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's absolute truth, which the numbers show. Obviously I am comparing apples-to-apples (cities to cities). I have no idea what you're comparing.
You said that Orange County (not the cities, the county itself) was denser than Scarborough and Mississauga. Another poster showed the actual density numbers showing you to be a liar. You don't get to cherry-pick parts of the county to compare. If you do, than we get to cherry-pick parts of Mississauga and Scarborough to compare. There are areas of Missisauga and Scarborough that have densities several times higher than any part of Orange County.
Quote:
Are you comparing the high desert and the uninhabited mountains and canyons to Canadian cities?
No, you are. YOU made the statement that Orange County is denser than Scarbourough and Mississauga, not me. Now you're trying to change what you claim you said.
Quote:
Wrong. You've never been to Toronto if you think Yonge/Eglington is the most urban part of Toronto. Three blocks from Yonge/Eglington and you're in suburban neighborhoods.
LOL. I live in Toronto. Just outside downtown. And no, there are no "suburban neighbourhoods" three blocks from Yonge/Eglinton (not "Eglington" you igoramus, learn to spell). There are areas with houses. Houses do not equate to "suburban neighborhoods".
Quote:
That's pretty hilarious coming from someone who just claimed that Yonge/Eglington is more urban than downtown Toronto.
LOL. Show me where I said that Yonge/Eglinton (not "Eglington" you ignoramus) is "more urban than downtown". Once again you are lying. I said that the newer stuff in Toronto is more urban than the older stuff. I never said "Yonge/Eglinton is more urban than downtown". You have resorted to nothing but lies, and I've exposed you as a liar.
A lie? If you don't think that NYC's 5800 high rises against Toronto's 2000 is many times the number of building than Toronto has, I don't know what to tell you. That's not even to mention the numerous lowrise buildings NYC has over T.O. as well. And that's okay, because Toronto is a much smaller city. But no, it wasn't "Another lie"
The claim was that NYC has "many, many" times as many highrises as Toronto. Less than 3 is not "many, many". "Many, many" would be like 20 times as many.
Quote:
Public transportation ridership also isn't the sole measurement for urbanity, so i don't know where you were getting with that.
I never said it was the sole measurement. But you Chicago boosters keep saying Chicago is more urban than Toronto because of how you "feel". Sounds like subjective nonsense to me. Give some actual measure/metrics for urbanity if you don't like transit ridership, and we'll use those instead.
No, transit ridership has nothing to do with relative urbanity. All of Canada is more transit-oriented than the U.S. (excepting NYC), doesn't mean that Moose Jaw is more urban than LA if there's a higher proportion of bus riders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
LOL. Of course they have to do with urbanity. If they don't have to do with urbanity, than what metrics DO have to do with urbanity? Please tell us, and we'll compared Chicago to Toronto using those metrics.
Obviously prewar, pre-automobile development, of which Toronto has comparatively little. That's why Venice is one of the most urban places on earth, and Dubai is a sprawling mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
The size of a city as of a certain point in time had nothing to do with how urban it is today.
No, it has everything to do with how urban it is today. Toronto came of age during the anti-urban 1960's and 70's, so it isn't typified by the prewar quality neighborhoods you see in places like Boston, Montreal and the like. That's why it will never be as urban as these places, no matter how many commieblocks are built out in Scarborough, no matter how many empty investment condo-parking boxes are built along the Gardiner.
It's like comparing New Orleans to Houston, Dallas or Atlanta. Those latter three cities will never, ever have the urban form of New Orleans, no matter how many highrises, light rail lines, or other stuff are built. Like Toronto, the boom came too late for pre-auto development.
But in your world even Venice or Brugge or Florence would be less urban than Dallas because Venice doesn't have enough rail passengers or highrise commieblocks or aquariums or something. LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
Toronto's most urban stuff is the stuff built in the last 20 years, not the "pre-auto core" stuff.
