Premier City of the Great Lakes in 2015: Chicago versus Toronto (Greater Chicago versus Greater Golden Horseshoe) (crime rate, quality)
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.
Not at all, I would actually like Chicago to do about 50,000 people a year in population growth (meaning 500,000 people a decade). That would be moderate to slightly above-average population growth for an area of 10 million people. I would even welcome the "slow and sustainable growth" of 25,000 to 45,000 people per year (meaning 250,000 to 450,000 people a decade) in population growth for Chicago (similar to what Boston CSA is growing by right now -- that range). While nothing to write home about, that growth would be a vast improvement and a path in the right direction for Chicago.
The problem is that I'm not delusional with optimism. I know how to read empirical data from both last year as well as half-a-century ago and I can recognize the writing on the wall when I see it. Chicagoland is a place that is going to get itself surpassed, easily at that, it'll start straight in 2020 when Washington DC-Baltimore CSA surpasses it. I see at least another 3 American CSAs (and 2 MSAs) in addition to Washington DC-Baltimore passing it up in a few decades too by population (1 in CA, 2 in TX). Doesn't mean I want to see it get passed up (I don't), but I've already accepted that Chicagoland isn't capable of retaining its 3rd place spot in the United States for much longer. I've moved on and have adjusted my expectations for Chicagoland to reflect that.
My only expectation now and my only expectation for the last 3 years for Chicago in regards to population growth has been that I just want to see it in the black/green now (as in post growth and not declines). I don't even care by how much now, just don't decline, that's it. Those are my only expectations for Chicago. I wont set them any higher than this again, not for Chicago at least. If I set my expectations any higher for Chicago, then I'm afraid that my expectations will never come close to materializing. So no expectations at all for Chicago, other than at least posting some gains, whether it is 1 person or 150,000 people is up to those that run Chicago and those looking into moving there to figure out.
Toronto CMA and the Greater Golden Horseshoe, it is my full expectation that it too will pass Chicago, for the Greater Golden Horseshoe it will come really soon since its right on Chicago's heels now (both are in the 9 millions range now). That is the fundamental difference between a place growing by 100,000 a year and one growing by 10,000 a year. Oh and Toronto's been in the 6-digit growth for several years now.
Chicago's MSA exceeded that 25,000 annual growth benchmark in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2004, 2003 and 2002. It surpassed 50,000 in 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992 and 1991. In 1991, it gained 123,000 people after growing 130,000 IN THE ENTIRE 1980s. So...not only has Chicago's MSA met your benchmark every year since I was born absent 2005, 2006 and 2014, but it has gone from negligible growth in the 1980s to adding 900,000 in the 1990s. This shows two things: 1) your growth-pocalypse DOOM! perspective is unwarranted and 2) the city can go from slow growth to rapid growth quickly.
The Golden Horseshoe is a region. It is not a metropolitan area. It's not even a CSA! It's like adding Milwaukee, South Bend, Niles, Elkhart, Rockford+ to Chicagoland. You cannot compare a region to a fairly contained CSA like Chicago.
Cook County alone has 5,246,456 people in 945sqmi of land. Add DuPage's 932,708 in 327sqmi and you have 6,179,164 in 1,272sqmi. Toronto achieves that same population with Toronto City, York, Peel, Durham, and Halton, which have, according to the 2011 Census figures, 6,054,191 in 2,750sqmi.
Let me re-state that, the Core Counties of Chicago - Cook and DuPage - have 6,179,164 people in 1,272sqmi.
The Core Counties of Toronto - Durham, Halton, Peel, Toronto, York - have 6,054,191 in 2,750sqmi.
Toronto needs more than 2X the land area to achieve the same population as Chicago!
Notice that those 5 counties are Toronto's CMA and they collectively have the same exact population as only 2 of Chicago's core counties? I haven't even added the other major counties in Chicagoland: Will County, with 685,000 people, Lake County (IL) with 705,000, Kane County with 527,000 and Lake County (IN) with 490,000. That's another 2,407,000 people.
