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.
Minneapolis-St Paul has a metro population of about 3.5 million. Toronto has a metro population of about 5.6 million. According to The Brookings Institute, Toronto is the world's fortieth largest metro economy, while Minneapolis is the world's fifty-third largest economy. This means that Toronto is about 1.6 times as large as Minneapolis, with twelve world cities separating the two in regards to economic output.
Let's make the same assessments for Chicago v. Toronto: Chicago's metro population is over 9.7 million. Chicago has the world's eighth largest economy. This means that Chicago has about 1.7 times the population of Toronto, with thirty-one world cities separating the two.
If comparing Toronto to Minneapolis is somehow offensive to Torontonians, then comparing Toronto to Chicago should yield even greater offense to Chicagoans.
Of course, comparing a major city of 3.5 million people (Minneapolis) with a city which has a metro area population of 33,000--like most metros of its size, Minneapolis has numerous suburbs larger than this--is offensive and idiotic beyond any discussion.
I've talked to people in other Canadian cities who have told me how frequently Toronto residents seem to display an attitude of arrogance and chauvinism towards other Canadian urban areas. It would seem that Toronto does have much in common with some coastal cities in The US, at least when it comes to having many boosters who are dismissive of what they determine to be "lesser" cities.
You're making the classic mistake of taking a Metro (US CSA style) comparison to a Canadian metro one.. Canadian metro comparisons are much more urban in nature and don't take into account CSA's/commuting patterns and such laaaarge regional areas.. The closest thing to a CSA for Toronto would be the Golden Horseshoe which puts its population at 8.7 million in last census - 2011.. Right now that would be at about 9 million... In this regard the GDP would be substantially larger than what is often cited by Americans comparing their HUMONGOUS regions to more urban comparitive measure in other countries... Please try to compare apples to apples..
For example the MSP CSA is 3.7 million in 21000 Sq km..
This isn't too much smaller than Chicagoland in terms of population over an equivalent area with urban cores being Toronto for Golden Horsehoe and Chicago for Chicagoland
In this way - Toronto is indeed much closer in populatin and regional metro population to Chicagoland than MSP...
Even looking at city propers Toronto and Chicago are far more dense and urban than MSP and closer to one another in terms of Density with Toronto being slightly larger
Toronto 2.8 million in 240 Sq KM
Chicago 2.7 million in 230 Sq KM
MSP can't touch Toronto or Chicago in city proper or metro or regional metro comparisons let alone population densities across the board... Comparing GDP across national boundaries also has its own 'issues' btw... but in terms of scale of size, urbanized areas and densities Chicago and Toronto are much closer to one another..
In terms of size, Toronto is about halfway between Minneapolis and Chicago. It's really too big to be compared to Minneapolis, and too small to be compared to Chicago.
In terms of size, Toronto is about halfway between Minneapolis and Chicago. It's really too big to be compared to Minneapolis, and too small to be compared to Chicago.
What is your rationale for that..land area, population, city proper, metro, CSA? Toronto is larger than Chicago in terms of City Proper - Metro Chicago is larger than Metro Toronto when you go beyond 'urbanized' areas - which is lower density sprawl that isn't exactly a cohesive 'city'... The difference isn't all that much when you consider urbanized areas and bridge the gap in terms of how two different countries measure population.. Toronto and Chicago are far closer in terms of population than anything MSP... Chicago sprawls out more than Toronto and is larger in land area but beyond both urbanized areas with respectable levels of density - its 'size' is due to low density sprawl. Its no doubt larger in metro but how it gets it is pretty much beyond anything resembling a cohesive city.. Its the very 'sprawly' U.S city phenomenon.
If you look at any list of the largest urban areas in the world - Chicago is a perfect example of a city that needs to extend to an the area the size of a small country to get its almost 10 million.. The CSA measure is beyond anything pretty much any other country uses to measure the population of a city.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Look at the Land Area vs Population/density of the top 35 cities and you'll get your answer
What is your rationale for that..land area, population, city proper, metro, CSA?
Yes, all of that, and add in economy. Minneapolis is around 4 million, Toronto around 6-7 million, Chicago around 9-10 million. The same rough proportions are true for economy.
The rest of your post, with the irrelevent Demographia references, the conflating of land area with population, and all the rest, is just nonsense.
