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)
View Poll Results: Best Urban Core?
Boston 25 15.63%
San Francisco 44 27.50%
Toronto 70 43.75%
DC 15 9.38%
Minneapolis 6 3.75%
Voters: 160. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2017, 10:48 AM
 
Location: NYC
2,252 posts, read 2,459,937 times
Reputation: 1554

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Sounds more like a "sally" in response to a comment you didn't like, as opposed to a true analysis of Boston as an interesting city to visit.


In terms of U.S. cities, though I am not saying Boston is necessarily number one, which other cities would be so numerous and more interesting to you to the point where Boston would be relegated to bottom-feeder status?


I am just not seeing this.
Yeah, sounds like an immature jab from someone who is a little too emotionally invested in these CvC battles. Anyways, I think both Boston and Toronto will recover from the painful slights that have been inflicted on them from a few people on this thread
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2017, 10:48 AM
 
410 posts, read 161,158 times
Reputation: 238
In my opinion Montreal is far more interesting than Toronto
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 11:00 AM
 
Location: NYC
2,252 posts, read 2,459,937 times
Reputation: 1554
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123 View Post
As much as I love MTA subway and express bus services when I worked in NYC couple years ago, it's a pretty tough sell to say that MTA offers top notch quality, service, or even basic passenger safety after Tuesday's A train derailment around 125th Street, which resulted in 34+ passenger injuries and fire in the tunnels.

The most embarrassing aspect of all this is that:

1) the ire did not happen on the trains themselves, but rather a result of layers of garbage accumulating on the tracks that caught on fire...

2) passengers on the derailed train did not receive any system-wide communication for more than 30 minutes after the derailment, due to the fact that the older A train models do not have a direct connection with the MTA's central PA system, resulting in a communication blackout.

Personally, I think it's an absolute disgrace that America's top showcase metropolis has a public transit system that has descended to this level where even basic passenger safety is in question. Forget about comparing with metros in Shanghai or Hong Kong or Tokyo, even subway systems in many developing nations with far less wealth can do a better job transporting large numbers of their citizens in a safe, clean, and dignified manner.

New York Times: Cuomo Declares a State of Emergency for New York City Subway
I couldn't agree more. And I say this as someone who's been unfortunate enough to have to use the NY subway almost on a daily basis for almost 20 years. I will say it has gotten a little better in the last few years, but is still a disgrace especially when you look at other great world cities and think about the wealth of this country. But I understand that we've got more pressing priorities than fixing our dilapidated infrastructure -- like changing regimes in half of the Middle East and slashing taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
20,663 posts, read 25,743,716 times
Reputation: 8145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Burns View Post



NYC
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Chicago
DC
Seattle
Philadelphia

on the American side, and




.

Interesting and logical choices, but what did Boston do to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 11:33 AM
 
615 posts, read 316,940 times
Reputation: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Interesting and logical choices, but what did Boston do to you?
I have nothing against Boston, I just wouldn't compare it to Toronto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 11:45 AM
 
410 posts, read 161,158 times
Reputation: 238
"I can use this logic to expand Toronto's core all the way up to North York"

Mr Burns no you can't. There are no gaps in urban development or vibrancy from back bay to Cambridge central/Kendall square. These areas are within a mile walk from each other and on the city subway within 2 stops. North York is not core because it's separated from the core by areas like Bedford Park and other suburb type places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 02:34 PM
 
2,353 posts, read 1,088,625 times
Reputation: 1658
^^^^ Toronto core boosters already give their city THE LARGEST CORE OUTSIDE OF NYC. Between with US and Canada.
Torontonian boosters maintain a 6.5 sq/mile urban core universally. Outside of NYC. No US city uses this size officially unless it is as a Greater Downtown Core, Central Business District. But some profess Toronto's core demolishes Boston's? Even SF's? Even arguing someone uses a broader core then it should as Boston boasting to stretch it whatsoever?

They argue and deny Boston's core using ANY SIZE BOUNDARY as over-zealous? But a 6.5 sq/mile for Toronto is WRITTEN IN STONE.These US cities ----> SF, DC and Boston have the smallest yet 3 of the most dense US major city cores. Minneapolis all agreed its inclusion was a bit overkill for a Toronto win.

Boasting for Toronto its size, girth, length and scoping of its height but lessen any mention of GHP. Well GHP is a level in measuring up too. . Of course not that part you see protruding or shining in a highly residential skyline. Toronto's core is still very residential in its professed 6.5 sq/mile core vs more Office oriented US city cores with more low-rise residential then high-rise.

