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.
Then again, neither Chicago or LA are on par with NYC and Chicago isn't on par with LA either. I think Toronto and Chicago are fairly close to each other in various metrics at this point.
I don't want to hijack this thread into LA vs. Chicago, but I think a lot of people will disagree with your statement. I actually think it's the other way around. Chicago and LA are fairly close to each other on various metrics -- Chicago is ahead on some and LA ahead on others -- while Toronto is behind both. And if you look at most of the global surveys they back it up. Foreign Policy ranks LA 6, Chicago 7 (swapping places from prior edition) and Toronto 16. That sounds about right to me.
I don't want to hijack this thread into LA vs. Chicago, but I think a lot of people will disagree with your statement. I actually think it's the other way around. Chicago and LA are fairly close to each other on various metrics -- Chicago is ahead on some and LA ahead on others -- while Toronto is behind both. And if you look at most of the global surveys they back it up. Foreign Policy ranks LA 6, Chicago 7 (swapping places from prior edition) and Toronto 16. That sounds about right to me.
I guess it depends on what angle you're going from. Certainly population-wise, Toronto is catching up to Chicago (different accounting schemes for metros since it's two different countries, but Toronto has almost the same size population as Chicago's metro when given the same land area) while LA is already much more populous and both Toronto and LA are looking to grow at a much faster pace than Chicago is. There are ranking systems such as GAWC that has Chicago above both LA and Toronto (which ranks LA and Toronto in the same tier with Toronto just slightly ahead of LA).
There are a few rankings compiled on this page made by different institutions with different criteria. Toronto, LA, and Chicago kind of shuffle around depending on who's talking--Philly is generally lower than all three of these though.
I guess it depends on what angle you're going from. Certainly population-wise, Toronto is catching up to Chicago (different accounting schemes for metros since it's two different countries, but Toronto has almost the same size population as Chicago's metro when given the same land area) while LA is already much more populous and both Toronto and LA are looking to grow at a much faster pace than Chicago is. There are ranking systems such as GAWC that has Chicago above both LA and Toronto (which ranks LA and Toronto in the same tier with Toronto just slightly ahead of LA).
There are a few rankings compiled on this page made by different institutions with different criteria. Toronto, LA, and Chicago kind of shuffle around depending on who's talking--Philly is generally lower than all three of these though.
Toronto doesn't have anywhere near the same metro population in a similar land area. Chicago has over 8 million people in less than 3,000 square miles. You have to include the entire Golden Horseshoe to come up with 8 million for Toronto. The GH is nearly 12,000 square miles.
Hmm.... While as a city, I think Chicago proper trumps LA proper. I don't think they are on the same level, esp when you bring in metro (CSA) GDP, media, cultural influence, and population.
The population is the glaring difference though.
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA is 17,786,419 million.
Chicago CSA is 9.8 million.
LaLaLand is almost doubling Chicagoland at this point. But still a good 4-5 mil clip behind NYC.
I see this coming oh... but it is the CSA for LA is too big... well, more than half of that is mountains and deserts as they include big counties., unpopulated... so it still might only be about 12,000 sq miles in reality they are counting, about the same as Chicago CSA at 11,000 sq miles.
Even if you carve the metro MSA dimensions... LA is 12.9 Million in 4,800 sq miles. Chicago is 9.5 million in 9,500 sq miles.
LA is pretty dense over a very large area. It is an almost never ending sea of humanity and once you get out of the 250 sq mile range, feels much larger than Chicagoland. There is about a 70-80 mile chunk of land in Chicago that is built quite differently than anything in LA... other than that, they are kind of similar in terms of spacing.
From a cosmopolitan sense, it also feels that way and the metro feels much much larger with more going on... even if the cores of the city are quite different.
I guess it depends on what angle you're going from. Certainly population-wise, Toronto is catching up to Chicago (different accounting schemes for metros since it's two different countries,but Toronto has almost the same size population as Chicago's metro when given the same land area) while LA is already much more populous and both Toronto and LA are looking to grow at a much faster pace than Chicago is.
Does it? Going by Wiki, Chicago's urban area has 8.7m in 2,100 sq miles while Toronto's *metro* area has 5.6m in 4,100 sq miles. Sure, you can expand the coverage to 10,000 sq miles and equalize the populations, but what's the point of doing that? We are takling about cities, not regions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
There are ranking systems such as GAWC that has Chicago above both LA and Toronto (which ranks LA and Toronto in the same tier with Toronto just slightly ahead of LA).
There are a few rankings compiled on this page made by different institutions with different criteria. Toronto, LA, and Chicago kind of shuffle around depending on who's talking--Philly is generally lower than all three of these though.
Yeah the rankings are kinda all over the place, but you can detect some patterns. The Wiki page lists five different rankings. LA comes out on top in three and Chicago in two. Last year it was the other way around.
The Mastercard ranking, which is not quoted in Wiki, is another one that's been bandied about. Chicago is ranked #5, Toronto #13 and LA #17.