Yes, all of that, and add in economy. Minneapolis is around 4 million, Toronto around 6-7 million, Chicago around 9-10 million. The same rough proportions are true for economy.
The rest of your post, with the irrelevent Demographia references, the conflating of land area with population, and all the rest, is just nonsense.
I don't know why you have a hard time understanding this.. How exactly is demographia references irrelavent when the 'size' of a city like Chicago is only impressive in it urbanized area about equal to the GTA - anything beyond that is low density sprawlsville to the max that resembles nothing of a city..
You can't say Chicago has a population of 9-10 million and say Toronto is 6-7 when you aren't comparing equivalent areas.. Chicago needs to inflate to a huge area to reach 9 million well in excess of what Toronto needs to inflate to get to 7 million.. Please compare apples to apples or just don't compare at all.. Canada simply does not use CSA measures therefore comparing the CSA GDP of Chicagoland Or MSP CSA to Toronto CMA is not a good comparison.... If you use equivalent areas than Chicagoland is 9-10 million and the Golden Horseshoe is 8-9 million.. On MSP BEST day ever it wouldn't expand beyond 4 million.. Anyway this thread has zippo to do with GDP anyway lol... Houston CSA has a larger GDP than Hong Kong and isn't too much less in population but HK looks infinitely larger in built form and urbanity due to high density levels in a very respectable and manageable area ie it doesn't sprawl in low density suburban, exurban areas to infinity..
Don't you find it odd that U.S cities even for first world standards (minus NYC) inflate to MASSIVE areas in order to attain the population they do compared to other world cities in practically all countries and is why their density levels are probably the lowest in the first world...?? Its the massive sprawlsville phenomenon. You can call it irrelevant all you want but a contiguous massive area of low density sprawl isn't an impressive 'city' and doesn't do anything to exude a cohesive urban area of size.. It may work ok for U.S measures of commuter patterns as they relate to interconnectivity of a region but that is about it. Outside an area the size of the GTA Chicago just takes a massive dip in terms of urbanity to something not even worth measuring other than for stats.
I don't know why you have a hard time understanding this.. How exactly is demographia references irrelavent when the 'size' of a city like Chicago is only impressive in it urbanized area about equal to the GTA - anything beyond that is low density sprawlsville to the max that resembles nothing of a city..
You can't say Chicago has a population of 9-10 million and say Toronto is 6-7 when you aren't comparing equivalent areas.. Chicago needs to inflate to a huge area to reach 9 million well in excess of what Toronto needs to inflate to get to 7 million.. Please compare apples to apples or just don't compare at all.. Canada simply does not use CSA measures therefore comparing the CSA GDP of Chicagoland Or MSP CSA to Toronto CMA is not a good comparison.... If you use equivalent areas than Chicagoland is 9-10 million and the Golden Horseshoe is 8-9 million.. On MSP BEST day ever it wouldn't expand beyond 4 million.. Anyway this thread has zippo to do with GDP anyway lol... Houston CSA has a larger GDP than Hong Kong and isn't too much less in population but HK looks infinitely larger in built form and urbanity due to high density levels in a very respectable and manageable area ie it doesn't sprawl in low density suburban, exurban areas to infinity..
Don't you find it odd that U.S cities even for first world standards (minus NYC) inflate to MASSIVE areas in order to attain the population they do compared to other world cities in practically all countries and is why their density levels are probably the lowest in the first world...?? Its the massive sprawlsville phenomenon. You can call it irrelevant all you want but a contiguous massive area of low density sprawl isn't an impressive 'city' and doesn't do anything to exude a cohesive urban area of size.. It may work ok for U.S measures of commuter patterns as they relate to interconnectivity of a region but that is about it. Outside an area the size of the GTA Chicago just takes a massive dip in terms of urbanity to something not even worth measuring other than for stats.
Well, the sprawlsville of the US is also a function of how the cities are built and not solely because of arbitrary standards. US cities unfortunately sprawl out quite a bit because that's what development after the mid-20th century generally tried to do. They were extremely prosperous times with cheap gas, lots of land, and lots of sprawling home construction.