How does Toronto pass that?
It needs to add Kawartha Lakes, Simcoe, Dufferin, Waterloo, Wellington, Brant, Hamilton, and Niagara. In other words, it has to go well into 'CSA-territory' to add that. Niagara wouldn't even be in a CSA yet we have to add it just for Toronto to match Chicago's 2nd-tier suburbs!
BUT...Chicago still has more suburbs!! McHenry, Kendall, Grundy, Kankakee, Racine, Kenosha, Porter, LaPorte, DeKalb, Boone and LaSalle add another 1.5 million people. Toronto can't even add any more areas to what I cited above because those wouldn't even be in a Toronto CSA. In reality, Niagara wouldn't even be in a Toronto CSA.
SOOO...Chicago has 2 million more people than Toronto when comparing CSA-TO-CSA, not CSA-to-Golden Horseshoe Region. Not only that but Chicago has in 2 counties what Toronto has in its entire CMA! Plus, Toronto's CMA gets 6,000,000 in 2x the square miles as Chicago's 2 core counties! So this whole populationgeddon is based on nothing but hysteria. Toronto boosters have to inflate their numbers to feel good because they are far behind. Chicago haters have to peddle false information to give the impression that Toronto is on the cusp of passing Chicago.
In reality, Toronto needs 20 more years of 100,000+ plus growth to pass Chicago in population. And that's assuming Chicago grows by 0 people in those 20 years.
I think it's a good time to be cautiously optimistic about Chicago.
The issue with Chicago isn't decline or even that it is a bad city or anything of that sort. The issue with Chicago is that it has spent 160 years only having minimal American competition, minimal North American competition, minimal Western Hemisphere competition, and a manageable global competition.
Today the entire planet is improving by leaps and bounds. The United States is no longer such a special place anymore, lots of countries are making advancements rapidly, and entire cities are being built from ground up in a swift fashion. The competition is increasing incrementally each year. In 2010 New York was the 5th largest urban area on Earth, today it has fallen to 9th, next year it will fall out of the top 10 largest urban areas in the world. In 2010, Los Angeles was the 15th largest urban area on the planet, today it has dropped to 19th and next year will drop out of the top 20 largest urban areas in the world. In 2010 Chicago was the 25th largest urban area in the world, today it is sitting pretty at 37th, falling 3 spots just in the last 1 year and 12 spots in total in 4 years. Next year it will fall out of the world's top 40 largest urban areas. I'm not worried about New York and Los Angeles being passed in population because they are still in a higher league for importance but Chicago does not share that sort of advantage over other cities. It's population and importance is certainly passable.
At one time, Chicago proper was in the world's top 5 largest, today it isn't even in the world's top 90. Today it probably wouldn't even be in the world's top 100, it isn't in the top 88 right now, at least.
Now this is just population and not really importance. Chicago's importance is very high and it remains one of the world's premier cities. Even then, each year the field of competition grows for Chicago and that field of competition is growing more and more each year, even more cities are joining it every year. Chicago isn't exactly booming here, it isn't economically expanding fast enough, it isn't growing much, it isn't infilling as fast as several world cities, it isn't getting the same foreign investment or attention that it once used to.
Chicago in general is going to have to deal with increased competition, not just from Toronto and other American cities but from the world on over. So far, it hasn't responded to that call all that well, at least the last 15 years, especially the last 5. I can see Chicago's status begin to drop in a multitude of different metrics for world cities and other cities from all over the world replace it at those things.
Being in America is a great safe guard for Chicago. The lowest I can see it falling for importance there is 5th and even that would be arguable. Outside of America? The competition is rough and brutal for Chicago, it'll have a really hard time defending its elite global position that it's held for some 150 years.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 11-15-2015 at 05:36 PM..
The issue with Chicago isn't decline or even that it is a bad city or anything of that sort. The issue with Chicago is that it has spent 160 years only having minimal American competition, minimal North American competition, minimal Western Hemisphere competition, and a manageable global competition.
