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.
I've spent plenty of time in the Loop and while it's certainly got a different feel from Toronto's downtown, I would not say it is a completely different animal. Have you been outside the Loop to Chicago's inner-city neighbourhoods where vacant lots, crumbling buildings and warring gangs dominant the landscape in many parts? That is also Chicago, and I have been there - it was not a pleasant experience. The kind of violence, segregation and urban blight that Chicago has certainly prevents it from rating higher on my list. The only reason I think it is more influential than Toronto is because it is situated in the US, not Canada. I've spent many days exploring Chicago on foot, and could never really find that much that made it so much bigger and better than Toronto. It certainly has its points, but I've just given a couple examples of where it fails miserably. Toronto also has its points and also has areas where it fails just as bad, like how we utilize our waterfront.
As for Los Angeles, population doesn't really have that much to do with world influence (look at Lagos or Kinshasa or Nairobi or Chongqing or Istanbul) and it clearly is going to have a larger GDP than Toronto because of its larger population. That doesn't mean it's more of a world city. Its GDP and population are also substantially higher than Chicago's, but I don't think you will find many of the people who study cities and their respective influence on world affairs arguing that LA is more of a world city than Chicago. There are other measures of a world city than how much economic output it generates, like for example it's economic diversity and potential for growth.
Remember that I didn't put together the GWaC list - a group of learned individuals, researchers and academics who study cities and their respective influence on the world did that, and they obviously found Toronto to be marginally more influential than LA for one reason or another. One good guess might be that LA is primarily a single-industry town. Its dominant industry and major employer (besides tourism) is the entertainment industry. Economic diversity is a very important factor in determining influence, and cultural influence through making movies and TV shows has its limits as far as how high it will you take you on the list of global cities. LA is also choked by the worst traffic in North America (though it does have an expanding but presently tiny and underused public transit system), serious problems with power consumption that lead to rolling brownouts every summer, and a current water shortage that is about to become a water crisis that could literally lead to the depopulation of the entire region. Add to that its state's constant budget woes, high rates of poverty and gang violence in its inner city neighbourhoods, urban sprawl that would appear in the dictionary under the definition of urban sprawl, and you have a city that is certainly important and influential, but also quite troubled and not quite as important as some in this thread are making it out to be.
Remember, the GWaC people did a lot of research to compile this list, and would not have arbitrarily put Los Angeles where it is. The LA region suffers from some serious environmental, economic, infrastructure, and urban issues that have to be taken into consideration when weighing its relative importance on a global scale. Regardless of the fact that it is the home of Hollywood, LA is not the urban Titan some of you think it is. I've outlined a few of the issues it has just off the top of my head, but if I did a little more digging I could come up with much more. But perhaps the most important considerations are the looming environmental reckonings facing the city, and its lack of economic diversity. I mean, really - Hollywood is the lifeblood of LA. Without it, it never would have become the city it is. And even though the entertainment industry is influential and profitable, it's not enough to put LA in league with Chicago, New York, or Shanghai. It is in the same league as Toronto, but I do think Toronto has more economic diversity and fewer major environmental challenges. It has more potential for growth, and is not facing an imminent collapse of its power grid and water supply. You must remember that the massive population of the LA region that some of you think ensures its dominance over Toronto is actually its Achilles heel, since the city is hemmed in by mountains and deserts and must import all of its water and electricity from hundreds of miles away. That huge population also clogs its roads, overwhelms its infrastructure, leads to unfathomable urban sprawl and is ultimately an unsustainable urban model. Many documentaries, articles and books have been written about this topic, but I guess that some of you have not seen or read them.
Anyways, this thread was supposed to be about urban development in Toronto, specifically the rise of massive residential condo developments, as well as the changing character of the cities in some places as a result. This debate about Toronto's position in the big scheme of things is interesting and all, but I think it might warrant its own thread. So if we could get back on topic.......please.
TOKIDD,
Although insightful and interesting to read, I find your posts are often quite long.
Although insightful and interesting to read, I find your posts are often quite long.
Yeah, they're long. I wish I could say they ain't half as long as my other endowments, but I'd be lying But the good thing is you don't have to read them if you don't want to.