However, if we want to disregard the differences in built urban forms between countries, we can at least try to tease out equivalent land areas and their populations for comparison. The CSA does run to a massive size, but there are other stats that are provided by the census as their own groupings or it's possible to take other non-census groupings and use census information to find their physical areas and populations for comparison. You'll get perhaps a better comparison for the urban cores as much of the land out further from the core, but considered a part of the CSA or even MSA are actually sparsely populated.
Urban Area (note, the population numbers here are older 2010, not 2013, couldn't find 2013)
Population: 8,608,208
Area: 6,326.7 square kilometers
Now, the GTA, as per wikipedia, states a population of 6,054,191 and an area of 7,124.15 square kilometers.
Does it seem like urban area might be a more appropriate metric then? Other possibilities for making an appropriate comparison for Chicago using fairly similar land areas centered on the urban core for both cities:
- Taking just Cook County
- Taking Cook County and the two most urbanized counties next to it (Lake and DuPage)
- Taking Cook County and its adjacent counties (also referred to as the collar counties)
So yea, you can try to adjust for a better comparison. I believe in several if not all of these comparisons where the adjustment is for two areas of equal size centered on the core, Chicago generally comes out significantly more populous. I do feel the two cities do resemble each other in many ways, though my impression has been that Chicago feels like the bigger city.
Well, the sprawlsville of the US is also a function of how the cities are built and not solely because of arbitrary standards. US cities unfortunately sprawl out quite a bit because that's what development after the mid-20th century generally tried to do. They were extremely prosperous times with cheap gas, lots of land, and lots of sprawling home construction.
However, if we want to disregard the differences in built urban forms between countries, we can at least try to tease out equivalent land areas and their populations for comparison. The CSA does run to a massive size, but there are other stats that are provided by the census as their own groupings or it's possible to take other non-census groupings and use census information to find their physical areas and populations for comparison. You'll get perhaps a better comparison for the urban cores as much of the land out further from the core, but considered a part of the CSA or even MSA are actually sparsely populated.
Urban Area (note, the population numbers here are older 2010, not 2013, couldn't find 2013)
Population: 8,608,208
Area: 6,326.7 square kilometers
Now, the GTA, as per wikipedia, states a population of 6,054,191 and an area of 7,124.15 square kilometers.
Does it seem like urban area might be a more appropriate metric then? Other possibilities for making an appropriate comparison for Chicago using fairly similar land areas centered on the urban core for both cities:
- Taking just Cook County
- Taking Cook County and the two most urbanized counties next to it (Lake and DuPage)
- Taking Cook County and its adjacent counties (also referred to as the collar counties)
So yea, you can try to adjust for a better comparison. I believe in several if not all of these comparisons where the adjustment is for two areas of equal size centered on the core, Chicago generally comes out significantly more populous. I do feel the two cities do resemble each other in many ways, though my impression has been that Chicago feels like the bigger city.
There's different ways you can slice and dice it for sure.. Even with the GTA of the 6.1 million which is now a good 6.4 million realistically much of the area is Green Space.. That is why some meausres try to compare (demographia) just urbanized areas and take away undeveloped parts parks marsh/farmlands, water etc. In that vein the GTA would come out as more green and its built up areas more dense based than Chicagoland but yes it depends on what your comparing against - if you take just Chicagolands most dense and urban parts it would compare more favourable to the GTA and its contiguous parts - probably fairly even.
Chicago is the larger metro - I haven't discounted that but even with the GTA that doesn't take into account other contiguous urbanized areas - its just the GTA and there are some others that are now contiguous with it (similar to your Cook and other counties).. Essentially the further you go out Chicago is the larger city this there is not doubt but once you get to that 'further' out how much of a difference does it make.. Not too much imo at all because the density just becomes pretty low and insignificant..its nothing resembling a cohesive urban city..
This is what i'm saying with my post - which city feels bigger depends on what you are comparing and where you are.. Chicago's DT core (built form) is taller but its overall density is becoming less prominent vs Toronto due to immense highrise construction.. I think Toronto now has more infil up to 150 m and Chicago obviously still higher than 150m though that is changing.. So unless you are in T.O's core or close to it you have to examine that notion every year or two literally because the city is changing so much. I remember looking at pics of Chicago recently and the core just didn't feel as massive over T.O's.. 10 years ago that wasn't even close to being the case - Chicago's core always gave off this much bigger feel. Nowadays not so much - alot can change in a decade..