Today the entire planet is improving by leaps and bounds. The United States is no longer such a special place anymore, lots of countries are making advancements rapidly, and entire cities are being built from ground up in a swift fashion. The competition is increasing incrementally each year. In 2010 New York was the 5th largest urban area on Earth, today it has fallen to 9th, next year it will fall out of the top 10 largest urban areas in the world. In 2010, Los Angeles was the 15th largest urban area on the planet, today it has dropped to 19th and next year will drop out of the top 20 largest urban areas in the world. In 2010 Chicago was the 25th largest urban area in the world, today it is sitting pretty at 37th, falling 3 spots just in the last 1 year and 12 spots in total in 4 years. Next year it will fall out of the world's top 40 largest urban areas. I'm not worried about New York and Los Angeles being passed in population because they are still in a higher league for importance but Chicago does not share that sort of advantage over other cities. It's population and importance is certainly passable.
At one time, Chicago proper was in the world's top 5 largest, today it isn't even in the world's top 90. Today it probably wouldn't even be in the world's top 100, it isn't in the top 88 right now, at least.
Now this is just population and not really importance. Chicago's importance is very high and it remains one of the world's premier cities. Even then, each year the field of competition grows for Chicago and that field of competition is growing more and more each year, even more cities are joining it every year. Chicago isn't exactly booming here, it isn't economically expanding fast enough, it isn't growing much, it isn't infilling as fast as several world cities, it isn't getting the same foreign investment or attention that it once used to.
Chicago in general is going to have to deal with increased competition, not just from Toronto and other American cities but from the world on over. So far, it hasn't responded to that call all that well, at least the last 15 years, especially the last 5. I can see Chicago's status begin to drop in a multitude of different metrics for world cities and other cities from all over the world replace it at those things.
Being in America is a great safe guard for Chicago. The lowest I can see it falling for importance there is 5th and even that would be arguable. Outside of America? The competition is rough and brutal for Chicago, it'll have a really hard time defending its elite global position that it's held for some 150 years.
New York and Los Angeles are the top two, and they aren't very high, either. Cities in many countries have more population, but they aren't as important...I haven't heard of most of them. Chicago would still be the third US city in population, so that's still pretty respectable.
Chicago would still be the third US city in population, so that's still pretty respectable.
I agree, Chicago's status as a premier global city is respectable. Like I've said, I consider it one of the only 5 world class cities in the country, the other 4 being New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington DC. Plus Toronto and maybe just maybe Mexico City and those are the world class cities of North America, in my opinion.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
I was pretty calm then actually, still am now. I just wanted you to know that I'll hold your assessment for its word. If you're going to quote me when I post data to refute what I have to say and then make a statement that you cannot really back up right now, then yeah, all I am doing is waiting for your assessment to pan out.
You said that the next 5 years for Chicago may be different than the last 5 years and you used anecdotal evidence of it in the past to make your claim. That's fine. We'll have to see about that.
Next month the data will show year 1 of your 5 year Chicago resurgence process (through IL), so lets see if Chicago gets itself back above 50,000 people per year growth or even higher the way it did in the late 1980s and 1990s. My guess is that it wont even crack 35,000 or higher, but we'll have to see what the data says officially in March. Will get a good idea of where it is going with how IL does next month relative to where it was last year.
John.... Just respect his opinion.... and others..... With your attitude insisting Chicago's decline is terminal as you seem to believe. We if we apparently have to accept that from you?
Downtown is still getting population increasing and construction has increased through 2014 and this this year.... especially. Finally like 4 Super-Tall's planned again too. Lot of New Hotels and new Residential towers.
We do not know how Global warming .... or if Sea levels rise and it water shortages become worse in the sunbelt?. Could help the interior of the nation again?