Usually I only post if I got something worth saying, and when I got something to say, I like to say it proper-like, ya know? I don't tweet or post inane 5hit on Facebook, and I'm an English major and writer, so I just never got used to writing my thoughts in 140 characters or less. Still, I try to at least make the reading worth the effort. Thanks for saying my posts can be insightful and interesting. I appreciate it.
I've spent plenty of time in the Loop and while it's certainly got a different feel from Toronto's downtown, I would not say it is a completely different animal. Have you been outside the Loop to Chicago's inner-city neighbourhoods where vacant lots, crumbling buildings and warring gangs dominant the landscape in many parts? That is also Chicago, and I have been there - it was not a pleasant experience. The kind of violence, segregation and urban blight that Chicago has certainly prevents it from rating higher on my list. The only reason I think it is more influential than Toronto is because it is situated in the US, not Canada. I've spent many days exploring Chicago on foot, and could never really find that much that made it so much bigger and better than Toronto. It certainly has its points, but I've just given a couple examples of where it fails miserably. Toronto also has its points and also has areas where it fails just as bad, like how we utilize our waterfront.
As for Los Angeles, population doesn't really have that much to do with world influence (look at Lagos or Kinshasa or Nairobi or Chongqing or Istanbul) and it clearly is going to have a larger GDP than Toronto because of its larger population. That doesn't mean it's more of a world city. Its GDP and population are also substantially higher than Chicago's, but I don't think you will find many of the people who study cities and their respective influence on world affairs arguing that LA is more of a world city than Chicago. There are other measures of a world city than how much economic output it generates, like for example it's economic diversity and potential for growth.
Remember that I didn't put together the GWaC list - a group of learned individuals, researchers and academics who study cities and their respective influence on the world did that, and they obviously found Toronto to be marginally more influential than LA for one reason or another. One good guess might be that LA is primarily a single-industry town. Its dominant industry and major employer (besides tourism) is the entertainment industry. Economic diversity is a very important factor in determining influence, and cultural influence through making movies and TV shows has its limits as far as how high it will you take you on the list of global cities. LA is also choked by the worst traffic in North America (though it does have an expanding but presently tiny and underused public transit system), serious problems with power consumption that lead to rolling brownouts every summer, and a current water shortage that is about to become a water crisis that could literally lead to the depopulation of the entire region. Add to that its state's constant budget woes, high rates of poverty and gang violence in its inner city neighbourhoods, urban sprawl that would appear in the dictionary under the definition of urban sprawl, and you have a city that is certainly important and influential, but also quite troubled and not quite as important as some in this thread are making it out to be.
Remember, the GWaC people did a lot of research to compile this list, and would not have arbitrarily put Los Angeles where it is. The LA region suffers from some serious environmental, economic, infrastructure, and urban issues that have to be taken into consideration when weighing its relative importance on a global scale. Regardless of the fact that it is the home of Hollywood, LA is not the urban Titan some of you think it is. I've outlined a few of the issues it has just off the top of my head, but if I did a little more digging I could come up with much more. But perhaps the most important considerations are the looming environmental reckonings facing the city, and its lack of economic diversity. I mean, really - Hollywood is the lifeblood of LA. Without it, it never would have become the city it is. And even though the entertainment industry is influential and profitable, it's not enough to put LA in league with Chicago, New York, or Shanghai. It is in the same league as Toronto, but I do think Toronto has more economic diversity and fewer major environmental challenges. It has more potential for growth, and is not facing an imminent collapse of its power grid and water supply. You must remember that the massive population of the LA region that some of you think ensures its dominance over Toronto is actually its Achilles heel, since the city is hemmed in by mountains and deserts and must import all of its water and electricity from hundreds of miles away. That huge population also clogs its roads, overwhelms its infrastructure, leads to unfathomable urban sprawl and is ultimately an unsustainable urban model. Many documentaries, articles and books have been written about this topic, but I guess that some of you have not seen or read them.
Anyways, this thread was supposed to be about urban development in Toronto, specifically the rise of massive residential condo developments, as well as the changing character of the cities in some places as a result. This debate about Toronto's position in the big scheme of things is interesting and all, but I think it might warrant its own thread. So if we could get back on topic.......please.
