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, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,444,139 times
Reputation: 3716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
yes, I would be surprised if they did not...

keep in mind Melbourne has a metro of 4.4 million...clearly it blows American cities of a similar size like Phoenix out of the water, and bigger cities like Houston and Dallas.
Metro size isn't the full story though... I think when a city has a certain size and density regardless of how big its metro is - magic just seems to happen. Houston and Dallas for example are about the same size as Toronto (a bit smaller) in official metro counts, yet Toronto packs a lot more people into that metro in a much smaller area than those cities which makes it feel bigger more bustling.

Melbourne is presumable more densely populated than Pheonix, Dallas and Houston as well even though its metro population is comparable to Pheonix and smaller than D and H.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,444,139 times
Reputation: 3716
Quote:
Originally Posted by orzo View Post
The 1998 amalgamation really hurt Toronto's urban credibility. Most just don't see it as a top 3-4 contender anymore.
The amalgamation didn't change anything other than boundaries to be honest. If anything since amalgamation the city has densified considerably and subsequent to amalgamation, the places that grow act really propelled urban densification - particularly in Downtown Toronto. Most don't see it as top 3-4 lol.. is this based on scientific methodology or density measurements?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:26 PM
 
1,590 posts, read 3,451,779 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by orzo View Post
The 1998 amalgamation really hurt Toronto's urban credibility. Most just don't see it as a top 3-4 contender anymore.
Sorry, but that's just silly. All that happened in 1998 was that Toronto went from being a two-tiered 240 sq. mi municipality of 6 boroughs called Metropolitan Toronto to being a single tier municipality called the City of Toronto. The municipal borders, density and population were exactly the same the day before and after the amalgamation. The current density of the 240 square mile city is roughly equal to the density of the city of Chicago.

Metropolitan Toronto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amalgamation of Toronto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:29 PM
 
409 posts, read 437,696 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by spicymeatball View Post
Looking at pictures of Mexico City it doesn't look more urban than Toronto to me.
How on earth did you come up with that one?

Mexico City is one of the largest and most urban agglomerations on earth. Toronto is like a small town compared to DF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:31 PM
 
409 posts, read 437,696 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
I'm sorry but it doesn't seem like you have been to the areas I've mentioned.
No, it's just that you're a homer. That's all there is to it. Toronto was a small city prior to WWII, so doesn't have extensive urban fabric. Places like Cleveland and St. Louis and Cincy and Baltimore were considerably larger.

And, no, none of these cities have neighborhoods of detached homes with yards right next to downtown.

Where are these neighborhoods in SF? In Philly? In Boston?

Every single person on this thread, excepting one or two Toronto homers, is saying that there's no way in hell Toronto is anywhere close to the 2nd most urban city in North America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,783 posts, read 15,350,368 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Metro size isn't the full story though... I think when a city has a certain size and density regardless of how big its metro is - magic just seems to happen. Houston and Dallas for example are about the same size as Toronto (a bit smaller) in official metro counts, yet Toronto packs a lot more people into that metro in a much smaller area than those cities which makes it feel bigger more bustling.

Melbourne is presumable more densely populated than Pheonix, Dallas and Houston as well even though its metro population is comparable to Pheonix and smaller than D and H.
Hmmm we drove through Houston and it was a shameful sprawlfest, everything that is wrong with America in a city. No surprise it's one of the most car dependent, fuel-hogging (fuel used per person per year), low density cities in the world. Seriously, Oxford in the UK with 140,000 has a more lively downtown than Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,783 posts, read 15,350,368 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
How on earth did you come up with that one?

Mexico City is one of the largest and most urban agglomerations on earth. Toronto is like a small town compared to DF.
I haven't been to MC, but it probably rivals NYC in overall vibrancy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Both coasts
1,580 posts, read 4,129,803 times
Reputation: 1437
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
Hmmm we drove through Houston and it was a shameful sprawlfest, everything that is wrong with America in a city. No surprise it's one of the most car dependent, fuel-hogging (fuel used per person per year), low density cities in the world. Seriously, Oxford in the UK with 140,000 has a more lively downtown than Houston.
It's a regional characteristic. The American Sunbelt characteristic. There's no urbanity in the hustle-bustle-sense in any of the Sunbelt cities. There is road rage on the 10-lane freeways of Houston, LA, Dallas & Atlanta- but that's how the bustle takes form down here. Take that as one of the regional differences in the country rather than comparing to cities in completely different parts of the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 10,444,139 times
Reputation: 3716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
No, it's just that you're a homer. That's all there is to it. Toronto was a small city prior to WWII, so doesn't have extensive urban fabric.

Every single person on this thread, excepting one or two Toronto homers, is saying that there's no way in hell Toronto is anywhere close to the 2nd most urban city in North America.
Instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion you just get nasty and personal (Odd since I was actually very gracious to you in providing you with recommendations of places to eat on your next visit in which you didn't even respond with a Thanks!). Anyway, you still didn't come up with anything meaningful to counter the fact that a city like S.F was also smaller prior to WWII than Cleveland and Buffalo yet I don't think anyone on any thread anywhere would claim that Buffalo and Cleveland have a more urban fabric than S.F.....so much for your conclusive logic

Nor do I think you have actually visited Old Toronto's extensive urban fabric. Perhaps you've been to bits and pieces but instead of talking about places you've been and answering, you just say you've walked throughout it on foot.. You must've had very sore feet!

Btw I never said Toronto was Number 2.. I said it ranked highly on the urban scale with reference to Old Toronto - the 'borough's' like North York and Scarborough for eg. while dense are far from being models of urbanity and I would admit that... I'm such a homer

Last edited by fusion2; 04-23-2014 at 09:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2014, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,783 posts, read 15,350,368 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by f1000 View Post
It's a regional characteristic. The American Sunbelt characteristic. There's no urbanity in the hustle-bustle-sense in any of the Sunbelt cities. There is road rage on the 10-lane freeways of Houston, LA, Dallas & Atlanta- but that's how the bustle takes form down here. Take that as one of the regional differences in the country rather than comparing to cities in completely different parts of the world.
Well I'm more talking about pedestrian activity and concentrations of shops, residential density. I think the fact these cities don't have proper metros is also pretty crazy.
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