People hate winter and add jobs that moved South too ... to creating their own... we are in a era where the Sunbelt is the GO TO REGION. I include the Pacific Northwest too... it has mild winters. It is more then Florida and California.... as it was in some previous decades.
Again issues in the city's pension debt and Taxes.... certainly do not help things. But so far the city still is planning and Improving its infrastructure and things planned years ago getting built and scheduled.....
When you see new construction in prime areas stop.... or corporate America show signs of pulling out.... then say..... its demise truly started.... but to argue..... you must be right.... is not nessesary.
You were not argumentative and insisting..... before you went to London....
WHY INSIST CHICAGO MUST GET BACK TO 50,000 a year Growth or higher? To be still a Great city?
Chicago is not in the Sunbelt and not NYC with its International Stature of a residence there is a STATUS of your SUCESSS?
Chicago still has turned the tide.. HOPEFULLY. Of population loss. With a couple hundred thousand last decade... If only 82 more as preliminary Census numbers say now it got? It is still a turnaround.....
Statistics of the census showed a 181,000 African-American loss last decade too. Black-Flight is real. Other Northern cities too.
Many major European cities are also far under Boom decades too. The Midwest is NOT the move too region of the nation..... Minneapolis had some nice growth.... great for it. Some major cities still losses.
But as I said before.... you have a Passive/Aggressive thing on Chicago in threads today.....
It is OK IF OTHERS DISAGREE .... WITHOUT YOUR INISISTING THAT CHICAGO WILL DIE UNLESS IT GETS 50,000 a year growth .....
John.... Just respect his opinion.... and others..... With your attitude insisting Chicago's decline is terminal as you seem to believe. We if we apparently have to accept that from you?
First of all, the guy quoted me and not the other way around, so I never started a debate over his opinions. He started it by disagreeing with my opinion and then tried to substantiate it with some claim of how Chicago is going to be picking up within the next 5 years.
No, population growth is not about opinion. It is about facts and I am not accepting some pipedream nonsense with zero basis in reality or empirical data trends as a fact.
Leave that out of this thread.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 11-15-2015 at 06:25 PM..
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
First of all, the guy quoted me and not the other way around, so I never started a debate over his opinions. He started it by disagreeing with my opinion and then tried to substantiate it with some claim of how Chicago is going to be picking up within the next 5 years.
No, population growth is not about opinion. It is about facts and I am not accepting some pipedream nonsense with zero basis in reality or empirical data trends as a fact.
Leave that out of this thread.
I see it is NOT NONSENSE TO SAY .... "Cautiously Optimistic". Or to note.... on the THREAD TOPIC of Statistics comparing Toronto's metro+ numbers and Chicagoland's......like .... manitopiaaa.... did. That was a awesome post. Sorry I can't give him more .... rate the post positive feedback again...
No one is predicting ANY NUMBER PREDICTIONS. IT IS YOU INSISTING ON A NUMBER PER YEAR IT MUST GET????? OR ELSE.
We surely can be Cautiously Optimistic... and SPARE PUSHING YOUR NEW AGENDA WE MUST ACCEPT ALL YOU POST. OR EXPECT TO BE LAUGHED AT THEN THE ..... How dare we? INSISTANCE..... of being delusional AND IN A PIPEDREAM....
Just let it be you see the glass on Chicago as half-empty and dropping.... We see it as half-FULL and still see a modest rise..... and at least the evaporating stopped.... . TO AGREE TO DISAGREE.
Cook County alone has 5,246,456 people in 945sqmi of land. Add DuPage's 932,708 in 327sqmi and you have 6,179,164 in 1,272sqmi. Toronto achieves that same population with Toronto City, York, Peel, Durham, and Halton, which have, according to the 2011 Census figures, 6,054,191 in 2,750sqmi.
Let me re-state that, the Core Counties of Chicago - Cook and DuPage - have 6,179,164 people in 1,272sqmi.
The Core Counties of Toronto - Durham, Halton, Peel, Toronto, York - have 6,054,191 in 2,750sqmi.
