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.
North American cities do NOT have the level of vibrancy that you find in most other continents. Our automobile-centric development and our culture have resulted in cities that don't have the bazaars, the crowded sidewalks, and the random shops and cafes on every street. Our strict control and relatively recent development of cities has kept things from developing organically into a bustling urban environment. Zoning results in drab cities with clearly defined uses. That is why Rosedale is not crowded, because it's mostly just houses. Go look at cities in Mexico, where there is little or no zoning in practice, and you'll see a much more vibrant mix of uses and much more foot traffic. That doesn't mean Toronto is not urban, it's just a different type of urban than what you'll find in countries outside the U.S. and Canada. Who's to say that your definition of urban is the "right" one?
Merriam Webster defines urban as "of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city"
Maybe you feel so good about Toronto being urban compared with something like Indianapolis or Minneapolis (congrats), but honestly, comparing with most cities in the world with similar population, Toronto's urban feel is much more limited and not impressive whatsoever. 90% of the city's land is semi-suburban.
No, I don't have some sort of agenda, or intentionally try to put down Toronto. I am only being dead honest with Toronto's urbanity and vibrancy that some seem to be so proud of. It is below average if you step outside of the typical "US + Canada" geography.
Very true. In North America, New York is the only true urban city. Chicago has a lot too and pockets of Boston, DC, Philly, Toronto, and SF as well. What we define as urban on this continent is a more sleepy urban form, not a bustling vibrant form. Much of it has to do with lifestyle as well. We have higher incomes but we work-sleep-work-sleep, etc. Plus high real estate prices/cost of living, cold weather, and congested transit doesn't help either.
Compared to major Asian or European cities, North America is not that urban. I've vacationed in Buenos Aires myself and agree it feels much more vibrant on the streets than Toronto. There is nothing right or wrong about that either. North America is also the richest continent so if you had the money, would you want to raise a family in a condo or a house? Ummm, I'd take a house (provided it was not in the boonies).
And I don't detect any agenda from anyone, just differing opinions. If anything, I find there are some who pump Toronto up to mythical proportions, which to be honest gets embarassing for me as a Torontonian. It's obvious many haven't lived in other places and are extending this centre-of-the-universe attitude (which works fine in Canada) too far. Canada has 34m people; the state of Texas alone has 26m. Walmart (the biggest US company) has a revenue that alone totals 27% of Canada's GDP. China has at least a dozen metros with a population greater than metro Toronto as I type. It's a big world out there and many don't seem to have a worldly perspective, but a more localized one, and this becomes a source of disagreements.
Last edited by johnathanc; 11-27-2012 at 08:27 AM..
Our strict control and relatively recent development of cities has kept things from developing organically into a bustling urban environment. Zoning results in drab cities with clearly defined uses. That is why Rosedale is not crowded, because it's mostly just houses. Go look at cities in Mexico, where there is little or no zoning in practice, and you'll see a much more vibrant mix of uses and much more foot traffic.
I've lived in Rosedale once and it was boring. It was a bunch of pretty houses anchored by a strip on Yonge (where I lived). The restaurants options were limited and the people were older and mainly used cars. There was no life and vibrancy on the streets aside from people walking dogs really, and this is exactly what the residents wanted. They will never allow mixed used development around to bring in foot traffic. So yes, this was definitely a part of Toronto and I agree it is urban but it was very sleepy as well.
Last edited by johnathanc; 11-27-2012 at 08:12 AM..
Having lived in both cities (Hyde Park, South Loop, River North, and Lincoln Park in Chicago) and (currently) CityPlace in Toronto, I've noticed that Toronto's downtown is a lot more vibrant than Chicago's. It's pretty amazing walking in the loop at midnight, it's basically deserted (though that is slowly changing). In comparison, many areas of Toronto's downtown are not just for jobs, but also for residences.
Yorkville (Toronto's rich area) is smaller than Streeterville, but the amount of new construction there is absolutely astonishing. Since I moved here, things have started to improve in a big way. Huge construction projects abound, and I can't wait to see what things will look like when they're done.
Toronto's waterfront is also improving at a tremendous pace, and it seems more accessible than Chicago's. All you need to do is walk South of the financial district, through Union Station, and you're basically there. From the Loop, it is a lot harder to get past the waterfront (though it is much easier from North Loop). With that said, I feel like Millennium Park alone is much better than any other park in Toronto, aside from the Islands.
Safety (do I even need to discuss it?), especially if you are leaving the downtown area is not even in the same dimension. Going South of the Loop or West of I90/94 in Chicago is asking to get mugged. I have yet to see a single area in Toronto that I feel nervous about walking on the side walk.
