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.
All I'm saying is that within the Golden Horseshoe there are other large metropolitan areas of their own with no economic dependency on Toronto. None. Therefore, I don't feel it's fair to consider the Golden Horseshoe as one metropolitan area, because it doesn't function that way. If Chicago is the same, than I'm not saying that you're wrong.
Neither Chicagoland nor the Golden Horseshoe are single metropolitan areas - they're a collectives of several urban areas. In fact, that's the definition of a CSA (C = Combined).
I'm not trying to get into the politics/correctness of unifying such large areas, but if one wants to fairly compare Chicagoland, the equivalent unit in Toronto is definitely the Golden Horseshoe. Thus, when someone says that "Toronto is not comparable to Chicago, because Toronto has 5m people vs. 9.2m," they are being incredibly ignorant. The might as well say "Toronto is much larger than London, UK, because London only has ~7k people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London]).
Fact: Toronto is larger than Chicago on a municipality level.
Fact: Toronto's equivalent of Chicagoland (Chicago CSA) is only 2% smaller (9m vs. 9.2m) and is growing at a faster rate.
Neither Chicagoland nor the Golden Horseshoe are single metropolitan areas - they're a collectives of several urban areas. In fact, that's the definition of a CSA (C = Combined).
I'm not trying to get into the politics/correctness of unifying such large areas, but if one wants to fairly compare Chicagoland, the equivalent unit in Toronto is definitely the Golden Horseshoe. Thus, when someone says that "Toronto is not comparable to Chicago, because Toronto has 5m people vs. 9.2m," they are being incredibly ignorant. The might as well say "Toronto is much larger than London, UK, because London only has ~7k people [City of London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]).
Fact: Toronto is larger than Chicago on a municipality level. Fact: Toronto's equivalent of Chicagoland (Chicago CSA) is only 2% smaller (9m vs. 9.2m) and is growing at a faster rate.
Largely true. But it seems Chicagoland has 9.7M, versus Golden Horseshoe's 8.8M, no? The covered area would be similar (11,000km2 vs 12,000km2)
I agree Toronto and Chicago is definitely not a 5M vs 9M battle. Chicagoland includes too much nearby area while the traditional GTA concept doesn't even include Hamilton.
All I'm saying is that within the Golden Horseshoe there are other large metropolitan areas of their own with no economic dependency on Toronto. None. Therefore, I don't feel it's fair to consider the Golden Horseshoe as one metropolitan area, because it doesn't function that way. If Chicago is the same, than I'm not saying that you're wrong.
the same applies to Chicago.
There is a limit people can tolerate in terms of how far they travel/commute to be essentially a part of a larger city.
Kootz Lake, IN is 140 km from Chicago. I don't think their everyday life has a lot to do with Chicago.
With respect to economic dependency, GHS have other bigger cities after Toronto, such as Hamiton (720k), St-Catharines (400k), Oshawa (360k), while the second largest city in Chicagoland is Aurora with a population of 200k. Distribution of population seems more concentrated here. Sure, it probably makes GHS cities more "independent" and self-sufficient, but Toronto is the ultimate engine here.
In general, I think GHS and Chicagoland is a fairer comparison.
Isn't the real size of a city the metro population? Metro in my mind means downtown core + suburbs. I know Toronto's metro is 5.6m and goes up to 6.1m if you include places like Milton and Oshawa. The reason question is what is Chicago's equivalent metro size?
If someone has any stats to point at, then it would be interesting to see because I can't find too much. What I can find on wiki is Chicago's "urban" population which is listed at 8.7m in 5,498 sq km. Urban population refers to areas that have economic/social ties to the core with people that regularly commute to the core so this seems to fit the 'metro' definition.
According to wiki--
Chicago's 'urban' (which seems like metro) population: 8.7m
Size: 5,498 sq km
Toronto's metro population: 5.6m (or 6.1m if you extend it further out)
Size 7,125 sq km (plus more land if you extend it out further)
So this is why I don't believe Toronto is bigger than Chicago at the metro level, which I think is the most objective measure of city size. Municipally they are similar based on political boundaries. And Goldenhorse/Chicagoland are what they are but not relevant to comparing actual cities and one has to be careful not to intermingle them when comparing. The numbers seems to makes sense because on the ground, Chicago does feel like a bigger city with so many trains/subways/highways pulling in the suburbs. I'd be interested if anyone has any other sources.
