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.
...and again I make a distinction between downtown proper and a more broadly-defined central area (or "greater downtown) of Bathurst/Don/CPR/Rosedale Valley.
I think almost any unbiased outside observer would disagree.
Chicago clearly has a larger downtown, and I don't think that will change in the near-term, even if Toronto is currently growing much faster.
Chicago has far more downtown office space, vastly more core attractions, more transit hubs, department stores, and other signfiers of core activity.
Toronto is building far more (currently), but the city is in a huge RE bubble, and it's 90% condo boxes, rather than things like offices, hotels, and the like.
This... Chicago is easily larger in terms of buildings, size, cultural institutions, infrastructure, etc downtown. Now, whether there are more people living down there, or if Toronto is more vibrant, or more interesting, could definitely be arguments. I personally think there are too many deadzones/chainy stuff/slightly sterile in parts in Chicago downtown than necessary for instance. Sizewise though I don't see the argument. It's a good bit larger than lower manhattan downtown, only behind midtown. And in terms of quality architecture...not even close at all.
Chicago has far more downtown office space, vastly more core attractions, more transit hubs, department stores, and other signfiers of core activity.
Toronto is building far more (currently), but the city is in a huge RE bubble, and it's 90% condo boxes, rather than things like offices, hotels, and the like.
I think you're hugely underestimating downtown Toronto here. Are you familiar with how many attractions, department stores and transit hubs the downtown has?
Downtown Toronto is adding a ton of new hotel and office space having just went through a huge hotel boom, and is now experiencing a huge office boom. Ritz, Trump, Shangri-La and Four Seasons all built huge (200 metre+) hotels downtown. The office boom started with Bay Adelaide (50 storeys) and RBC centre (43 storeys) several years ago and is continuing strongly with 4 major office towers (30-45 storeys) under development right now, with several more much larger ones proposed.
Chicago's problem is it's a bit too much "Midtown Manhattan surrounded by Cleveland."
This to me is offbase as well. Chicago doesn't really remind me of Midtown Manhattan or the vibe there at all. Nor do Chicago's desirable nabes of Wicker Park/Lakeview/Edgewater/Lincoln Park/Gold Coast/West Loop/Bucktown remind me anything like Cleveland. Does Cleveland even have desirable hip neighborhoods like these? Nothing that I'm aware of. I actually think I know what you are trying to say... but I'm not going to spell it out for you... Dig deeper
I think almost any unbiased outside observer would disagree.
Chicago clearly has a larger downtown, and I don't think that will change in the near-term, even if Toronto is currently growing much faster.
Chicago has far more downtown office space, vastly more core attractions, more transit hubs, department stores, and other signfiers of core activity.
Toronto is building far more (currently), but the city is in a huge RE bubble, and it's 90% condo boxes, rather than things like offices, hotels, and the like.
I'm talking about population density of the downtown core - NOT building density or skyscrapers (even in this regard T.O has impressive density) and I've said that since the very beginning of my posts on the matter. Any 'objective' person would be able to see that.
BTW if you actually read my posts (which clearly you didn't) I said Chicago unequivocally owns Toronto when it comes to having a larger CBD.. the lines for larger DT core population are far more blurred but easily favour Toronto given the massive condo construction DT - right now. Since 2011-2013 90000 units have been either taken possession of or are under construction with low vacancy rates.. So what if they are Condo's - this is a good thing it means people live in the core and adds to the vibrancy of the place.
As for the RE bubble... they have been saying that for a decade now.. There will be most likely a softening in future demand in the next 2 years as there is enough supply to meet the current and immediate demand (Though oddly enough still healthy number of proposals),but any prediction of a bubble burst or crash is a total exaggeration...2011-2013 is probably the tail end of a decade long boom but for a city like T.O it'll probably be a short lived correction. Toronto can't sprawl anymore and people in the city want to move close to the DT core - this is a fundamental shift in lifestyle that will probably remain.
In addition - there is a healthy crop of new office development going on right now and will continue. I wouldn't be surprise if construction is still strong for DT TO over the next 5-10 years in just office development as office space is in very short supply.
I don't entirely disagree but then again there are people in High Park and the Beaches who "consider themselves" downtowners which is ridiculous.
I think it's hard to argue that downtown includes east of Sherbourne and especially Parliament St. But I did include Corktown/the Esplanade in the downtown figure of 106,000 I gave (I know it's grown since then!) Downtown also stretches further east and west south of Queen than north of Queen IMO.
I stick by my original lines - if you don't agree well... you don't agree. Neither of us is the authority on the matter - but excluding ST Jamestown and Mossington park from DT is absolutely ridiculous imo. You could practical jog from these places to yonge st in 5 minutes - you can't do that from High Park lol. You can't even jog from Spadina to Yonge in 5 minutes and you know it.
Anyway its a moot point once possession of all the condo's that are under construction right now will be taken possession of this argument won't even be relevant anymore imo when it comes to population of whatever DT core lines anybody is drawing. If you don't see that you need to get out of Kensington and see whats going on in the core
This... Chicago is easily larger in terms of buildings, size, cultural institutions, infrastructure, etc downtown. Now, whether there are more people living down there, or if Toronto is more vibrant, or more interesting, could definitely be arguments. I personally think there are too many deadzones/chainy stuff/slightly sterile in parts in Chicago downtown than necessary for instance. Sizewise though I don't see the argument. It's a good bit larger than lower manhattan downtown, only behind midtown. And in terms of quality architecture...not even close at all.
Chicago has a larger CBD and the skyscapers skew taller.. Having said that you can't discount the lower than 100 m density T.O has in its DT core which adds to the considerable density. I'm not even sure Chicago owns the cultural institution argument.. this is also a bit blurry to me... Both have their strengths.. Agreed about population and architecture - particularly when we are discussing classical skyscraper which Chicago has a far more rich heritage. If you talk International style than it could be a subject for debate.
This to me is offbase as well. Chicago doesn't really remind me of Midtown Manhattan or the vibe there at all. Nor do Chicago's desirable nabes of Wicker Park/Lakeview/Edgewater/Lincoln Park/Gold Coast/West Loop/Bucktown remind me anything like Cleveland. Does Cleveland even have desirable hip neighborhoods like these? Nothing that I'm aware of. I actually think I know what you are trying to say... but I'm not going to spell it out for you... Dig deeper
I'm actually including Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Gold Coast etc. in the "Manhattan" part - where so-called "lakefront liberals" live. I say Midtown because Chicago has nothing like Greenwich Village, Soho, the Lower East Side etc. It's more of a corporate/yuppie vibe than anything really hip/bohemian (or "faux-hemian" given Manhattan real estate!)
The Loop and Near North Side is of course what the tourists see (I don't even know if they venture north of there that much) so it gives off the "wow" factor.
When you get out of the lakefront belt of Chicago I think it resembles Cleveland quite a bit. Flat, huge blighted areas and ghettos (that aren't high rise projects but rather SFHs that cost $10,000) and some "stable" working class and lower middle class areas. Cleveland's East Side is like Chicago's South and West sides and Cleveland's West Side resembles the "bungalow belt." The Hyde Park/U of C area being an exception.
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.