Transportation is also much better in Toronto. Looking at statistics, I see that Toronto has the busiest subway and train station in North America. It shows. The light rail/subway system is definitely not as extensive as the L, but I'm guessing due to safety concerns in Chicago, Toronto's is much more heavily used, cleaner, and better maintained. Streetcars in Toronto are also a big plus. Roads are the complete opposite. Chicago has much better roads. Lake Shore is a huge asset to Chicago. Also, the roads that run through the Loop area are much bigger/more grande than the roads in downtown Toronto. The only road in Toronto that comes close is University, which in my opinion is VERY similar to Michigan, but with a lot less foot traffic (since most foot traffic is on Bay/Yonge).
Public realm is also a huge asset for Chicago. What is up with the wooden light poles in the heart of downtown Toronto?? Chicago has a much better public realm for sure (I would compare it to the South Core/MLS/Air Canada Centre area, which's much better than the rest of downtown Toronto).
Leisure activities are definitely in Toronto's favor (unless you're a fan of the NFL/MLB). Chicago's downtown has much less to do aside from the festivals (Lollapalooza, etc. at Millennium Park in the summer) than Toronto's downtown. Also, Toronto has a lot more theatres and indie events (like the new Bell Lightbox).
Shopping has to go to Chicago for sure. It seems like Chicago has a lot more shops than downtown Toronto. I don't think a single street in Toronto can compete with Michigan Ave. With that said, Toronto's downtown has a lot of things that down't exist in Chicago (For example, St. Lawrence Market).
One thing that I really enjoy about Toronto is the city's creativity. One example is turning the Maple Leaf Garden (an old hockey arena) into a grocery store and university facilities? I love that kind of urban renewal!
Another thing that I absolutely love about Toronto is the PATH network. It is probably my #1 fav thing about downtown Toronto.
Overall, Toronto is an emerging city that screams "potential." It is amazing how much the city changes even in a month. Chicago, on the other hand, is well established. Things don't change nearly as frequently, and if you never go south of South Loop, things look pretty good. South Loop/Loop/North Loop are a lot less vibrant than downtown Toronto from the lake up to Bloor.
If anybody would like me to go into anything specific, please let me know!
Edit: I always laugh when I see these discussions. Toronto is easily the most self hating city I've been in. Its like the city's own residents don't want to recognize it for what it is. Whether you like it or not, Toronto is easily a world class city, and without a doubt the top 3 in North America (which includes NYC, Toronto, Chicago). Oh, and to the trolls claiming that NYC is all urban, you clearly haven't been anywhere outside of manhattan (and even in manhattan, you've probably never been North of midtown). Go to Jersey City, Brooklyn, Harlem, Bronx, etc. and tell me how urban those areas are, since they have the same exact built form as many of the areas in Toronto you claim are not urban.
Last edited by InvalidUsername; 12-15-2012 at 01:54 AM..
Whether you like it or not, Toronto is easily a world class city, and without a doubt the top 3 in North America (which includes NYC, Toronto, Chicago). Oh, and to the trolls claiming that NYC is all urban, you clearly haven't been anywhere outside of manhattan (and even in manhattan, you've probably never been North of midtown). Go to Jersey City, Brooklyn, Harlem, Bronx, etc. and tell me how urban those areas are, since they have the same exact built form as many of the areas in Toronto you claim are not urban.
Toronto can be a world class city if it had
higher density (no downtown is not hardly dense enough)
a much bigger midtown (not a thin strip surrounding Yonge st)
good public space, waterfront (mediocre, more like Seattle than "world class")
much improved rapid transit (we need to triple the existing system to be called decent)
a lot more shopping, better restaurants.
We are a good city but we are not there yet. Maybe give it another 50 years to see. Unfortunately most politicians seem more interested in fighting and producing endless reports and studies than actually do things (eg, the Gardiner expressway, the downtown relief line etc).
And you are right about NYC not being all urban. But Manhattan below 96 st already more than makes up for that. It is like central Paris more than makes up for the poor banlieu.
Toronto outside the Spadina/Church st core, on the other hand, looks more like Queens and Brooklyn in general, but on the other hand the core itself can hardly match the world class urbanity you see in Manhattan, Paris or Hong Kong.
About Toronto being top 3 in North America, I don't know what your criteria are so I can't comment. At least for the majority of the world, Los Angeles and San Fran are considered greater cities with more influence, wealth and recognition.
Transportation is also much better in Toronto. Looking at statistics, I see that Toronto has the busiest subway and train station in North America. It shows.