- DC limits height so NO MAJOR HIGH-RISE CAN GET BUILT.
- SF limits high-rise development GREATLY or it might look more like Hong Kong today looking over a bay.
- Boston did not develop as a high-rise living city.

But these 3 cities did develop very uniquely with cores unlike others. On that SPECIAL standing? Preferences can be made on aspects of the OP's original list and as having PREFERRED URBAN CORE.

As I said early in the thread. Toronto's boast of this 6.5 sq/mile urban core it wavers not from. The OTHER CITIES are being knocked down.... even if they ---> try to use a EXTENDED CONTINUOUS CORE still using 1/2 that size for Toronto's? Though no matter what size they say their core measures up as?

It gets bragged ----> Toronto's is the Biggest, Bestest, and Neatest one we should see as second in NA to only NYC..... period.
... BUT WE CAN MEASURE by (see OP's *** post) other visual preferences on that frame like:

- jobs
- vibrancy
- nightlife traits
- built environment
- street-level look and grid
- historic or architecturally significant preferences
- quaintness of neighborhoods in their cores that add to preferences too.

Jobs seem to be left OUT in this DEBATE LOL. For the best I'd say. But DC especially might get high marks in levels of government employment. All of DC proper is basically its Urban Core today as being so small vs its metro.

This list is also ----> the very reasons (minus jobs) European cities cores GAIN WINS over Size, Populations, heights of its built environment. But win by street-scape desirability, historic and significant architectural attributes over more modern cities and of course ..... vibrancy.

So it is NOT BASHING to outside of Old Toronto's part of its core especially? Not be nearly as impressed by Toronto even in BOASTING theirs is the larger as a ----> 6.5 sq/miles one.
Not everyone has modern high-rises as something that places a cities core as supreme. But how ERAS OF ITS ARCHITECTURE MIXES AND ADDS VARIETY CAN STAND OUT TO THEM over mass modern and similar looking new high-rises. But they surely add residents to increase vibrancy. Still the modern plainer look not always will gain raves and pluses (just look at some US Sunbelt cities in built).

I am not one to claim ALL density wins, is preferred or better as best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
It is incredibly misleading to claim that Boston and Toronto have similar population.

Toronto has 2.7 million in 243 sq miles. Boston needs well over 700 sq miles to reach that population.

Toronto's urban area has 6.5 million in 900 sq miles. The Boston region needs an insane 4500 sq miles to reach that population.

Of course Boston's defined urban area is also 50% less populous than Toronto's while gobbling up double the area.

It is only when we look at Boston's CSA that the population figures begin to equalize. CSA is a useful metric for some measures, but as a reflection of the size of the core city it's absolutely useless -- and no CSA exemplifies that more than Boston's. Its CSA population density is less than that of England and Netherlands. It would be no more absurd to hold out London as a city of 55m or Amsterdam as a city of 17m than to hold out Boston as a city of 8m. And does it even pass the smell test? Has anyone who has ever visited Boston thought to himself "wow this city is really huge"? Like "double the size of Rome" huge. Doubt it. City data might be the only place in the world where some people really believe that CSA population is an accurate representation of city size.

Anyways this thread is not about that, it's about urban cores. And considering that Boston is actually not a terribly big city, its urban core is exceptional. Especially by North American standards.
The underlined WAS NOT ASKED TO MEASURE BY THE OP. So ----> levels of high-rise living in these cities cores are irreverent.

The bold is definitely true. So the size of the whole city of Toronto to density of suburbs are irreverent but these cities Urbanity in and of their Cores. But SIZE TOO IS WHAT GETS BOASTED FOR ONE CITY TO WIN. But that isn't WHY THESE CITIES ARE TO BE RATED TO VOTE FOR AS NEITHER IS:

- level of high-rise living or number of them
- size of the core promoted or density stats boasted
- population in a urban core or city and metropolitan region
- neither are stats of overall or continuous density vs the other cities given.
- mass transit levels and scope to number of lines or growth of new transit are neither.

ALL these add to the basics of the OP's original list. (see the *** post). They merely can effect the level of live-in density of them. Though stats alone are not what lead to preferences that we can ----> prefer a city for and CHOOSE ONE CITY OVER ANOTHER.

Some choose a cities core in preferences by:

- quaintness to grandeur it projects
- aesthetics with details of its offerings
- liking what street-level presents in variety
- walkability in visible attractions and even scenic views
- attention to details a city pays attention to in its attractiveness
- architecture seened in variety and eras of evolution a city core offers
- also coming to play is Attractions like MUSEUMS, CULTURE, SHOPPING and UNIQENESS.