Regardless, population by itself is not that important by itself when comparing cities, the 'quality over quantity' concept is more important in first world countries. The most populated cities are usually in developing countries.
Last edited by johnathanc; 11-07-2013 at 11:59 AM..
Isn't the real size of the city the metro population? Metro in my mind means downtown core + suburbs. I know Toronto's metro is 5.6m and goes up to 6.1m if you include places like Milton and Oshawa. The reason question is what is Chicago's equivalent metro size?
If someone has any stats to point at, then it would be interesting to see because I can't find too much. The only think I can find on wiki is Chicago's "urban" population which is listed at 8.7m in 5,498 sq km. Urban population refers to areas that have economic/social ties to the core with people that regularly commute to the core so this seems to fit the 'metro' definition.
According to wiki--
Chicago's 'urban' (which seems like metro) population: 8.7m
Size: 5,498 sq km
Toronto's metro population: 5.6m (or 6.1m if you extend it further out)
Size 7,125 sq km (plus more land if you extend it out further)
So this is why I don't believe Toronto is bigger than Chicago at the metro level, which I think is the most objective measure of city size. Municipally they are similar based on political boundaries. And Goldenhorse/Chicagoland are what they are but not relevant to comparing actual cities and one has to be careful not to intermingle them when comparing. The numbers seems to makes sense because on the ground, Chicago does feel like a bigger city with so many trains/subways/highways pulling in the suburbs. I'd be interested if anyone has any other sources.
What's intriguing is Toronto's urban area is only 1750 sq km, while Chicago's is 5500 sq km, a difference of 214%, and population wise 5.1M versus 8.7M, a difference of 70%.
What's causing the 214% difference in urban Chicago/Toronto?
A possibility is that Chicago's nearby cities are all very small (the next one has 200,000), while urban Toronto probably didn't include Hamilton, which alone has 720k people, or Oshawa, not to mention Barrie/KWC etc, likely because they are considered urban area on their own, instead of being part of Toronto.
In the end, this who is bigger becomes moot - if you have more small towns nearby, then you become automatically bigger - while if one these towns are a mid-sized city, then it is not yours, and you are a smaller city. Then what's the point of being big if it only means it's including a lot of tiny towns.
^^^ I don't know, perhaps Canadian and US definitions are different so they are hard to line up. They also basically use Chicagoland for Chicago's metro and we know that's not right. That is why I find it difficult to find sources for Chicago's true metro (core + burbs) for comparison. And all I'm trying to do above is find reasonable comparisons that make sense.
^ Exactly, Toronto's urban/metro areas are not at all comparable to Chicago's urban area/MSA. There's just too much not included. The closest comparable figure that I could find that is smaller than CSA is:
Chicago: ~5m in 1000 sq mi.
Toronto: ~5m in 675 sq mi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
Largely true. But it seems Chicagoland has 9.7M, versus Golden Horseshoe's 8.8M, no? The covered area would be similar (11,000km2 vs 12,000km2)
I agree Toronto and Chicago is definitely not a 5M vs 9M battle. Chicagoland includes too much nearby area while the traditional GTA concept doesn't even include Hamilton.
You're right. The numbers I was using were a little outdated. Chicagoland has 9.7m, and while I can't find current figures for the Golden Horseshoe, it is definitely at least 9m now. The growth rate for the GTA alone is ~100k/year (I would think that the Golden Horseshoe growth is ~150k/year, maybe more?), and the 8.8m figure is from 2011.
^ Exactly, Toronto's urban/metro areas are not at all comparable to Chicago's urban area/MSA. There's just too much not included. The closest comparable figure that I could find that is smaller than CSA is:
Chicago: ~5m in 1000 sq mi.
Toronto: ~5m in 675 sq mi.
It probably depends on your form of measurement, but it seems as if most definitions would put Chicago significantly larger than Toronto.
That being said, I would still say that Toronto is a more globally-significant city.
No way.
Economically, Chicago is more powerful.
Culturally, Chicago is better known. So many movies, TV shows, muscials are set in Chicago. Not so much for Toronto.
Even in terms of finance, Toronto's strength, I am not sure we can beat Chicago. We usually lag behind Chicago in the International Financial Centre rankings.
Toronto has a good momentum going on, but Chicago has been a big player for too long to be passed to easily.
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.
