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.
No. It has approximately three times as many. Not "many times more".
First, there's no evidence that NYC only has three times more highrises than Toronto.
But if this were the case, obviously three times is "many times more". No one would say that Toronto doesn't have "many times more" a city where it has many multiples more highrises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
If you think three is "many", I think you need some remedial help.
Is this the same "educational guidance" from the person who claimed that Canada was unique in the world in that the auto-oriented development preceded the invention of the auto?
I'm pretty sure 3x is "many" more. I know that's some tough math there, but if my salary went from 60k to 180k, I would certainly think I'm making a significant jump in salary.
Well, then the high rises help. But you can have high density without high rises. If it's just density that makes it more urban, then dense might be the better factor to focus on.
I agree that density is a much better measure than highrises. It isn't a perfect measure, though, because population density doesn't necessarily correlate with built density. But it's still much better than # of highrises, which is pretty much useless.
So obviously the urban form will be heavily influenced by the amount of prewar fabric, of which Toronto has comparatively little (which is why it will never have the Boston or Montreal typology).
I've said this several times before, but you seem incapable of registering it -- Toronto's pre-war urban fabric was about 50 square miles with 1 million people. At the time (mid 1940s), Montreal and Toronto were actually quite close in size, with Montreal having around 1.2 million.
Urbanity is not the same as numbers of skyscrapers or high rises. Chicago and Toronto are more similar to each other than either is to NYC. Toronto does have more high rises per capita, and a larger portion of its population living in high rises than NYC.
Nice to see a sane post amongst a sea of well lol...I believe you also mentioned in a post before that T.O has the second highest weighted avg density in Can/U.S which I believe is true.
I realize this, but that doesn't mean Toronto will give off that same urban feel as the others do. Like I said earlier, Miami has more people living in highrises per capita than Chicago, but that doesn't mean that makes Miami feel more urban than Chicago.
I guess it depends on ones perspective.
Did you look at my pics earlier...nothing Miami about them and its clear T.O has a pretty potent mix of urbanity spanning 150+ years
100k immigrants per year coming to Toronto don't want to live in farmland, they want to live in a dense urban core and they have no reservations having a condo lifestyle. People in the Greater Toronto area have been flocking in droves to DT living for over 5 years now for an urban lifestyle at a ratio of 3:1 over Chicago.
Much of the immigrants are headed for the suburbs. Much of the people moving into Downtown Toronto were born in Canada. Also not sure what you mean by 3:1, I would say about 50/50 infill vs greenfield growth right now.
In Chicago it's maybe 30% infill, although that doesn't take into account any abandonment that is continuing to occur. And of course it's 30% of a smaller number since Chicagoland is relatively slow growing.
I've said this several times before, but you seem incapable of registering it -- Toronto's pre-war urban fabric was about 50 square miles with 1 million people. At the time (mid 1940s), Montreal and Toronto were actually quite close in size, with Montreal having around 1.2 million.
Except it's still not the same in that Montreal pre-war neighborhoods are older than Toronto ones. Even before everyone owned cars, building styles changed and regions differed. Like Philadelphia but unlike Toronto, Montreal is mostly a row house city.* Montreal was denser than Toronto in 1950. Take a look at this comparison, although the writer compares Montreal and Toronto separately.
*Which is why lumping pre-war cities is meaningless. San Francisco or Boston pre-war neighborhoods are on average much more urban than Cleveland ones (even if Cleveland hadn't declined). Canadian cities have seen a lot of recent infill that seems silly to dismiss as not urban.
We're arguing this because you made the false claim that NYC has "many, many times" as many highrises as Toronto. I exposed this as a lie, as it has less than three times as many highrises. Now you're trying to back out of what you said and change the subject. Three is not "many, many". You lied, and you can't even own up to it.
Toronto has a slightly larger population than Chicago in a slightly larger area (243 square miles vs. 228 square miles). Toronto is also growing by 35,000-40,000 people per year, while Chicago's population is stagnant. If Toronto's density hasn't already surpassed Chicago's (it probably has), than it will in the next 3-5 years.
And you talk about being a "booster". I'm not even the one who started this whole Chicago vs. Toronto comparison. Nor am I the one who started this stupid thread. I was just responding to these stupid comparisons that others made in the first place. Had someone else not made this stupid Chicago vs. Toronto comparison, I wouldn't even be commenting on it.
You were comparing Chicago and Toronto in this thread before I was. Thus you are the bigger booster. There was no reason to make the comparison in the first place.
C'mon man 3x as many highrises is many many more.. Toronto can't hang with NYC in this regard but it most certainly can against Chicago.. As for urbanized density T.O already is more dense than Chicago in population terms and even the core is become more dense in built form. Chicago still skews taller but that is even changing. Toronto's core has quite a bit more 400-500 footers than Chicago and as you correctly mentioned is closing in on +500 footers.
Much of the immigrants are headed for the suburbs. Much of the people moving into Downtown Toronto were born in Canada. Also not sure what you mean by 3:1, I would say about 50/50 infill vs greenfield growth right now.
I thought the most immigrant heavy area was Outer Toronto (as in not in the old city limits, but in the certain city limits?) Or have pattern changed that places just outside the city limits are now the current immigrant magnet? Btw, you have a foreign born % map of the Toronto area?
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.