But you keep interjecting NYC and even European cities though.... to LESSEN The US cities in the OPs list in and points on density. YET CLAIM OTHERS KNOCK DOWN TORONTO AND ITS CORE? DESPITE ITS SIZE CLAIMS? NO ONE HAS. But it has become a KNOCK DOWN SF AND BOSTON'S CORE SIZE THREAD that US cities have no standard really of? Heck we just give NYC all Manhattan.

***
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey joe-joe View Post
Which city has the best urban core in terms of vibrancy, walk-ability, nightlife, jobs, and amenities?
THIS is what the OP first post ask on these cities. ^^^^ Seems some want density, size and tallness and population factored in too????

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Not many people make the effort to understant these. You use wikipedia to find population of the "metropolitan area" and then decide which city is "bigger" - laughable.

Boston has a dense core, however, Boston's suburbs are one of the least dense in America, at par with Atlanta. Toronto's suburbs are far denser.
Topic has Suburbs irreverent.
The Topic is NOT a density stat battle either or how continuous. But again, THESE US CITIES WERE CHOSEN AS SMALLER COMPACT CORES. Verses the 6.5 sq/miles Toronto boosters acknowledge as theirs. But these US cities with the smallish downtown cores for US cities. Are among our ---> most dense ones stretched to a greater continuous core or not some fight Boston defenders bring in. Also, to lessen them on density alone would PROVE THE REASON THEY WERE CHOSEN AGAIN FOR A TORONTO WIN.

None of these US cities can boast high levels of high-rise living as a Toronto. Some having height to preservation limits of its original built.
The Last similar thread had Philly and Chicago win over Toronto. So this thread removed them and interjected a DC and Minneapolis. ONE REASON.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Burns View Post
Toronto's core is significantly larger, more populated, and one of the densest. It is 4x the size of SF and even larger than Boston. It is highly residential as well as commercial, and very diverse in terms of its neighborhoods.

Nearly 800 people live in just one tower at Yonge and Bloor, and the number will grow to over 1200 when the supertall across the street is completed. No consider how many residential towers there are in downtown Toronto and how many are on the way. You're not going to match this with cities like Boston and San Francisco, let alone Minneapolis, no matter how many pre-war structures they have.

Toronto's core only has NYC has its superior in North America as far as density, population, and vibrancy are concerned. Parts of the city (i.e. yonge south of Dundas) could have you swearing you're in NYC. It's just on a smaller scale.
Again, THANKS FOR ACKNOWLEGING INTENT for a Toronto win as this view makes it clear in the bold. These cities were chosen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Burns View Post
I know enough to tell when there is boosting or boundary stretching going on to make Boston compete where it simply can't.
The irony in this comment .....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Burns View Post
I have nothing against Boston, I just wouldn't compare it to Toronto.
Thanks for acknowledging the reason the cities in this thread were chosen vs. Toronto. For FINALLY a CvC win for Toronto on C-D. As each of these US cities is known for a smaller compact smallish core and Toronto boast the largest Urban core outside of NYC.

I also keep saying time for Toronto pitted vs World cities in Europe to Australia. But you can't on the city vs city forum. But you can in the World of European one.

I'm still waiting for a Houston ----> will NEVER SURPASS Toronto thread on growth as Toronto did Chicago city proper and Houston claims will be Chicago in the next few years? I remember it boasted Houston NEVER WOULD pass Toronto by a poster here once....
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
I think a true urban core should extend far beyond the skyscraper district(s). NYC is a prime example. NYC urban core stretches far beyond Midtown and Lower Manhattan all the way through Upper Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx to the Atlantic Ocean, and even exceeds the city limits into New Jersey and Westchester county. I'd even add the North shore of Staten Island too.
Really, may as well say ALL NYC is one big Core. NYC brought in yet again. Yet Boston is told.... no adding a area to a core not even written in stone with a boundary.

Last edited by DavePa; 06-29-2017 at 03:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
20,663 posts, read 25,743,716 times
Reputation: 8145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Burns View Post
I have nothing against Boston, I just wouldn't compare it to Toronto.
But you already live in Toronto, so no reason to visit it (over Boston)...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 03:32 PM
 
615 posts, read 316,940 times
Reputation: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
But you already live in Toronto, so no reason to visit it (over Boston)...
I'm talking in the context of this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 04:19 PM
 
2,470 posts, read 2,008,302 times
Reputation: 1669
Boston undoubtedly has a bigger, better, more coherent, more well-rounded, and wealthier urban core than Toronto, hands down, no question.
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