Chicago has much better roads. Lake Shore is a huge asset to Chicago. Also, the roads that run through the Loop area are much bigger/more grande than the roads in downtown Toronto. The only road in Toronto that comes close is University, which in my opinion is VERY similar to Michigan, but with a lot less foot traffic (since most foot traffic is on Bay/Yonge).
Shopping has to go to Chicago for sure. It seems like Chicago has a lot more shops than downtown Toronto. I don't think a single street in Toronto can compete with Michigan Ave. With that said, Toronto's downtown has a lot of things that down't exist in Chicago (For example, St. Lawrence Market).
no Toronto doesn't have the busiest subway in North America. Not even close.
"The subway system is a very popular mode of public transport in Toronto, with an average of 1,054,200 passenger trips each weekday".
On the other hand, NYC subway has a ridership of 5,284,295 (weekdays).
In fact, Toronto's subway is not even the busiest in Canada. Montreal metro has a daily ridership of 1,111,700 on a weekday.
Toronto doesn't have the busiest train system in North America either. The Go train carries 180,000 on weekdays in comparison
Chicago Matra: 303,800
New York/New Haven: 298,200
New York/New Jersey: 301,746
New York/Long Island: 324,300
I agree University ave is probably the nicest road in Toronto, but unfortunately there is nothing you can do on it as it is completely institutional, quite unlike Michigan Ave. Yonge st on the other hand, is so narrow and not-so-pretty.
Toronto lacks in shopping bad time. There are simply too few stores to go to for a city of its size!!
Toronto's subway system is actually second busiest in North America after NYC. The list you're looking at doesn't include the Light Rail near Scarborough (hardly fair, since it is included in Chicago's stat and yet it still has 40% less ridership). Speaking of fine print, you seem to do a good job of avoiding it. I said Toronto has the busies subway STATION in NA (Bloor), and the busiest train STATION (Union). As for the ridership figures you gave, it is hardly fair to criticize Toronto for carrying ~150k less train passengers than Chicago when Toronto's subways and light rail carry more than 600k people more than Chicago's. Toronto also has more buses and streetcars. Look at mass transit usage in both cities to understand why it would be impossible for Chicago to match those figures. In fact, it would be impossible for any city in the US other than NYC. As for density, Toronto is as dense as Chicago, and in terms of downtown residential population, Toronto is set to be 50 000 (170k vs. 120k) ahead of Chicago by 2020. Not sure why you hate this city so much, but before you continue your senseless trolling, please do more diligent research on how you can make Toronto seem less than it is.
P.S. why do I never see you include university enrollment or stock exchange size or livability rankings in the random stats you throw around?
Edit: Union station is actually the second busiest rail station in NA after Penn in NYC. Bloor is in fact the busiest mass transit station in NA though.
Last edited by InvalidUsername; 12-15-2012 at 09:24 AM..
Toronto's subway system is actually second busiest in North America after NYC. The list you're looking at doesn't include the Light Rail near Scarborough (hardly fair, since it is included in Chicago's stat and yet it still has 40% less ridership). Speaking of fine print, you seem to do a good job of avoiding it. I said Toronto has the busies subway STATION in NA (Bloor), and the busiest train STATION (Union). As for the ridership figures you gave, it is hardly fair to criticize Toronto for carrying ~150k less train passengers than Chicago when Toronto's subways and light rail carry more than 600k people more than Chicago's. Toronto also has more buses and streetcars. Look at mass transit usage in both cities to understand why it would be impossible for Chicago to match those figures. In fact, it would be impossible for any city in the US other than NYC. As for density, Toronto is as dense as Chicago, and in terms of downtown residential population, Toronto is set to be 50 000 (170k vs. 120k) ahead of Chicago by 2020. Not sure why you hate this city so much, but before you continue your senseless trolling, please do more diligent research on how you can make Toronto seem less than it is.
P.S. why do I never see you include university enrollment or stock exchange size or livability rankings in the random stats you throw around?
Edit: Union station is actually the second busiest rail station in NA after Penn in NYC. Bloor is in fact the busiest mass transit station in NA though.
No, the subway ridership stats already includes the scarborough RT and it is indicated very clearly:
I don't know whether Bloor/Yonge station is the busiest station matters. It seems to have the most riders only because of the city's failure of providing another line going to downtown. Essentially everyone person who lives outside downtown has no option but to go through this stations (St George is another option but Yonge is essentially where everyone is going). While in other cities with more options such as in Chicago, people have different routes and transfer points so not everyone has to transfer any one particular station. No particular station has to bear to much pressure as Y/B does.