Wrong. Toronto's most urban neighborhoods, by far, are downtown, which are all pre-auto. The most urban blocks are those that are built for the pedestrian, not the automobile, so obviously the core neighborhoods are most urban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
You're "pre-auto core" nonsense does not apply to Canadian cities. Canada's most urban stuff is the brand new stuff, not the really old stuff. If you knew anything about Canada you'd already know this.
This is a hilarious claim. So you are now claiming that Canada is unique in the world that the auto-oriented development was built prior to the invention of the automobile, and the most pedestrian oriented, anti-auto development was built in recent years.
I guess that's why Eaton Centre has a gigantic parking entrance directly on Yonge? It's just a fake entrance, to reassure any foreign tourists who may be confused by the lack of parking in an automobile-era structure?
And all the older, lowrise prewar structures on Yonge, which have no visible parking, are just Disney-eque facades with secret parking for Canadians only? LOL
The claim was that NYC has "many, many" times as many highrises as Toronto. Less than 3 is not "many, many". "Many, many" would be like 20 times as many.
On what basis are you asserting that NYC has only three times as many highrises as Toronto? Please don't say Emporis, which is horrible with NYC coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
I never said it was the sole measurement. But you Chicago boosters keep saying Chicago is more urban than Toronto because of how you "feel".
No one has said that. Everyone is saying Chicago is more urban because it has a much bigger prewar core. Sounds pretty objective to me, as opposed to nonsense like "let's measure relative urbanity by counting how many highrises are being built according to some random website".
Interesting. Yeah, I could never understand what would make those in American history want to travel on covered wagon 1,000 miles with little infrastructure. I remember reading in a previous post somewhere that Winnipeg functioned historically a little like St. Louis or even Chicago in the 19th/early 20th century, in that it was the gateway to the west of Canada in a lot of ways, the jumping off point for westward expansion.
Most settlers to the American West also arrived by train. The number of settlers from the "wagon period" are much smaller than the later railroad period. Still, most of the American West was first settled pre railroad, while western Canada (except for British Columbia, where the first settlement probably hugged the coast) was not. British Columbia had 50,000 people before the railroad, and its population was rather stagnant before the railroad, afterwards, doubled every decade for the next 50 years or so.
You said that Orange County (not the cities, the county itself) was denser than Scarborough and Mississauga. Another poster showed the actual density numbers showing you to be a liar. You don't get to cherry-pick parts of the county to compare. If you do, than we get to cherry-pick parts of Mississauga and Scarborough to compare. There are areas of Missisauga and Scarborough that have densities several times higher than any part of Orange County.
Again, you have reading comprehension problems, and don't understand an apples-to-apples comparison. Again, Orange County is denser than Missisauga and Scarborough. Sorry you have trouble understanding this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
No, you are. YOU made the statement that Orange County is denser than Scarbourough and Mississauga, not me. Now you're trying to change what you claim you said.
Obviously I made the claim, and obviously you're still having trouble with reading comprehension. Instead of repeating your confusion, try reading slower and more deliberately next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerMan2
LOL. I live in Toronto. Just outside downtown. And no, there are no "suburban neighbourhoods" three blocks from Yonge/Eglinton (not "Eglington" you igoramus, learn to spell). There are areas with houses. Houses do not equate to "suburban neighborhoods".
Hilarious. According to you, a suburban house, with a yard, garage, and driveway, which is very common just a few blocks from Yonge/Eglington, is more urban than highrise towers and prewar fabirc around Yonge/Dundas or in the financial district.
So according to you, grassy yards are more urban than 60-floor towers. Hey, you've been lying since the first post, so at least you're consistent...
At least now we understand why you're comparing Toronto to Hong Kong and NYC. You think that single family homes are more urban than dense urban towers.
The claim was that NYC has "many, many" times as many highrises as Toronto. Less than 3 is not "many, many". "Many, many" would be like 20 times as many.
