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.
Let's just say Toronto wins. This 6.5 sq/miles 250,000 keeps getting mentioned. What more do you want? Win vs all but NYC till it ....... the last thing we want to boast of now high-rise living after this London fire.
Your assumption is someone 'wants' Toronto to win anything. I'm sharing information here about what I know about its DT core and population. Even the biggest moron who walks around DT Toronto would pretty quickly figure out its among the largest DT core populations in the U.S and Canada. If someone in here tried to bloviate that Toronto has a larger DT core than what exists either fully or even in part of Manhattan they should be rightfully laughed away.
Your comment about London is just in really poor taste my friend - point blank!
Your assumption is someone 'wants' Toronto to win anything. I'm sharing information here about what I know about its DT core and population. Even the biggest moron who walks around DT Toronto would pretty quickly figure out its among the largest DT core populations in the U.S and Canada. If someone in here tried to beat around the bush that Toronto has a larger DT core than what exists either fully or even in part of Manhattan they should be rightfully laughed away.
Your comment about London is just in really poor taste my friend - point blank!
Poor overall discussion if no win is desired . "I acknowledged your stats" and no one denied them. How many times do we mention them and Toronto's increasing density? We surely need not reply then to my poor taste further.
Poor overall discussion if no win is desired . "I acknowledged your stats" and no one denied them. How many times do we mention them and Toronto's increasing density? We surely need not reply then to my poor taste further.
No one is denying the bold.
The discussion is N.A DT populations. I'm trying to provide insight into the DT population of Toronto. We can automatically and practicably eliminate the big two - NYC and M.C - they crush everyone so this is why the rest come up - its a dogfight essentially without a clear winner when you look at number 3,4 and 5. That said, yes, if we are talking about just DT core population and that alone - i'd wager about now or if not now but in a few years Toronto will round out top 3 on the continent even if we apply a liberal approach to how we delineate each DT core.
Is the comment you made about London and highrises and a potential connection to what 'could' happen in Toronto in poor taste - YES and i'd wager you know that yourself though getting you to admit such would be like pulling the more stubborn tooth out
btw Dave - I still like you but not everything i write about Toronto is for you lol..
Within a decade, it's likely that LA becomes a strong contender for third for downtown population as its urban core, which would be more than just the technical definition of downtown, is filling up faster than any other part of the city.
Nearly 275,000 people cross the loop bridges across the Chicago River each weekday.
This area covers a little over 8 square miles, including the downtown core (loop) and lakefront parks as well as the museum campus and McCormick place.
The loop itself has around 300,000 jobs in one square mile.
Last edited by Chicago60614; 06-15-2017 at 01:05 PM..
Nearly 275,000 people cross the loop bridges across the Chicago River each weekday.
This area covers a little over 8 square miles, including the downtown core (loop) and lakefront parks as well as the museum campus and McCormick place.
The loop itself has around 300,000 jobs in one square mile.
The numbers are actually quite a bite higher. 240K in the "downtown" (added nearly 100K in since 200) and closer to 550K if you extend north and west to include up to Lakeview and NW to Logan Square. Posed the detailed counts a few days ago: http://www.city-data.com/forum/48411486-post89.html
The numbers are actually quite a bite higher. 240K in the "downtown" (added nearly 100K in since 200) and closer to 550K if you extend north and west to include up to Lakeview and NW to Logan Square. Posed the detailed counts a few days ago: http://www.city-data.com/forum/48411486-post89.html
That isn't "downtown". No one thinks that Logan Square, full of detached homes with yards and halfway to the suburbs, is "downtown" Chicago.
Maybe you could say there are 500k or so people living in the "desirable parts" of Chicago, but not downtown.
The discussion is N.A DT populations. I'm trying to provide insight into the DT population of Toronto. We can automatically and practicably eliminate the big two - NYC and M.C - they crush everyone so this is why the rest come up - its a dogfight essentially without a clear winner when you look at number 3,4 and 5.
I think yes, it's a dogfight for 3,4,5, but it highly depends if you're looking at quantity or quality.
I think, in terms of quantity, it would have to be Chicago or Toronto (or LA if we're looking at "core", not "downtown" population).
If you're looking at quality, Philly and SF come into the picture, and Boston and DC would have to be under consideration too. All these cities have at least a plausible argument for 3-4-5.
That isn't "downtown". No one thinks that Logan Square, full of detached homes with yards and halfway to the suburbs, is "downtown" Chicago.
Maybe you could say there are 500k or so people living in the "desirable parts" of Chicago, but not downtown.
The CBD is officially defined by the city, and is roughly a 2 mile radius of City Hall with about 240k people (borders are irregular.) But this is the business core... not the residential urban core of Chicago (although gaining a ton of residential density of late.) But In terms of what comprises living "downtown" in Chicago, it is very subjective.
For example, the density residential areas run up the lakefront extending about a mile inland from Lakeshore East, through Streeterville, through Lincoln Park and Lakeview. All of that area is contiguous, dense and urban- mostly high-rises with some row homes mixed in. So I consider this living downtown... as opposed to, say Irving Park... or the suburbs.
If you only define being downtown as proximity to the office towers in the Loop, then you are ignoring a huge part of the inner core of the city. So IMO, of you are in a dense urban neighborhood that is contiguous with other dense urban neighborhoods all of the way to the center... then you live "downtown." But you don't have to agree. And you certainly have a stronger argument to exclude Logan Sqr than you do to exclude Lincoln Park.
But that is why I provided two numbers. 240k for CBD pop and 550k+ for what I'm calling inner urban core. But maybe a more accurate term would be contiguous dense urban area that is not economically depressed or unsafe. I included this so that one can try and compare apples with apples when talking about urban inter city living in Chicago and other cities. Drop Logan Sqr or Lakeview right above Market Street in Philly and people would call it downtown... but they would not call it Center City.
The CBD is officially defined by the city, and is roughly a 2 mile radius of City Hall with about 240k people (borders are irregular.) But this is the business core... not the residential urban core of Chicago (although gaining a ton of residential density of late.) But In terms of what comprises living "downtown" in Chicago, it is very subjective.
For example, the density residential areas run up the lakefront extending about a mile inland from Lakeshore East, through Streeterville, through Lincoln Park and Lakeview. All of that area is contiguous, dense and urban- mostly high-rises with some row homes mixed in. So I consider this living downtown... as opposed to, say Irving Park... or the suburbs.
If you only define being downtown as proximity to the office towers in the Loop, then you are ignoring a huge part of the inner core of the city. So IMO, of you are in a dense urban neighborhood that is contiguous with other dense urban neighborhoods all of the way to the center... then you live "downtown." But you don't have to agree. And you certainly have a stronger argument to exclude Logan Sqr than you do to exclude Lincoln Park.
But that is why I provided two numbers. 240k for CBD pop and 550k+ for what I'm calling inner urban core. But maybe a more accurate term would be contiguous dense urban area that is not economically depressed or unsafe. I included this so that one can try and compare apples with apples when talking about urban inter city living in Chicago and other cities. Drop Logan Sqr or Lakeview right above Market Street in Philly and people would call it downtown... but they would not call it Center City.
Philly is odd, its other center city or not. No one really calls it downtown
some of those areas of Chicago feel pretty far removed from the core, definitely urban connected but no DT. Like I wouldn't consider a Fishtown East Passyunk DT yet are closer then some of the areas you described
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.