Suppose a DRL line is constructed which avoids Yonge/Bloor and goes to downtown via King or Queen station directly. Yonge/Bloor all of a sudden will becomes a lot less busy. In your logic, the addition of a DRL actually makes the TTC less of a success because Y/B station is not as busy as before? what kind of argument is that?
Suppose if all NYC's 26 subway lines have only 2 transfer stations, do you think Y/B will still look the busiest station? The idea busiest station in Toronto's case only means a failure to provide sufficient alternative routes.
The same goes for train stations. For example London and Paris have 6-8 terminus train stations, and of course by looking at numbers each one would have fewer passengers than if there were only 1 or 2, but how does that matter? What matters is how many passengers the entire train system carries everyday.
I don't know how pointing out your mistakes in statistics is considered trolling. I used sources and argued objectively with reason, without personal attacks or extreme offensive language.
I don't "hate" Toronto. I hate the false, hyped and bloated version of it.
As to livability, the minute I see Vancouver anywhere near the top 10, I discredit the entire list completely. On the other hand, I don't think Toronto is more livable than many greater cities such as New York and Chicago, at least for the average Joes, it is a more comfortable city to live.
Last edited by botticelli; 12-15-2012 at 10:13 AM..
I don't know whether Bloor/Yonge station is the busiest station matters. It seems to have the most riders only because of the city's failure of providing another line going to downtown. Essentially everyone person who lives outside downtown has no option but to go through this stations (St George is another option but Yonge is essentially where everyone is going). While in other cities with more options such as in Chicago, people have different routes and transfer points so not everyone has to transfer any one particular station. No particular station has to bear to much pressure as Y/B does.
Suppose a DRL line is constructed which avoids Yonge/Bloor and goes to downtown via King or Queen station directly. Yonge/Bloor all of a sudden will becomes a lot less busy. In your logic, the addition of a DRL actually makes the TTC less of a success because Y/B station is not as busy as before? what kind of argument is that?
Suppose if all NYC's 26 subway lines have only 2 transfer stations, do you think Y/B will still look the busiest station? The idea busiest station in Toronto's case only means a failure to provide sufficient alternative routes.
The same goes for train stations. For example London and Paris have 6-8 terminus train stations, and of course by looking at numbers each one would have fewer passengers than if there were only 1 or 2, but how does that matter? What matters is how many passengers the entire train system carries everyday.
I don't know how pointing out your mistakes in statistics is considered trolling. I used sources and argued objectively with reason, without personal attacks or extreme offensive language.
I don't "hate" Toronto. I hate the false, hyped and bloated version of it.
I wasn't saying that having the busiest station matters, but according to your version of the story, the TTC is used by 2 people/year. Why did you suddenly drop Chicago from your argument when I brought up the TTC's usage? Why is Chicago carrying 150k more people on trains not so important any more suddenly? Because Toronto carries 600k people more in mass transit? Why didn't you respond to university enrolment? livability? crime? stock exchange? infant mortality? healthcare availability? Or are those not important to you when determining which city is better? Is mentioning any of these things considered the "hyped and bloated" version of the truth?
Do you know how I can tell that you hate Toronto? Just by your tone. In one of your responses, you said "no Toronto doesn't have the busiest subway in North America. Not even close ... In fact, Toronto's subway is not even the busiest in Canada. Montreal metro..." You forgot to mention in there that out of the 3 top mass transit systems in the US and Canada, 2 are Canadian.
Have you ever lived in Chicago? Why did you selectively choose to take out parts of my earlier post and argue? I'm from Chicago, and I see it more than anyone else here since I moved to Toronto. This city hates itself, and sadly, people like you are the epitome of self-hating Toronto. I'm guessing most people have either never been outside the city to see how amazing it is, or have only been to the top tourist areas when they go to other cities. This is evident by your willingness to put Toronto to shame when compared to Chicago and NYC. Have you been outside of the Loop/Streeterville area in Chicago? Did you bother going outside of Manhattan, or even North of Midtown in NYC? Probably not. Sorry to burst your bubble, but whole cities are not as attractive as the select tourist areas meant for visitors like yourself. Take a short walk outside of these bubbles, and you will see why I hold Toronto in such high regard. Go south of I55 in Chicago, and I bet you wouldn't dare question my statements.
I wasn't saying that having the busiest station matters, but according to your version of the story, the TTC is used by 2 people/year. Why did you suddenly drop Chicago from your argument when I brought up the TTC's usage? Why is Chicago carrying 150k more people on trains not so important any more suddenly? Because Toronto carries 600k people more in mass transit? Why didn't you respond to university enrolment? livability? crime? stock exchange? infant mortality? healthcare availability? Or are those not important to you when determining which city is better? Is mentioning any of these things considered the "hyped and bloated" version of the truth?
