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.
Perhaps.
However, personal feelings aside, if the Global Urban Agglomeration states that Boston is an area of over 7 million, then I'm fine with that even if I personally don't think of Boston as a large place myself. Same goes for Demographia's Urban Area and the United States' Combined Statistical Areas, in both of which, as well as the aforementioned Global Urban Agglomeration, it is depicted that Boston is over 7 million people (over 8 million by the CSA).
Just one of those "it is what it is" sort of things.
I agree with this. There are lots of biases and opinions on these forums, many times based on limited experience or knowledge (for example, how a city "feels" during a visit or longer, which isn't without its merits but shouldn't be taken as the end all be all), so it's nice to have something a bit more objective to look at every now and then. For what it's worth, my experience is that Boston "feels" comparable to Toronto, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some publications put one a bit ahead of the other or vice versa.
I agree with this. There are lots of biases and opinions on these forums, many times based on limited experience or knowledge (for example, how a city "feels" during a visit or longer, which isn't without its merits but shouldn't be taken as the end all be all), so it's nice to have something a bit more objective to look at every now and then. For what it's worth, my experience is that Boston "feels" comparable to Toronto, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some publications put one a bit ahead of the other or vice versa.
Well until we get a standardized method of measuring the population of cities across national boundaries, than even sources like 'Demographia' can be little more than 'an opinion' as well.
The opinion of the U.S Census Bureau on the urban area population of Boston ie its MSA is different than that of Demographia - by no less than 2.5 million people. The demographia numbers are more in line with the CSA of Boston and I don't think anyone would contend a CSA is the same as an urban area. In this I agree with Masonbauknight - A CSA is a measure of a trading region - a MSA is a more accurate measure of a metro area that is more solid and cohesive.
If your experience that Boston 'feels' comparable to Toronto than I question how much of Toronto you've been too. I've driven around both cities in and out and there is no comparison in terms of a built up urbanized environment - Toronto is simply more dense and more contiguously built up in an urban sense.
As a Bostonian, I'm going to say what the f did we do? We're now a cute little city? Now it seems like there's less than three million people living here?
Yep, just a slightly bigger Montreal in reality, without the french flavour
Boston CSA tries to to boost the city to a higher level by including
most of southern NH....all of tiny RH....heck the population of the entire state of MA is
less than 7 million
I agree that in no way shape or form does a CSA resemble a 'city' or even a contiguous urbanized area. They provide fuel for those that thrive on 'bigger' but really if you are in 'some' (and I use some loosely as the commuter thresholds are very low) and very low density/farm like exurban sprawl that is 90 miles away from your anchor city - although you may have some commuter and economic connection to that anchor - you certainly aren't connected to it from an urban or metro sense. The best they can do is say - oh well we get a lot of cars coming in from some far flung city so therefore they are part of our metro - as if that is connected in an urban sense lol. The problem isn't with the US Census Bureau's use of CSA - I think it is justified - heck they feel the necessity to measure that - who are we to question. What is wrong however is how people conflate CSA with city and metro making something bigger than it actually is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
Yep, just a slightly bigger Montreal in reality, without the french flavour
Boston CSA tries to to boost the city to a higher level by including
most of southern NH....all of tiny RH....heck the population of the entire state of MA is
less than 7 million
It is the only way the 'city' is going to be one that is 7 million people. Nobody in their right mind would look at such an entity as a city, metro or even contiguous urbanized area. It is what I've been saying over and over again while being snickered at by the likes of some in here. In the case of Toronto - at least that 7 million is contiguous and dense. Nobody in their right mind having familiarity with either Boston or Toronto would think Boston is the larger 'city' - nobody unless you're a Boston homer. Toronto feels like a more substantial urbanized area than essentially all U.S cities save for NYC, LA and Chicago simply because areas of contiguous build up are dense and more city like and don't need to leverage pathetically low density suburban/exurban sprawl that goes an area half the size of Southern Ontario or Switzerland. That all said, I'm thinking if Boston can leverage Rhode Island and Southern New Hampshire to get that 7 million, perhaps the Greater Toronto area could leverage Western New York? Hey - if you drive from Toronto to Buffalo it is most certainly contiguous urbanity
As for Montreal and Boston - i'd say in the most urban parts of their cores they are quite dense and urban - I would say however that Montreal's urban density goes out further whereas Boston's trails off quicker. Boston metro however probably has more nodes of higher density than Montreal. Montreal is urban and dense and than it simply is not and that is it. It isn't really a large metro area. What it lacks in overall large metro area it makes up for in terms of what happens in its city proper of 1.7 million in 166 sq miles. That is where the 'real' city is.
