U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2014, 05:47 PM
 
Location: So California
8,372 posts, read 8,440,546 times
Reputation: 4556

Advertisements

Nomp
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2014, 05:51 PM
 
1,590 posts, read 3,448,627 times
Reputation: 833
It's at least tied with Chicago, SF, Montreal, Philly and Boston and a few others for being worthy of consideration of possibly being the 2nd most urban city in the U.S. and Canada.

The thing with Toronto is that it is urbanizing at an incredible rate, both the old city and the boroughs are experiencing urban infill and densification at a rate that none of of those above mentioned cities can currently compare to, it's actually pretty mind blowing to see how fast the city is changing.

Skyline wise, in terms of sheer size, Toronto will be right up there with Chicago in the near future. Chicago's tallest few buildings will likely still be taller than Toronto's tallest, but the CN Tower is certainly nothing to be ignored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 06:08 PM
 
437 posts, read 468,582 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
Mexico isn't part of South America culturally, or in any way whatsoever.

And I'm still trying to understand how Toronto is even clearly the most urban city in Canada. Montreal, to me, has more solid urban fabric over a larger area. Toronto only wins in highrises and growth.
My thoughts exactly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,430,934 times
Reputation: 3716
Quote:
Originally Posted by spicymeatball View Post
Even though Chicago's skyline is much larger than Toronto's, I didn't get the impression that Chicago was extremely urban

\.
I would say that Chicago's skyline skews taller - but in terms of being much larger - not so much anymore and actually Toronto's CBD is rapidly catching up in density and currently is building far more skyscrapers.


Heli Tour - Toronto | Joe Journeys - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,430,934 times
Reputation: 3716
Toronto is a lot more than an emerging skyscraper city.. Old Toronto in particular which is not just the CBD but many residential nabe's east/west and north of it is incredibly urban. Certainly the city is one of the most dense in the U.S and Canada.

Instead of just saying no Toronto isn't as urban as other cities, perhaps actually experiencing the city would help ie walking around Old Toronto. If you've just experienced the Business District or just looked at selective pictures than you have not experienced Toronto... Here's a good article to start and images of some of T.O urban nabe's.

Toronto's Messy Urbanism from the perspective of an Angeleno | Spacing Toronto

Kensington
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...arket&tbm=isch
Queen St West
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...+west&tbm=isch
Yonge/Dundas
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...undas&tbm=isch
The Annex
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...ronto&tbm=isch
Cabbagetown
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...town+&tbm=isch
Little Italy
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...ronto&tbm=isch
Chinatown Toronto
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...ronto&tbm=isch
Rocesvalles
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...ronto&tbm=isch
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...ronto&tbm=isch

there's plenty of more too..

Last edited by fusion2; 04-23-2014 at 06:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 06:45 PM
 
409 posts, read 437,298 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Toronto is a lot more than an emerging skyscraper city.. Old Toronto in particular which is not just the CBD but many residential nabe's east/west and north of it is incredibly urban. Certainly the city is one of the most dense in the U.S and Canada.
I agree Toronto is, without question, one of the most dense/urban in U.S./Canada. It's certainly Top 10, possibly Top 5, but no way Top 2.

Skyscrapers, to me, are not that important when looking at relative density/urbanity. Miami is, along with NYC and Toronto, building tons of skyscrapers relative to anywhere else in U.S./Canada.

Anyone here seriously think Miami is more urban than a SF, Philly, Montreal, or Boston? I don't even think Miami is more urban than New Orleans, or even Quebec City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,430,934 times
Reputation: 3716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
I agree Toronto is, without question, one of the most dense/urban in U.S./Canada. It's certainly Top 10, possibly Top 5, but no way Top 2.

Skyscrapers, to me, are not that important when looking at relative density/urbanity. Miami is, along with NYC and Toronto, building tons of skyscrapers relative to anywhere else in U.S./Canada.

Anyone here seriously think Miami is more urban than a SF, Philly, Montreal, or Boston? I don't even think Miami is more urban than New Orleans, or even Quebec City.
Have you been to Cabbagetown, Kensington Market, Queen St West, Chinatown 1+2, Roncesvalles, Queen Street East, The Annex, The Danforth, Bloor street West all the way down to Keele, The Beaches and walked throughout Old Toronto's numerous nabes. If you haven't than I find it would be difficult for you to judge the true urbanity of Toronto. Toronto is far more multifaceted than tons of skyscrapers.. If you are in the CBD it is the most obvious part of the city because there are so many scrapers going up but OLD Toronto is far greater than the CBD. In this regard knowing the true city of Toronto in all its forms I would find it difficult to place it in a ranking other than to say Old Toronto is very urban. Outside Old Toronto it becomes much more suburban in nature but that fact exists for S.F, Montreal, Philly and pretty much every N.A city once you get outside their established urban cores.. It just so happens that Old Toronto is a very large and established urban core. A city like Miami doesn't have an established urban core like the others but Old Toronto is definitely up there..