Do you know how I can tell that you hate Toronto? Just by your tone. In one of your responses, you said "no Toronto doesn't have the busiest subway in North America. Not even close ... In fact, Toronto's subway is not even the busiest in Canada. Montreal metro..." You forgot to mention in there that out of the 3 top mass transit systems in the US and Canada, 2 are Canadian.
Have you ever lived in Chicago? Why did you selectively choose to take out parts of my earlier post and argue? I'm from Chicago, and I see it more than anyone else here since I moved to Toronto. This city hates itself, and sadly, people like you are the epitome of self-hating Toronto. I'm guessing most people have either never been outside the city to see how amazing it is, or have only been to the top tourist areas when they go to other cities. This is evident by your willingness to put Toronto to shame when compared to Chicago and NYC. Have you been outside of the Loop/Streeterville area in Chicago? Did you bother going outside of Manhattan, or even North of Midtown in NYC? Probably not. Sorry to burst your bubble, but whole cities are not as attractive as the select tourist areas meant for visitors like yourself. Take a short walk outside of these bubbles, and you will see why I hold Toronto in such high regard. Go south of I55 in Chicago, and I bet you wouldn't dare question my statements.
I selectively responded to some of your points because those are the ones I don't agree with. I agree with the rest, but since I agree with them, why do I bother to talk about it since you have summed it up pretty well?
As to the bad parts of Chicago/NYC, that simply doesn't concern me or anyone middle class. If I moved to these cities, I would look at the good areas and what they offer because they determine how much I can enjoy my life. Why do I care about the bad hoods which I will never go? It is like whether Jane/Finch saw 5 murders or 50 this month really doesn't concern me as I or the vast majority of Torontonians will never go near there in our lives.
Since you insist, let me respond to your question on these -
Mass transit: I strongly prefer Chicago's 8 lines with connection to both airports. This is what a city with 2.7 M people should have. I hardly care about the number of buses/streetcars. They are slow and unpredictable. Plus you often have to wait for them in the cold. I didn't secretly drop Chicago in talking about it. I just don't know why high ridership would serve as a positive factor in my life quality. For some reason, chicagoans are not as interested in taking the subway as Torontonians. How does that mean Toronto is superior in that respect? When city A has 2 lines and B has 8 lines, I prefer B. Whether others take it or not is not important to me, is it? Maybe they are too rich and all like driving, maybe they are scared of subways, I don't know...
I actually don't understand why subway ridership is much lower in Chicago considering they have much more capacity. Can you explain?
Crime: as I said, the average data are not useful for most people. heavy crime in the south doesn't really affect life in the north in Chicago. I would simply compare dt to loop, midtown to near-north side. How the south side is is completely irrelevant to me. I am sure Toronto in general is still safer but most likely people living in Gold Coast don't worry about safety on the daily basis either. (before you say GC is not what everyone can afford, well, it is way cheaper than Yorkville or King West in Toronto).
Infant mortality: why should I care, and how does that affect my life if the child of a 16 year old prostitute dies young? Among developing countries, infant mortality/life expectancy becomes less and less relevant. Seriously, infant mortality, you really look it up in deciding which city to move to?
University enrollment: I don't see your point here. Do you mean UChicago is not as good as UofT, or Northwestern is not as good as York? I got my masters degree from a very expensive American university in California but didn't have to pay a dime because I got full scholarship. Worked fine for me.
Healthcare, it is a US vs Canada issue, rather than Chicago vs Toronto. I don't want to discuss here.
So yes, I do consider these factors when deciding where to live, but I am deciding on the basis of my specific case, not as an "average person". An average person who is exposed to the average crime rate, infant mortality rate in the city etc doesn't exist.
As of the suburbs of Toronto. They are generally quite safe but nowhere near "amazing" as you described. Those are just typical residential neighourhoods where people live their everyday lives. How "amazing" can they be? North of Bloor it is all pretty boring for my taste.
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.
Whether you like it or not, Toronto is easily a world class city, and without a doubt the top 3 in North America (which includes NYC, Toronto, Chicago). Oh, and to the trolls claiming that NYC is all urban, you clearly haven't been anywhere outside of manhattan (and even in manhattan, you've probably never been North of midtown). Go to Jersey City, Brooklyn, Harlem, Bronx, etc. and tell me how urban those areas are, since they have the same exact built form as many of the areas in Toronto you claim are not urban.