Well no i'm not looking to do anything about it lol nor get 'feelings' involved - but I think we have to go behind just the basic numbers too and take a look at the size of the urbanized area and its density.
Getting a "feel" for some place's true size is 50% emotional and left to perspective and experience as it pertains to each individual and the other 50% are facts. Best course of action is to find your personal standing place in the emotional aspect of it and then reassess it with facts afterwards.
Looking at urbanization and density is one thing but I don't really think there is much room for anywhere in Canada or the United States to grandstand on density levels of other North American cities (for the record, I am not accusing you of doing anything). After all, it is a weakness shared by the entire continent, not any one city by itself. Remember, unlike 95% of the rest of the planet's large urban areas, NONE of the ones in Canada or America even exceed 10,000 people per square mile. That's hella low density, super low, in fact. Hell, I think the densest between the two countries is only like 6,000 to 7,000 people per square mile range for urbanized area density for an entire urban area.
In other parts of the world, it is common to see density disparities between two cities in the same country of 7,000 people per square mile and that difference in those countries feel negligible. Like for instance, in Country X, City A has an urban area density of 52,000 people per square mile, whereas City B has an urban area density of 59,000 (that's a difference of 7,000 people per square mile - a number that represents the densest Canadian/American urban area). That difference that exists between the two cities in Country X is negligible to say the least because it hardly counts all that much as a density difference to begin with given how dense both example cities are, yet in North America that same 7,000 people per square mile represents the zenith of a Canadian and American urban area's potential.
I say that to say this, Toronto is a bit larger than Boston overall, but not by much. They are very much in the same class as far as size goes. Also, even though Toronto's urban area has a density of 7,000 people per square mile and Boston in comparison is only 2,000 people per square mile, on a global level, these two places are in the same range. Both are below 10,000, which by itself isn't a high number but represents a number that North America struggles to match out of the gate as none of the American nor Canadian cities do. To me, that puts Boston and Toronto handily in the same class globally for both size and density.
Not that it matters much to this conversation as we are discussing size but when it comes to urbanity: I'd say that it's a common argument that Boston has the stronger core within the city, especially structurally, with maybe the higher peak density level portfolio than Toronto as well. Though the latter part may no longer stand as Toronto is infilling far more rapidly at the moment than Boston. It would still probably be close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
The opinion of the U.S Census Bureau on the urban area population of Boston ie its MSA is different than that of Demographia - by no less than 2.5 million people.
MSA, which stands for Metropolitan Statistical Area is not the United States Census Bureau's version of "urban area". It is an entirely different metric altogether than urban area with far different methodologies to measure and map it. They are nothing alike at all.
For what it is worth, the United States Census Bureau has its own version of urban area, a metric that is separate entirely from the urban area provided for by Demographia.
^ However, the problem with it is that it only updates once a decade and as you understand, some places in the United States are pretty fast growing and waiting 10 years for results is missing the boat entirely for places like those. This metric is super popular among denizens of cities that are rapidly losing rank, as they can preserve a lost rank for years beyond their expiration date as a folly to paint some places off as larger than they actually may be presently. The metric only updates once every 10 years, that's its fatal flaw. That's why I consider it close to worthless. I much prefer the annually updated (and using the same minimum thresholds in its methodology as its American counterpart) of Demographia's Urban Area rather than the United States version of Urban Area.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 04-30-2018 at 09:33 PM..
Boston has higher peak density than Toronto? Not something I would have expected considering the sheer amount of residential highrises in the urban core. I understand Boston has more classical urbanity, but even then, there's still a limit to 4-8 story flats.
