Which is more cosmpolitan, worldly: Chicago or Toronto? (best, state, rates)
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 never stated it would be bigger than NY in 100 years, clearly you didn't get that I was saying it as a joke. I stated the population estimates 30 years into the future, not 100.
"My predictions" aren't mine. They are actually from Stats Canada and the US Census Bureau LOL
I never said CSA's were over inflated, I said American metropolitan areas were. Get your facts straight buddy ^_^
I find a combination of contiguous urban agglomeration and density patterns more accurate to how 'big' a city feels rather than commuter patterns that sprawl enormous distances.. just sayin....
Anyway - the point that is trying to be made is that there are different forms of measurement and if Canada used the same methods as the U.S, cities like Toronto would have a greater population than commonly cited - not an apples vs apples comparison - that is all not sure why you are getting so defensive.
The predictions are not over 100 years they are only 23 years out and use the same science that your army of PHD's use - they just happen to work for the government of Ontario and Stats Canada lol i'd say they are reputable sources.
As a matter of fact - i'd say the explosive growth of Toronto and environs relative to most U.S large cities is a testament to the rising prominence and worldliness of Toronto. Nothin wrong with that - Canada is allowed to have a few world class cities it'll be ok )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1
Let me get this straight.
You think CSAs are "stupid and highly over-inflated" even though they are based on rigorous data collection measures by an army of PhDs, while you want us to believe your wacky predictions for population estimates 100 years into the future?
Call me crazy, but I think I'll go with the current U.S. Census Bureau statistics, instead of some anonymous former making a prediction 100 years into the future.
I find a combination of contiguous urban agglomeration and density patterns more accurate to how 'big' a city feels rather than commuter patterns that sprawl enormous distances.. just sayin....
Anyway - the point that is trying to be made is that there are different forms of measurement and if Canada used the same methods as the U.S, cities like Toronto would have a greater population than commonly cited - not an apples vs apples comparison - that is all not sure why you are getting so defensive.
The predictions are not over 100 years they are only 23 years out and use the same science that your army of PHD's use - they just happen to work for the government of Ontario and Stats Canada lol i'd say they are reputable sources.
As a matter of fact - i'd say the explosive growth of Toronto and environs relative to most U.S large cities is a testament to the rising prominence and worldliness of Toronto. Nothin wrong with that - Canada is allowed to have a few world class cities it'll be ok )
FINALLY somebody here defending my point! Thank you! And I agree, contiguous urban agglomerations show the real size of a city and it's surrounding areas.
What I personally do to figure out how large a city and its surrounding area is, is that I see the city of that area (usually 500 thousand or more) and then determine if there are any cities 250k or more within 10,000 km's. If there is, then I extend it another 5000 km's to see if there are any other cities over 250k. I continually do this to help determine the average size of a large cities surrounding area. I personally think this is fair because it shows the true size of many cities. Miami for example is tiny, but by doing this you can see how large the surrounding area is without having a huge sized metropolitan area with tiny little towns over 25k.
Last edited by CanadianCanuck; 05-11-2013 at 07:13 PM..
While I think Chicago is cosmopolitan, I don't think it's on the same level as a city like Toronto. When you look at some of the top cosmopolitan cities in the U.S. -- the names that really come to mind are NYC, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and LA. Each has an industry that spills globally which attracts people. NYC with finance, San Fran with the tech industry, D.C. with politics, and Los Angeles with Hollywood. Toronto is the unofficial capital of Canada (similar to how NYC is the unofficial capital of the U.S.).
predicting population growth rates is a fool's game. Chicago was treading water in the 70's and boomed in the 90's, and is currently barely growing, but could very certainly be growing rapidly 10 years from now. And similarly, Toronto could greatly slow as immigrants find their home economies more and more attractive. From what I have heard many Asians "immigrate" to Canada temporarily, as a safety option for their families. Who is to say that a great number of recent immigrants in Toronto might not decide to return home in the coming decades?
predicting population growth rates is a fool's game. Chicago was treading water in the 70's and boomed in the 90's, and is currently barely growing, but could very certainly be growing rapidly 10 years from now. And similarly, Toronto could greatly slow as immigrants find their home economies more and more attractive. From what I have heard many Asians "immigrate" to Canada temporarily, as a safety option for their families. Who is to say that a great number of recent immigrants in Toronto might not decide to return home in the coming decades?
Again, lies and more lies. This is chicago, after all. lol Chicago was hardly booming in the 90s, the population growth during this period is a mere 4% and this number is usually attributed to the change in the u.s. census methodology at that time. Based on the numbers Chicago has been losing population since 1950s while Toronto has experienced slow but uninterrupted growth since its incorporation.
Again, lies and more lies. This is chicago, after all. lol Chicago was hardly booming in the 90s, the population growth during this period is a mere 4% and this number is usually attributed to the change in the u.s. census methodology at that time. Based on the numbers Chicago has been losing population since 1950s while Toronto has experienced slow but uninterrupted growth since its incorporation.
Toronto population by year, within present boundaries
1861 65,085
1901 238,080
1931 856,955
1941 951,549
1951 1,176,622
1961 1,824,481
1971 2,089,729
1976 2,124,291
1981 2,137,395
1986 2,192,721
1991 2,275,771
1996 2,385,421
2001 2,481,494
2006 2,503,281
2011 2,615,060
The Chicago metro are was booming in the 90s and to pretend otherwise is to be ignorant of the area's history. The metro added over 1,000,000 people to itself, the city saw population growth, the city also experienced its largest construction and skyscraper boom in its history, and it was one of the larger economic expansions in the city's history.
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.