Toronto needs more than 2X the land area to achieve the same population as Chicago!
No, you're interpreting the data incorrectly. Those core counties of Chicago are fully built out, while a few of those core counties of Toronto (they are actually regional municipalities, not counties) are still made up of large areas of undeveloped farmland. The actual built-up urbanized portion of the Greater Toronto-Hamilton area contains over 6.45 million people in 2,287 sq km (883 sq. mi).
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
The Greater Toronto-Hamilton area is much more densely populated than the Greater Chicago area if we're looking at the actual urbanized area.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjun18
sure.
a couple observations...
-chicago felt more segregated, while toronto feels much more integrated. a nice guy that owned a t-shirt store in wicker park was saying how he and wife loved toronto and wishes chicago had more integration. the conversation was brought up when i asked him for directions to carribean restaurants which he said chicago doesn't really have that many, which then lead to him asking me where im from, and so on. another girl that was working in one of those hipster vintage clothing stores said something similar, but she was originally from nyc.
-chicago has a large domestic feel to it, while toronto has the international/ feel to it. similar to nyc. i largely seen white/african-american/hispanics, and little pockets of other races here and there. with toronto you see a little bit of everything.
-the loop/ and just north of the loop (mag mile are) was busy, but at night is was half empty at times nearly empty. it was very "commercial"/"corporate". what i mean is every corner had either a walgreens, dunkin donuts or a bank (yes i know walgreens calls chicago home). while in dt toronto, yes you get the commercial stuff, but its well integrated with everything else. mom and pop shops, dollar/convenience stores, chinese/sushi places, big and small businesses of all kinda.
-chicago has more "grand" or wider dt streets, while toronto has less (university, jarvis, spadina, etc). the rest of toronto’s dt streets are mainly 2 lanes in each direction. i liked the wider streets more, save certain streets which are one-direction like richmond, adelaide, etc.
-chicago has more homeless and crazy people and they were all over the trains, the streets, etc. toronto does have this as well, but not to the same extent.
-toronto has a better maintenance record for the streets, sideways, etc. i can’t count how many times i almost tripped while walking in north side and dt because the non-leveled blocks of concrete on the sidewalks.
-toronto suburbs are better maintained. the was A LOT of run down, rusty, not pleasant to look at places once you leave the loop. it was almost like night and day. toronto also has areas (east of dt for example) that are not in the greatest shape and are not kept up properly like outer parts of toronto, but it was worse in chicago.
-the double decker streets in chicago was nice, makes getting around much easier.
-despite what pictures say, dt chicago is not exactly bigger than toronto. walking from the john hancock tower/mag mile, to the sears tower area, is pretty much the same as walking from queens key up yonge all the way to bloor. the skyline of toronto is catching up in size to chicago. there may not be same amount of supertalls, but the scale in terms of how it stretches it is near identical. yes there are more buildings along the lake going north, but the same can be said for toronto going north along the yonge corridor. so speaking in terms of the dt skylines alone, the both stretch out about the same. chicago has this along the water, while toronto does this more so inwards from the lake towards bloor, in similar length.
-man the amount of big ugly parking garages in the the loop was pretty horrible to see.
-wicker park was very similar to queen st west. but queen st west in terms of things to see, do, eat, shop etc, is much longer better maintain, more attractive,, more diversified, etc than what was on milwaukee/damen/north ave. in chicago.
-while chicago has a great food scene, it wasn’t as diversified as what toronto has imo.
-the lakefront was very nice, but again, the gravel for joggers to run along as falling apart. different variations, cracks, holes etc right in the concrete. other than it was nice to walk along there. millennium park is already having some rust issues along its stairs and railing which i was surprised to see. i don’t even think the park is 10 years old yet. with all this said, toronto does not have an answer in terms of a large downtown park that can compete with this. but of course the toronto waterfront is completely being revitalized.
-citizens of the chicago were very polite and helpful. when asking for directions, etc people would stop to give you the full information that you require.