Getting a "feel" for some place's true size is 50% emotional and left to perspective and experience as it pertains to each individual and the other 50% are facts. Best course of action is to find your personal standing place in the emotional aspect of it and then reassess it with facts afterwards.
This is all unnecessary fluff FKR about emotions and perception.. Demographia is simply not an official source for information regarding urban area populations. You know as well as I do that there simply is no uniform and standardized measure that crosses national boundaries applying the exact same standards. If there was, I stand by everything I have written and in this particular case, I think I would be proven correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
Looking at urbanization and density is one thing but I don't really think there is much room for anywhere in Canada or the United States to grandstand on density levels of other North American cities (for the record, I am not accusing you of doing anything). After all, it is a weakness shared by the entire continent, not any one city by itself. Remember, unlike 95% of the rest of the planet's large urban areas, NONE of the ones in Canada or America even exceed 10,000 people per square mile. That's hella low density, super low, in fact. Hell, I think the densest between the two countries is only like 6,000 to 7,000 people per square mile range for urbanized area density for an entire urban area.
No argument there but we are in C v C in the North America forums. Mexico City is much more dense than NYC if we are speaking on metro terms. That said, nobody in C v C really talks about Mexico - so it is Canada and the U.S. Can't fault people for just talking about population and density in that realm. I've walked the streets of Istanbul, Paris, London, Cairo, Mexico City, Bangkok and all kinds of other global cities which are much more dense than our neck of the woods so you're preaching to the choir here but it doesn't invalidate discussions about differences in density of cities in N.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
I say that to say this, Toronto is a bit larger than Boston overall, but not by much. They are very much in the same class as far as size goes. Also, even though Toronto's urban area has a density of 7,000 people per square mile and Boston in comparison is only 2,000 people per square mile, on a global level, these two places are in the same range. Both are below 10,000, which by itself isn't a high number but represents a number that North America struggles to match out of the gate as none of the American nor Canadian cities do. To me, that puts Boston and Toronto handily in the same class globally for both size and density.
C'mon FKR you are saying well because anything less than 10K ppsm is low to global standards there Is no difference between 7000 and 2000 and they are within the 'same' threshold. I expected more from you on this. That is quite a difference and absolutely makes an impact on the built up urban environment. I know you have been to Toronto but i'm getting the impression you haven't been around the Greater Toronto Area. On your next trip - drive around it! You're a pretty level headed person, I think your commentary would be a bit different. Don't become this 'global' snob whereby well Boston or Toronto aren't Tokyo density so what difference does it make lol mmmkkk..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
Not that it matters much to this conversation as we are discussing size but when it comes to urbanity: I'd say that it's a common argument that Boston has the stronger core within the city with higher peak density levels than Toronto.
Source? Old Toronto is the best measure of the 'core' urban area of Toronto. It has a population of 800K people in 37 sq miles with a population density of 21265 ppsm.
As for Boston having a stronger urban core that is highly debatable but i'd love for you to comparatively drill down these higher 'peak' densities in Boston vs Toronto you speak of.. Toronto's DT core has about 250K ppl in 6.5 sq miles btw with stuff like this which is all residential and I doubt there is anything in Boston that matches the density of Cityplace https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.63977...7i13312!8i6656
That isn't even the most dense node of Toronto - that would be st Jamestown. I can confidently say nothing in Boston matches the density of St Jamestown. https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.66882...7i13312!8i6656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
MSA, which stands for Metropolitan Statistical Area is not the United States Census Bureau's version of "urban area". It is an entirely different metric altogether than urban area with far different methodologies to measure and map it. They are nothing alike at all.
For what it is worth, the United States Census Bureau has its own version of urban area, a metric that is separate entirely from the urban area provided for by Demographia.
Fair enough and as of 2010 Boston had a Urban area population of 4.1 million. In 2020 do you really think the U.S Census Bureau will in any way shape or form double the urban area population of Boston from 4.1 million to 8 million. Not likely! Emotion aside which I don't really think I had tbh - Toronto is a more dense and more populated urban area than Boston. You would need to leverage low density exurban fluff to make a claim that Boston's urban area is more populated than Toronto. Trust me, I could leverage fluff around the GTA as well. FKR - drive around the GTA next time you're here. Toronto is more than the parts you've been in.
