Is that true? Does anyone know?

I bet you think all of Chicago is east of Western too.

[jwaiter]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

I bet you think all of Chicago is east of Western too.

Why?

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

Why?

Because when you were in Toronto you must have believed in your head that Toronto is only the downtown area.

I have been to Toronto and never once did I think it was small.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

I have been to Toronto a few times and it just seems so damn small to me. I remember walking from one side of the city clear to the other. Maybe I was confined to a downtown area and there are areas outside the downtown that are big, I don't know. I looked the data up on Wikipedia and it says Toronto has less high rises than the data above, but they still beat Chicago by 800 or so. I guess I'm wrong, but walking around Toronto just doesnt seem near as large as Chicago, or as dense.

As someone else pointed out, Toronto has clusters of high-rises around most of their subway stops or even large intersections of trolley or bus lines. They also have a lot more housing blocks of highrises. They're not super-talls, they're just like 20-story buildings which, compared to the Loop or something, isn't much. But they're still high-rises.

I actually wish Chicago had more clustering around subway/L stations. Imagine what a few 20-story buildings around Belmont and Fullerton and Wellington would do for density in those areas? North/Clyborn would probably be more pedestrian-oriented, and Wilson, if they had some more market-rate highrise density, would almost certainly be a safer neighborhood. Howard could handle more high-rises, as could places like Logan Square and the Belmont Blue Line stations. The Pink Line might actually start carrying enough riders to justify the rebuild they did if there were multiple high-rises near most of its stations. That's why Toronto's subway carries far more riders per mile and per station than Chicago's "L" does.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by emathias

As someone else pointed out, Toronto has clusters of high-rises around most of their subway stops or even large intersections of trolley or bus lines. They also have a lot more housing blocks of highrises. They're not super-talls, they're just like 20-story buildings which, compared to the Loop or something, isn't much. But they're still high-rises.

I actually wish Chicago had more clustering around subway/L stations. Imagine what a few 20-story buildings around Belmont and Fullerton and Wellington would do for density in those areas? North/Clyborn would probably be more pedestrian-oriented, and Wilson, if they had some more market-rate highrise density, would almost certainly be a safer neighborhood. Howard could handle more high-rises, as could places like Logan Square and the Belmont Blue Line stations. The Pink Line might actually start carrying enough riders to justify the rebuild they did if there were multiple high-rises near most of its stations. That's why Toronto's subway carries far more riders per mile and per station than Chicago's "L" does.

emanthias, I'm not sure what the basis of the clustering around el stations would be. People who live in the neighborhoods in question live in highly walkable areas that are close to public transportation. CTA buses, using the grid, blanket the area, and for many neighborhoods along the lakefront (and even inland), el service is extensive. I'm not sure what high rises near the Belmont or Logan Square stations would offer anyone. They certainly would not be office locations and for residential, as noted, the convenience is such that few would be motivated to live there because of proximity to the el. North Side lakefront (and even northwest side) neighborhoods are just too close to downtown and have too many transportation options to make living next door to the el (or subway in Logan Square) that big of a deal.

What you describe happens naturally on Metra, not CTA, in the suburbs, not the city. Metra suburban downtowns are hot property for the type of development you describe. Indeed, suburban downtowns grew where they were because of the old C&NW, Burlington, IC, Milw Road, etc. lines that they grew along.

Today these downtowns have often exploded in size with lots of mid-rise (and some high rise) condo buildings along with the shopping and restaurants and other services that feed off of them. When you are in downtown Evanston, you are in what feels like a real city. Up the north shore in Highland Park, a truly great suburban downtown is in place. Des Plaines has midrise condos blanketing the downtown area. On the northwest line, many downtowns (like Arl Hts, Mt. Prospect, etc.) are highly clustered.

It's organic, happening because it needs to rather than making it take place. And making it take place would be the only way to have something similiar along the CTA el stations you speak of.

Might those high rise clusters add something to the mix? Arguably,yes. But let's not forget something: the neighborhoods in question are hardly suffering without such clusters. Especially the lakefront ones where high rises dominate and definitely effect the buzz on streets behind time (i.e. Clark). If I look at places like Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Bucktown, Wicker Park, Hyde Park, the area between UIC's two campuses, I hardly see places that are hurting by what, IMHO, is wonderful urban scale.

[jwaiter]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

Because when you were in Toronto you must have believed in your head that Toronto is only the downtown area.

Why would that effect my perception of Chicago?

Understand that I lived in Chicago most of my life, much of that time was west of Western, so I am extremely aware of Chicago's large area/limits/borders, I've had years and years to explore here.

In Toronto I was a tourist, visiting for a handful of days.

Do you see the difference?


Also, Toronto does not seem urban outside of a small area downtown, Chicago seems urban over a much larger area.

[jwaiter]

I looked up the Population Density for the two cities, the results?

Chicago has 11,864/sq mi (2010 Census)

Toronto has 10,287/sq mi (data from 2006)

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

I looked up the Population Density for the two cities, the results?

Chicago has 11,864/sq mi (2010 Census)

Toronto has 10,287/sq mi (data from 2006)

That density supports what everyone is saying, that the are similar in size/density/urbanity.