Outside the core I think Chicago is more impressive for its mid-rise infil whereas Toronto trumps in Highrise infil by a factor of about 2:1 so what 'feels' bigger is a matter of what feels bigger to the person. Toronto is more leafy green with hyper dense nodes of highrise clusters surrounded by some mid-rise and plenty of low rise. Memph actually compared just the city proper's of both Chicago and Toronto in terms of density tracts I believe Chicago had the more density between 20000-50000 ppsm and Toronto greater from 50000-100000 ppsm and greater than 100000 which makes sense to me based on what I've said.
As for sprawlsville dev - i'm not knocking it whatsoever and in the global context a city like the GTA sprawls out more than most - just like the U.S but not quite to the extent. Compare Madrid to Toronto for example - as per demographia Toronto is slightly larger than Madrid but really Madrid is two times as dense and less sprawly and much more compact and so we both know what is more urban and has the greater ped traffic...You could fit multiple Madrids the GTA and even more in Chicagoland for example. Toronto and Chicago in city proper terms compare much more equally when you take the 2.8 and 2.7 million respectfully and just distribute them within and really these are the most 'urban' parts by far of either metro - going beyond that well - meh lol if it strikes one's fancy and gets them all excited knock yourself out.. This all works out favourable for Montreal as well.. its only 1.6 million in its city proper but its density for Canamerican standards is very impressive - urban spawl not as much but within the city it certainly feels bigger than Seattle or Houston imo and probably stacks up well to Boston and Philly even though the latter are more populous from a CSA perspective..
So let me state that in the urbanized parts that I think matter - Toronto and Chicago are more equal to one another in terms of size population/densities than anything MSP.. I do think that is a fair statement... Its far too neat just to say Toronto is somewhere in between without drilling down further. If you look to the future, I think you'll find that things favour Toronto vs Chicago in term of city proper development/growth/population but sure - alot can change in a decade for either city..
Well, the sprawlsville of the US is also a function of how the cities are built and not solely because of arbitrary standards. US cities unfortunately sprawl out quite a bit because that's what development after the mid-20th century generally tried to do. They were extremely prosperous times with cheap gas, lots of land, and lots of sprawling home construction.
However, if we want to disregard the differences in built urban forms between countries, we can at least try to tease out equivalent land areas and their populations for comparison. The CSA does run to a massive size, but there are other stats that are provided by the census as their own groupings or it's possible to take other non-census groupings and use census information to find their physical areas and populations for comparison. You'll get perhaps a better comparison for the urban cores as much of the land out further from the core, but considered a part of the CSA or even MSA are actually sparsely populated.
Urban Area (note, the population numbers here are older 2010, not 2013, couldn't find 2013)
Population: 8,608,208
Area: 6,326.7 square kilometers
Now, the GTA, as per wikipedia, states a population of 6,054,191 and an area of 7,124.15 square kilometers.
Does it seem like urban area might be a more appropriate metric then? Other possibilities for making an appropriate comparison for Chicago using fairly similar land areas centered on the urban core for both cities:
- Taking just Cook County
- Taking Cook County and the two most urbanized counties next to it (Lake and DuPage)
- Taking Cook County and its adjacent counties (also referred to as the collar counties)
So yea, you can try to adjust for a better comparison. I believe in several if not all of these comparisons where the adjustment is for two areas of equal size centered on the core, Chicago generally comes out significantly more populous. I do feel the two cities do resemble each other in many ways, though my impression has been that Chicago feels like the bigger city.
Don't let facts get in the way of a Torontonian's argument.
It's true that most of Chicago's urban area consists of medium to low density suburban sprawl. It's not clear though why that suburban population should be disregarded or in what way the Chicago urban area lacks cohesion -- especially given its massive suburban rail network and high commuter numbers into the Loop.
There's different ways you can slice and dice it for sure.. Even with the GTA of the 6.1 million which is now a good 6.4 million realistically much of the area is Green Space.. That is why some meausres try to compare (demographia) just urbanized areas and take away undeveloped parts parks marsh/farmlands, water etc. In that vein the GTA would come out as more green and its built up areas more dense based than Chicagoland but yes it depends on what your comparing against - if you take just Chicagolands most dense and urban parts it would compare more favourable to the GTA and its contiguous parts - probably fairly even.