I don't even know why we're arguing this. NYC is NYC, Toronto will never compare (at least right now), as much as Torontonians would like it to. That's all.
Quote:
I never said it was the sole measurement. But you Chicago boosters keep saying Chicago is more urban than Toronto because of how you "feel". Sounds like subjective nonsense to me. Give some actual measure/metrics for urbanity if you don't like transit ridership, and we'll use those instead.
You have no right to call anyone a booster when you're boosting Toronto to the heavens. You're obviously a Toronto booster and being just as subjective. Chicago is more dense than Toronto without the same amount of residential highrise buildings. All that with a much larger urban area than Toronto.
Obviously prewar, pre-automobile development, of which Toronto has comparatively little. That's why Venice is one of the most urban places on earth, and Dubai is a sprawling mess.
Wrong. That measurement may apply to American cities. It doesn't work for Canadian cities though.
Quote:
No, it has everything to do with how urban it is today. Toronto came of age during the anti-urban 1960's and 70's, so it isn't typified by the prewar quality neighborhoods you see in places like Boston, Montreal and the like. That's why it will never be as urban as these places, no matter how many commieblocks are built out in Scarborough, no matter how many empty investment condo-parking boxes are built along the Gardiner.
Wrong. Today's stuff is the most urban stuff Toronto has ever built. Toronto stopped building "commie blocks" decades ago. Today's stuff is built to the lot line and usually has ground-floor retail. You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop talking about cities in which you've never even lived.
Quote:
It's like comparing New Orleans to Houston, Dallas or Atlanta. Those latter three cities will never, ever have the urban form of New Orleans, no matter how many highrises, light rail lines, or other stuff are built. Like Toronto, the boom came too late for pre-auto development.
You're stuck in this stupid "pre-auto", "post-auto" mindset. Your demarcation point of urban vs. non-urban times does not apply to Canadian cities.
Quote:
But in your world even Venice or Brugge or Florence would be less urban than Dallas because Venice doesn't have enough rail passengers or highrise commieblocks or aquariums or something. LOL.
Wrong. Those cities all have much higher densities and transit ridership per capita than Dallas. So "in my world" they are all more urban than Dallas. Nice try though.
Quote:
Wrong. Toronto's most urban neighborhoods, by far, are downtown, which are all pre-auto.
LOL. There are dozens and dozens of skyscrapers under construction in downtown Toronto RIGHT NOW. LOL @ you suggesting downtown Toronto is "all pre-auto". There are more skyscrapers under construction in downtown Toronto than anywhere else in the city.
Quote:
The most urban blocks are those that are built for the pedestrian, not the automobile, so obviously the core neighborhoods are most urban.
The newer stuff is built for pedestrians. Look at Cityplace. All built within the last 15 years, and it's extremely pedestrian-friendly. It accomodates autos just like all of the city does. It's built though with pedestrians in mind.
Quote:
This is a hilarious claim. So you are now claiming that Canada is unique in the world that the auto-oriented development was built prior to the invention of the automobile, and the most pedestrian oriented, anti-auto development was built in recent years.
The stuff built in recent years is built to the lot line, had ground-floor retail, and the garages are underground, with the curb cuts/garage entrances usually on a side street or an alleyway. Yes, the most pedestrian-oriented stuff in Toronto is the stuff in recent years.
What's hilarious is that you are pretending to know Toronto better than people like myself who actually LIVE here.
Quote:
I guess that's why Eaton Centre has a gigantic parking entrance directly on Yonge?
The Eaton Centre wasn't built in recent years dummy. It was built 40 years ago. By recent years I'm talking about stuff built in the last 20 years.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's going to come close to touching Chicago or NYC in urbanity. In fact, it's predicted that as early as 2015 that NYC will surpass Toronto in skyscraper/highrise construction.
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.
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.
I don't even know why we're arguing this. NYC is NYC, Toronto will never compare (at least right now), as much as Torontonians would like it to. That's all.