-buses were very clean (on the north side and loop and parts of the west side at least...never took any buses on the south side).
-i don’t care what anyone says about toronto’s streetcars. the are efficient and though they sometimes move slow in traffic, they get you to where you need to go. at 2 pm in the afternoon on a tuesday in chicago, i was waiting for a red line train at harrison to go to addison station to check out shedd and then walk along the lakefront. 20 minutes to wait for train is ridiculous, on a weekday afternoon....to travel one measly stop. and to add to that, there are a couple of loop stations that you could literally run from one to the next and probably beat the train. you could say the same thing for the streetcars in toronto, but at least the streetcars run more frequently.
-the el's train cars are small and narrow compared to toronto. i had to keep moving around a lot for people to get in and out of the train at several stops. put it this way. sitting in the l is sitting in a mid-side car. while sitting in a toronto subway felt like a large minivan or large suv. much much more spacious/roomy and welcoming. it was nice that there are more el "lines" the city to get you places, but when you factor in all the track sharing that takes place between certain lines (trains pass you, you wait more, etc), the amount of time to wait for trains during certain times, the l’s “slow zones”, trains holding less people, the fact that you're waiting outside for your train, etc. its pretty much the same as what toronto has which has less lines. you can definitely make an argument for toronto having a similar and maybe even the better overall transit system when taking EVERYTHING into consideration.
there was a similar amount of people on the streets in each city.
weather was similar.
^again, some of this stuff i knew already and/oir expected, but did not see it in person for myself until recently. there are more things i observed during my visit, but these are just a few that came off the top of my head.
We surely respect the opinions. No big negatives on Chicago here.
I agree with the rust where the railings on the stairs. Meet the concrete to Millennium Park.... surprisingly having rust. I would hope it gets addressed... I did see it too.
Not sure why the bus wait was long. I am sure it happens.
The Loop is the business core.... North of the River up the North Shore and other neighborhoods. Have more most of the nightlife.... But the Loop today.... has more like then it did post 60s 70s declines... and just a couple decades ago....
As I noted before. AMERICAN NORTHERN CITIES ESPECIALLY EXPERIENCED.... DRASTIC RACIAL STRIFE, WHITE-FLIGHT ... AND DECLINES TO THEIR CORES AND DOWNTOWNS.
Chicago's Downtown DID experience declines in the 60s 70s and State St in the Loop. Lost virtually all its retail.... but for Marshall Fields now a Macy's. But it has today bounced back with mostly Mall type stores.... in the 70s many parts got seedy. Theaters began to even show X-rated movies....
If not for Active Preservationist.... All the Loop's Grand movie Palaces would have been lost.... a couple were. But many other buildings got saved from destruction too. Aesthetically though, there is a huge difference between decades past to today.
Not sure what neighborhoods you meant outside the Loop. Just shows American cities had major declines. Gentrification reversed much. Surely there are areas not perfect. ITS AN OLDER NORTHERN AMERICAN CITY..... But I won't name some cities worst. But far more Improvements i see on each visit....
As for streets off the main drags? May have pot-holes ect.... It is common in US cities. Manhattan is no exception. But again. More improvements even there.... the city rebuilt its Expressways.... SOLEY NEEDED if one knew it in the 80s...... POT-HOLE CITY..... Lake Shore Dr. was not rebuilt yet. Plans call for a more Boulevard type Roadway..... but nothing finalized....
The "El" Trains sadly.... can't use wider trains.... Tracks going in opposite directions are too close and probably in the subway too. AFTER ALL IT DATES BACK TO THE 1800s...... and still going strong.... You surely know US cites are not Big on Mass transit. Chicago is lucky to HAVE EVEN ITS OLD "El".....
Seems most of your GRIPES were in infrastructure aspects..... Not Buildings, neighborhoods and housing, ect. Mostly.......mostly petty though Impressions do matter. But most you mention are just American cities in general.
I personally, find Chicago's downtown super clean and most of its neighborhoods good too. But then its by American standards.