LA has the third or fourth largest GDP of any city or metro region in the world. Its economy is far more than the entertainment industry. It has more than 15 million people in its greater area. It has defence, aerospace, finance, etc. It basically has everything economically.
It is the biggest manufacturing centre in the world's largest economy.
It has huge problems it is true but this doesn't take away from its many attributes.
Nothing against Toronto (and you actually made a good case in your post) but to suggest that it is ahead of LA is a bit absurd.
You named some very large cities that are mostly poor, but in spite of their impressive population their GDPs are equivalent to that of Grand Rapids, Michigan or Madison, Wisconsin.
back on topic: do you think the Casino project is good for the city or makes it even worse (not that it will happen as the city Councillors are ultra conservative) Most large cities would never have a casino next to their downtown core.
^ Say what? Lots of large cities have a casino next to their downtown core.
Toronto's city council is pretty evenly split between left and right wingers. By the way, I think you have it backwards, because it seems to me that the right wingers on council are pro casino while the left wingers are anti casino.
^ Say what? Lots of large cities have a casino next to their downtown core.
Toronto's city council is pretty evenly split between left and right wingers. By the way, I think you have it backwards, because it seems to me that the right wingers on council are pro casino while the left wingers are anti casino.
ok not to use the 'world' designation again, but a large metro not a las vegas type of city
^ Say what? Lots of large cities have a casino next to their downtown core.
Toronto's city council is pretty evenly split between left and right wingers. By the way, I think you have it backwards, because it seems to me that the right wingers on council are pro casino while the left wingers are anti casino.
conservative as in hesitant to change which is how it comes across to me anyway
Looking forward to seeing the casino idea get shut down. There's just not enough in it for the city. If they were to put it out by Woodbine Racetrack and not downtown or at Exhibition Place, I might be a little more in favour of it.
Don't forget Toronto is still quite an important financial (TSE etc) and cultural centre in the English speaking world.. TIFF and the 3rd largest Theatre scene adds points to the claim that Toronto is a world class city.
As for architecture -well no we aren't a beautiful city throughout but... we do have representation from:
Libeskind, Alsop, Stone, I.M Pei, Van Der Rohe, Rivell, Calevatra and Gehry to name a few... not too bad i'd say.
Top 15 is good enough in my books as it is in most to qualifty as world class. Those who go out of their way to state T.O is not probably just have an agenda against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnathanc
Before you an argue whether a city is world class or not, you have to define world class. Being world class doesn't mean you have more condos, or less shootings, or more immigrants than another city; it is really a function of how much clout, power, and influence a city has on a world stage compared to others. This manifests itself in economic, political, cultural, and human capital metrics. Most capital cities of larger countries will have an opporutnity to be world class as a result, since they will be home to more dominant institutions and attract the best talent from home and abroad. With the rise of Asia and other developing countries, I think cities from these regions will make make the biggest relative moves in terms of clout in the future.
Most would agree that NYC and London and the top two cities right now with no serious competition. IMO, on a global basis, Toronto is maybe a top 15 city in the world so you can call that world class or not based on your personal definition. I'd personally reserve that title for the top 5 or 10 cities worldwide. But looking at planet earth, this a good ranking due to being the first city of a relatively stable first world country. But on the other hand, Canada is only 34 million out of 7 billion on earth and doesn't have that much world influence so this will inherently limit the city's clout. Most businesses and institutions in Toronto are also very Canadian-focused as opposed to being more globally focused unlike a Singapore or Hong Kong. Overall, Toronto does score high points for safety, tolerance, multiculturalism, and overall quality of life for everyday people - but not city planning or architecture.
Don't forget Toronto is still quite an important financial (TSE etc) and cultural centre in the English speaking world.. TIFF and the 3rd largest Theatre scene adds points to the claim that Toronto is a world class city.
.
I don't believe that Toronto is a significant cultural centre in the English-speaking world (it punches below its weight in this area) but on the financial and economic fronts it is big and its importance in these areas it is growing fast.
Not sure how to describe this but demographically or with respect to human exchanges and migrations Toronto is an important city in the world as well.
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.
But the good thing is you don't have to read them if you don't want to. 