You are not the first one on this site to support the notion that Chicago is not on par with LA... but I just don't see it. You are putting a big emphasis on population figures, but do you really think it makes a meaningful difference in global significance and perceptions whether you are a 9-10m metro area or 12-13m?? LA's MSA is more populous than Paris; Tokyo's is almost double that of NY. Does that mean that NY is not on par with Tokyo or that Paris is not on par with LA?
Hmm.... While as a city, I think Chicago proper trumps LA proper. I don't think they are on the same level, esp when you bring in metro (CSA) GDP, media, cultural influence, and population.
The population is the glaring difference though.
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA is 17,786,419 million.
Chicago CSA is 9.8 million.
LaLaLand is almost doubling Chicagoland at this point. But still a good 4-5 mil clip behind NYC.
I see this coming oh... but it is the CSA for LA is too big... well, more than half of that is mountains and deserts as they include big counties., unpopulated... so it still might only be about 12,000 sq miles in reality they are counting, about the same as Chicago CSA at 11,000 sq miles.
Even if you carve the metro MSA dimensions... LA is 12.9 Million in 4,800 sq miles. Chicago is 9.5 million in 9,500 sq miles.
LA is pretty dense over a very large area. It is an almost never ending sea of humanity and once you get out of the 250 sq mile range, feels much larger than Chicagoland. There is about a 70-80 mile chunk of land in Chicago that is built quite differently than anything in LA... other than that, they are kind of similar in terms of spacing.
From a cosmopolitan sense, it also feels that way and the metro feels much much larger with more going on... even if the cores of the city are quite different.
Size is not everything. London has an urban area population less than Chicago, but many would consider it the most important and exciting city in the world (or at least a co-equal with NY).
You will feel a big difference between a city/urban area that's 9-10m vs 4-5m. But you will not feel a big difference between 10m and 15m. I've been to both LA and Chicago numerous times and they both felt massive to me.
Hmm.... While as a city, I think Chicago proper trumps LA proper. I don't think they are on the same level, esp when you bring in metro (CSA) GDP, media, cultural influence, and population.
The population is the glaring difference though.
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA is 17,786,419 million.
Chicago CSA is 9.8 million.
LaLaLand is almost doubling Chicagoland at this point. But still a good 4-5 mil clip behind NYC.
I see this coming oh... but it is the CSA for LA is too big... well, more than half of that is mountains and deserts as they include big counties., unpopulated... so it still might only be about 12,000 sq miles in reality they are counting, about the same as Chicago CSA at 11,000 sq miles.
Even if you carve the metro MSA dimensions... LA is 12.9 Million in 4,800 sq miles. Chicago is 9.5 million in 9,500 sq miles.
LA is pretty dense over a very large area. It is an almost never ending sea of humanity and once you get out of the 250 sq mile range, feels much larger than Chicagoland. There is about a 70-80 mile chunk of land in Chicago that is built quite differently than anything in LA... other than that, they are kind of similar in terms of spacing.
From a cosmopolitan sense, it also feels that way and the metro feels much much larger with more going on... even if the cores of the city are quite different.
This is like saying that Seattle is on par with Toronto, Rome, or Bercelona because of population alone. Which we all know it isn't. LA is rather pathetic for its size, do tell why a place only 4 million smaller than NYC is HALF the GDP? Or how is it that a metro half the size of LA (Chicago) is only $240 billion smaller in GDP?
Scenery and weather are great but I think of those as resort features. I would pick an urban city, a city that looks like a city over 75 degrees and mountains anyday and so would most people including Angelenos since majority of them live in the flat as a pancake LA basin and hot as burning hell SF valley, the I.E. LA has much I admire of it but between NYC and Chicago, it's definitely in Chicagos league. I do happen to think LA is slightly more important but it doesn't run away with it in the sense your making it out to be.
Does it? Going by Wiki, Chicago's urban area has 8.7m in 2,100 sq miles while Toronto's *metro* area has 5.6m in 4,100 sq miles.
According to the latest 2012 figures by Demographia, Chicago's "urban area" has 9,121,000 people in 2647 sq mi with a density of 3400 per sq. mi, while Toronto's urban area has 6,139,000 people in 883 sq mi with a density of 7000 per sq mi. http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
Metro areas and urban areas are not the same thing, Metro areas include a lot of land that falls below the threshold of being "urbanized".
This is like saying that Seattle is on par with Toronto, Rome, or Bercelona because of population alone. Which we all know it isn't. LA is rather pathetic for its size, do tell why a place only 4 million smaller than NYC is HALF the GDP? Or how is it that a metro half the size of LA (Chicago) is only $240 billion smaller in GDP?
Scenery and weather are great but I think of those as resort features. I would pick an urban city, a city that looks like a city over 75 degrees and mountains anyday and so would most people including Angelenos since majority of them live in the flat as a pancake LA basin and hot as burning hell SF valley, the I.E. LA has much I admire of it but between NYC and Chicago, it's definitely in Chicagos league. I do happen to think LA is slightly more important but it doesn't run away with it in the sense your making it out to be.
We have mountains in NJ and in the upstate NY suburbs. Yes, real mountains.
I love the hills and small mountains to the north of NYC, especially the Hudson Highlands. But should not belong in the same class as Californian mountains, as much as some East Coast posters like to believe. Totally different experience
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.