Great you did not find the city.... grimy, vastly outdated ( outside of the El"), deteriorating looking and Old has been looking vs. more Modern, ect.
After all.... much more of Chicago dates back to the early 20th century then Toronto. But AS LONG AS IT IS NOT TERRIBLE DEMEANING COMMENTS. I wouldn't be offended.
Chicago's MSA exceeded that 25,000 annual growth benchmark in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2004, 2003 and 2002. It surpassed 50,000 in 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992 and 1991. In 1991, it gained 123,000 people after growing 130,000 IN THE ENTIRE 1980s. So...not only has Chicago's MSA met your benchmark every year since I was born absent 2005, 2006 and 2014, but it has gone from negligible growth in the 1980s to adding 900,000 in the 1990s. This shows two things: 1) your growth-pocalypse DOOM! perspective is unwarranted and 2) the city can go from slow growth to rapid growth quickly.
The Golden Horseshoe is a region. It is not a metropolitan area. It's not even a CSA! It's like adding Milwaukee, South Bend, Niles, Elkhart, Rockford+ to Chicagoland. You cannot compare a region to a fairly contained CSA like Chicago.
Cook County alone has 5,246,456 people in 945sqmi of land. Add DuPage's 932,708 in 327sqmi and you have 6,179,164 in 1,272sqmi. Toronto achieves that same population with Toronto City, York, Peel, Durham, and Halton, which have, according to the 2011 Census figures, 6,054,191 in 2,750sqmi.
Let me re-state that, the Core Counties of Chicago - Cook and DuPage - have 6,179,164 people in 1,272sqmi.
The Core Counties of Toronto - Durham, Halton, Peel, Toronto, York - have 6,054,191 in 2,750sqmi.
Toronto needs more than 2X the land area to achieve the same population as Chicago!
Notice that those 5 counties are Toronto's CMA and they collectively have the same exact population as only 2 of Chicago's core counties? I haven't even added the other major counties in Chicagoland: Will County, with 685,000 people, Lake County (IL) with 705,000, Kane County with 527,000 and Lake County (IN) with 490,000. That's another 2,407,000 people.
How does Toronto pass that?
It needs to add Kawartha Lakes, Simcoe, Dufferin, Waterloo, Wellington, Brant, Hamilton, and Niagara. In other words, it has to go well into 'CSA-territory' to add that. Niagara wouldn't even be in a CSA yet we have to add it just for Toronto to match Chicago's 2nd-tier suburbs!
BUT...Chicago still has more suburbs!! McHenry, Kendall, Grundy, Kankakee, Racine, Kenosha, Porter, LaPorte, DeKalb, Boone and LaSalle add another 1.5 million people. Toronto can't even add any more areas to what I cited above because those wouldn't even be in a Toronto CSA. In reality, Niagara wouldn't even be in a Toronto CSA.
SOOO...Chicago has 2 million more people than Toronto when comparing CSA-TO-CSA, not CSA-to-Golden Horseshoe Region. Not only that but Chicago has in 2 counties what Toronto has in its entire CMA! Plus, Toronto's CMA gets 6,000,000 in 2x the square miles as Chicago's 2 core counties! So this whole populationgeddon is based on nothing but hysteria. Toronto boosters have to inflate their numbers to feel good because they are far behind. Chicago haters have to peddle false information to give the impression that Toronto is on the cusp of passing Chicago.
In reality, Toronto needs 20 more years of 100,000+ plus growth to pass Chicago in population. And that's assuming Chicago grows by 0 people in those 20 years.
Wow, that's great insight. Is this verified to be true? I had no idea that Toronto incorporated such a geographically vast area when compiling it CSA (MSA?). That's a *huge* area (2,750sqmi). If Chicago were to broaden its CSA to such a vast size, it would probably add another 2-3 million in population, right?
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.
We if we apparently have to accept that from you?
. TO AGREE TO DISAGREE. 