Last edited by fusion2; 04-23-2014 at 07:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 07:00 PM
 
409 posts, read 437,298 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Have you been to Cabbagetown, Kensington Market, Queen St West, Chinatown 1+2, Roncesvalles, Queen Street East, The Annex, The Danforth, Bloor street West all the way down to Keele, The Beaches and walked throughout Old Toronto's numerous nabes. If you haven't than I find it would be difficult for you to judge the true urbanity of Toronto. Toronto is far more multifaceted than tons of skyscrapers..
I have been all over Toronto, by foot, and Toronto does not match up very well with SF, Philly, Boston, Chicago or Montreal at street level. You get detached homes with yards very close to the city center.

The problem is that Toronto was traditionally much smaller than all these cities, so you hit less urban neighborhoods very quickly. You can walk from the downtown core to leafy suburban neighborhoods, which you can't really do in any of these other cities. And the main arterials, like Yonge Street, are in no way comparable to the main arterials of these other cities.

Toronto, to its credit, is building up quite a bit, but I think falls short of those rough half-dozen cities. Maybe in 20 years or so it would be in the same general weight class, but I'm still not totally confident. If a city wasn't big pre-WWII, no amount of tower blocks will fix the problem at street level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,430,934 times
Reputation: 3716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
I have been all over Toronto, by foot, and Toronto does not match up very well with SF, Philly, Boston, Chicago or Montreal at street level. You get detached homes with yards very close to the city center.

The problem is that Toronto was traditionally much smaller than all these cities, so you hit less urban neighborhoods very quickly. You can walk from the downtown core to leafy suburban neighborhoods, which you can't really do in any of these other cities. And the main arterials, like Yonge Street, are in no way comparable to the main arterials of these other cities.

Toronto, to its credit, is building up quite a bit, but I think falls short of those rough half-dozen cities. Maybe in 20 years or so it would be in the same general weight class, but I'm still not totally confident. If a city wasn't big pre-WWII, no amount of tower blocks will fix the problem at street level.
I'm sorry but it doesn't seem like you have been to the areas I've mentioned. You mention for example the main arterial like Yonge Street (which is very urban north/south artery actually yes), but neglect Spadina, Jarvis, Parliament (other north/south large arterials), Queen Street West, College Street, King Street West, Bloor Street, Dundas Street West etc...Notice how I mentioned a lot of streets with West in them? That is because those leafy nabe's in Old Toronto you mention are never far from large arterials that are to the west (and East) of the CBD extending for miles and miles which happen to be very urban large arterial streets.

When you say Toronto was much smaller than 'those cities' well yes and no - in some cases yes but look at Buffalo and Cleveland - they were greater than the population of S.F in 1900 and much larger than Montreal and Toronto at the turn of the century too.. Cities like S.F, Montreal and Toronto didn't become larger than cities like Cleveland and Buffalo until closer to WWII.. Does this mean because of this heritage, by default Cleveland, Buffalo and say Detroit (which also has strong pre WWII heritage) that they would be more urban than cities like S.F, Montreal and Toronto today.. not exactly. The latter cities happen to fuse old with modern urbanity and growth far more successfully than other cities with strong pre WWII heritage and greater pre WWII population being my point!

This is College Street in Toronto when Spain won the world cup in 2010... College St West is a major east/west artery that is incredibly urban and T.O has many examples of these
Spain wins World Cup 2010. Crazy celebration in Toronto España

Last edited by fusion2; 04-23-2014 at 07:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 07:36 PM
 
1,590 posts, read 3,448,627 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
I have been all over Toronto, by foot, and Toronto does not match up very well with SF, Philly, Boston, Chicago or Montreal at street level. You get detached homes with yards very close to the city center.

The problem is that Toronto was traditionally much smaller than all these cities, so you hit less urban neighborhoods very quickly. You can walk from the downtown core to leafy suburban neighborhoods, which you can't really do in any of these other cities. And the main arterials, like Yonge Street, are in no way comparable to the main arterials of these other cities.
All of those cities have detached homes with yards within walking distance of the city centre, and while Toronto does have many leafy residential neighbourhoods within easy walking distance of the downtown core, they are not "suburban", they are quite dense and lively. Rosedale is the closest thing to a suburban style neighbourhood close to the downtown core, but it's something of a special case: Rosedale, Toronto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toronto had about a million people in the WWII era, quite comparable to Montreal, Boston, or SF. Chicago and Philly were considerably bigger at the time, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top