This is all unnecessary fluff FKR about emotions.. Demographia is simply not an official source for information regarding urban area populations. You know as well as I do that there simply is no uniform and standardized measure that crosses national boundaries applying the exact same standards. If there was, I stand by everything I have written and in this particular case, I think I would be proven correct.
No argument there but we are in C v C in the North America forums. Mexico City is much more dense than NYC if we are speaking on metro terms. That said, nobody in C v C really takes about Mexico - so it is Canada and the U.S. Can't fault people for just taking about population and density in that real. I've walked the streets of Istanbul, Paris, London, Cairo, Mexico City, Bangkok and all kinds of other global cities which are much more dense than our neck of the woods so you're preaching to the choir here.
C'mon FKR you are saying well because anything less than 10K ppsm is low to global standards there Is no difference between 7000 and 2000 and they are within the 'same' threshold. I expected more from you on this. That is quite a difference and absolutely makes an impact on the built up urban environment. I know you have been to Toronto but i'm getting the impression you haven't been around the Greater Toronto Area. On your next trip - drive around it! You're a pretty level headed person, I think your commentary would be a bit different. Don't become this 'global' snob whereby well Boston or Toronto aren't Tokyo density so what difference does it make lol mmmkkk..
Source? Old Toronto is the best measure of the 'core' urban area of Toronto. It has a population of 800K people in 37 sq miles with a population density of 21265 ppsm. As for Boston having a stronger urban core that is highly debatable but i'd love for you to comparatively drill down these higher 'peak' densities in Boston vs Toronto.. Toronto's DT core has about 250K ppl in 6.5 sq miles btw with stuff like this which is all residential and I doubt there is anything in Boston that matches the density of Cityplace https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.63977...7i13312!8i6656
That isn't even the most dense node of Toronto - that would be st Jamestown. I can confidently say nothing in Boston matches the density of St Jamestown. https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.66882...7i13312!8i6656
MSA, which stands for Metropolitan Statistical Area is not the United States Census Bureau's version of "urban area". It is an entirely different metric altogether than urban area with far different methodologies to measure and map it. They are nothing alike at all.
For what it is worth, the United States Census Bureau has its own version of urban area, a metric that is separate entirely from the urban area provided for by Demographia.
^ However, the problem with it is that it only updates once a decade and as you understand, some places in the United States are pretty fast growing and waiting 10 years for results is missing the boat entirely for places like those. This metric is super popular among denizens of cities that are rapidly losing rank, as they can preserve a lost rank for years beyond their expiration date as a folly to paint some places off as larger than they actually may be presently. The metric only updates once every 10 years, that's its fatal flaw. That's why I consider it close to worthless. I much prefer the annually updated (and using the same minimum thresholds in its methodology as its American counterpart) of Demographia's Urban Area to the United States version.
You are not giving up that Toronto surpasses ALL American cities.... well not quite NYC.... yet. Back to size in length, girth and thickness.... I mean density. You called virtually every US measurements for its cities now worthless ....
Calling a person with international experience and having lived in many US large cities and visited most. A snob. Is going a bit far.... you claim to be cool all the time. The thread took on another topic even.
Boston has higher peak density than Toronto? Not something I would have expected considering the sheer amount of residential highrises in the urban core. I understand Boston has more classical urbanity, but even then, there's still a limit to 4-8 story flats.
I'd like to know where FKR is basing his higher peak density numbers from. Toronto has the second most populated downtown in Canada and the U.S after NYC. I have a hard time believing that Boston at its peak density is more dense than Toronto. Toronto is also constructing way more highrises/scrapers than Boston and the urban area is growing more than double that of Boston. FKR speaks of the way things are going - well Toronto is like a legacy city in the U.S, however it is growing as fast as Houston and Dallas on a metro level, so its like a northeastern/Midwestern U.S city with sunbelt type growth.
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.
Is going a bit far.... you claim to be cool all the time. The thread took on another topic even.