Old toronto vs san francisco vs north chicago (places, America, people)

[PolishPower]

Originally Posted by SFNative1

Actually looking it up, Old Toronto is the densest. There are not stats on density for North Chicago, but the city's population density is about 12,000 per sq mi. San Francisco has a a whole has 18,000 people per sq mi and Old Toronto, which is just one borough of the city, has 19,000 people per sq mi.

Nope. If you are rounding to the nearest 1000, as you apparently are, Toronto has 20,000 ppsm, while San Francisco only has 17,000 ppsm.

San Francisco (2010 census): 17,179 ppsm

Toronto (2011 census): 19,642 ppsm

Why would you round 19,642 down to 19,000, but round 17,179 up to 18,000? And do you really live in SF? I'd think someone who does would know that SF is nowhere near 18,000 ppsm. Out of curiosity, where did you get that 18,000 number from?

Old Toronto grew 7.2% from 2006-2011, an annualized rate of about 1.4%. So extrapolating that, 19,642 * 1.014 = 19,917.

So by May 2012, Toronto was likely over 19,900 ppsm. It is now August. By now, old Toronto is probably over 20,000 ppsm. That is nearly 20% denser than SF.


Here is a map of old city of Toronto, with it's population in 2006 and 2011:



You can see that it grew 7.2% from 2006 -2011. The city as a whole only grew less than 5% from 2006-2011.

By contrast, SF only grew 3.7% (about half as much) in twice the time (2000 -2010).

So the old city of Toronto is growing at roughly four times the rate of SF, even though it is already substantially denser to begin with.

[PolishPower]

As far as north side of Chicago's density, it would defend how you define it. If you draw the boundaries to literally include the entire northern side of the city, it wouldn't be that high. If you draw the boundaries to the same size as old Toronto (37 square miles), Chicago would probably be over 20k ppsm.

[PolishPower]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Actually if you just look at it neighborhood by neighborhood the North Side of Chicago breaks down like this:

849,334 people living in 38 sq miles (so slightly more populated than SF in slightly less area) for a total population density of 22,350 per sq mile.

So Chicago's northside would be the most dense of the 3.

Can you show a map of these 38 square miles? Or give a description of its boundaries?

[grapico]

Originally Posted by SFNative1

Actually looking it up, Old Toronto is the densest. There are not stats on density for North Chicago, but the city's population density is about 12,000 per sq mi. San Francisco has a a whole has 18,000 people per sq mi and Old Toronto, which is just one borough of the city, has 19,000 people per sq mi.

northside chicago is around 22k+ this has been done before just search...

[scrantiX]

Three great and comparable cities but San Francisco is just much more comfortable and its better. So I am going with that.

[mrjun18]

Originally Posted by polishpower

nope. If you are rounding to the nearest 1000, as you apparently are, toronto has 20,000 ppsm, while san francisco only has 17,000 ppsm.

San francisco (2010 census): 17,179 ppsm

toronto (2011 census): 19,642 ppsm

why would you round 19,642 down to 19,000, but round 17,179 up to 18,000? And do you really live in sf? I'd think someone who does would know that sf is nowhere near 18,000 ppsm. Out of curiosity, where did you get that 18,000 number from?

Old toronto grew 7.2% from 2006-2011, an annualized rate of about 1.4%. So extrapolating that, 19,642 * 1.014 = 19,917.

So by may 2012, toronto was likely over 19,900 ppsm. It is now august. By now, old toronto is probably over 20,000 ppsm. That is nearly 20% denser than sf.


Here is a map of old city of toronto, with it's population in 2006 and 2011:



You can see that it grew 7.2% from 2006 -2011. The city as a whole only grew less than 5% from 2006-2011.

By contrast, sf only grew 3.7% (about half as much) in twice the time (2000 -2010).

So the old city of toronto is growing at roughly four times the rate of sf, even though it is already substantially denser to begin with.

ouch!

[OyCrumbler]

the three of them seem pretty comparable, though mass transit in san francisco is surprisingly terrible. they're working on the central subway, but the other cities are also all working on more improvements as well and have a hell of a head start--though muni would probably actually do better if it cut about a third of its current stops.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Mboogie

it seems a little unfair to compare two neighborhoods within a major city to a whole incorporated city.

All three are about the same size area wise.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by PolishPower

Can you show a map of these 38 square miles? Or give a description of its boundaries?

Well it depends on what one considers the "North Side" vs. "Northwest Side". I used the following:

Rogers Park
West Ridge
Lincoln Square
Edgewater
Uptown
North Center
Lakeview
Lincoln Park
Near North Side
Albany Park
Irving Park
Avondale
Logan Square
West Town

Anything further west than Avondale/Logan Square/West Town is the west side in my opinion.

[BLAXTOR]

I don't care what anyone has to say, these 3 and NYC are the greatest cities on the continent by far. Ask me tomorrow which one I like more, it literally changes for me everyday between these 3. Right now I feel Toronto.

I didn't even vote because none of them can ever lose. Seriously, saying I love these cities feels like an understatement to me.