Chicago is the larger metro - I haven't discounted that but even with the GTA that doesn't take into account other contiguous urbanized areas - its just the GTA and there are some others that are now contiguous with it (similar to your Cook and other counties).. Essentially the further you go out Chicago is the larger city this there is not doubt but once you get to that 'further' out how much of a difference does it make.. Not too much imo at all because the density just becomes pretty low and insignificant..its nothing resembling a cohesive urban city..
This is what i'm saying with my post - which city feels better depends on what you are comparing and where you are.. Chicago's DT core is taller but its overall density is becoming less prominent vs Toronto due to immense highrise construction.. I think Toronto now has more infil up to 150 m and Chicago obviously still higher than 150m though that is changing.. So unless you are in T.O's core or close to it you have to examine that notion every year or two literally because the city is changing so much. I remember looking at pics of Chicago recently and the core just didn't feel as massive over T.O's.. 10 years ago that wasn't even close to being the case - Chicago's core always gave off this much bigger feel. Nowadays not so much - alot can change in a decade..
Outside the core I think Chicago is more impressive for its mid-rise infil whereas Toronto trumps in Highrise infil by a factor of about 2:1 so what 'feels' bigger is a matter of what feels bigger to the person. Toronto is more leafy green with hyper dense nodes of highrise clusters surrounded by some mid-rise and plenty of low rise. Memph actually compared just the city proper's of both Chicago and Toronto in terms of density tracts I believe Chicago had the more density between 20000-50000 ppsm and Toronto greater from 50000-100000 ppsm and greater than 100000 which makes sense to me based on what I've said.
As for sprawlsville dev - i'm not knocking it whatsoever and in the global context a city like the GTA sprawls out more than most - just like the U.S but not quite to the extent. Compare Madrid to Toronto for example - as per demographia Toronto is slightly larger than Madrid but really Madrid is two times as dense and less sprawly and much more compact and so we both know what is more urban and has the greater ped traffic... Toronto and Chicago in city proper terms compare much more equally when you take the 2.8 and 2.7 million respectfully and just distribute them within and really these are the most 'urban' parts by far of either metro - going beyond that well - meh lol.. This works out favourable for Montreal as well.. its only 1.6 million in its city proper but its density for Canamerican standards is very impressive - urban spawl not as much but within the city it certainly feels bigger than Seattle or Houston imo..
So let me state that in the urbanized parts that I think matter - Toronto and Chicago are more equal to one another in terms of size population/densities than anything MSP.. I do think that is a fair statement... Its far too neat just to say Toronto is somewhere in between without drilling down further.
Right, lots of ways to slice and dice. I think it'd be more helpful if you got the numbers for population and area out for different ways to "configure" Toronto and its metropolitan area as well as for the Twin Cities, and then compare those with Chicago. From a cursory glance, it seems like the Chicago metro is significantly bigger/more populous than the Toronto metro when you're looking at comparable physical areas.
Right, lots of ways to slice and dice. I think it'd be more helpful if you got the numbers for population and area out for different ways to "configure" Toronto and its metropolitan area as well as for the Twin Cities, and then compare those with Chicago. From a cursory glance, it seems like the Chicago metro is significantly bigger/more populous than the Toronto metro when you're looking at comparable physical areas.
Umm I dunno what to say lol... if you can take the most urbanized parts of any of Chicago/Toronto/MSP and do an analysis by all means do so.. Please use respectable levels of density tracts though..... I think with urbanized parts of respectable density/population that actually feels like a large contiguous city and you do a comparison - Toronto and Chicago compare much more favourable than MSP.. However, if it makes you feel better - yes yes Chicago is a muuuuch larger and urban, bigger city than Madrid and Hong Kong for that matter as well...
On paper yes this is how it goes without any slice and dice........ Chicago just 'feels' better with every bit of its glorious parts...
Chicago 10 million
Hong Kong 7.5 million
Madrid 6.5 million
and well - Madrid is 'closer' to MSP than Chicago with HK somewhere in between Chicago and MSP hahaha I mean lets not let the facts of a 'Torontonian' get in the way..
Last edited by fusion2; 12-21-2014 at 11:50 AM..
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.
