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.
Chicago has a score of 74.3
Toronto has a score of 71.4
LA has a walks score of 65.9
Right, and Los Angeles's walkscore is over an area of 469 square miles (compare to Chicago at 227 square miles and Toronto at 240 square miles) with a mountain range going through it (not too many amenities there). If you gerrymander LA's zone to include just 227 contiguous square miles, then the score would be comparable.
The cities of Chicago and L.A. have the same number of people living above 70 (1.9 million). Not sure about Toronto. At the metropolitian level, Los Angeles will undoubtably have the largest population living above 70 at least, and right near the top in 80+ scores. L.A. isn't even trying to win this metric, and it pretty much does, lol kidding.
So, you dismiss my interpretation of the urban area being skewed, but expect me to accept your opinion of these facts being skewed for walkscore?
So, you dismiss my interpretation of the urban area being skewed, but expect me to accept your opinion of these facts being skewed for walkscore?
I did not dismiss it. Los Angeles's higher UA density vs NYC IS skewed because it has a smaller population. Keep in mind that L.A. is still more densely populated if you include the Inland Empire and Mission Viejo UAs, and that's closing in on 15 million people, but that's for another topic.
It is NOT skewed vs Chicagoland or Toronto. Los Angeles is actually working at a disadvantage since it has a higher population, yet manages to maintain a standard density higher than Chicago and nearly identical to much smaller Toronto despite this handicap, so to speak.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 05-24-2013 at 06:08 PM..
Toronto's Greater Golden Horsehoe isn't much larger than Chicagoland and only has bout 800K less people, so in that comparion it isn't much smaller population wise to Chicagoland.
Toronto is smaller than Los Angeles in every population measurement however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
I did not dismiss it. Los Angeles higher UA density vs NYC IS skewed because it has a smaller population. Keep in mind that L.A. is still more densely populated if you include the Inland Empire and Mission Viejo UAs, and that's closing in on 15 million people, but that's for another topic.
It is NOT skewed vs Chicagoland or Toronto. Los Angeles is actually working at a disadvantage since it has a higher population, yet manages to maintain a standard density higher than Chicago and nearly identical to much smaller Toronto despite this handicap, so to speak.
5+ million is the number that gets thrown around for Toronto. That's what I meant by much smaller. What is the population and density of the Golden Horseshoe?
This shows that over large areas the populations aren't that much different. The reason Toronto's contiguous urbanized population is smaller is due to geography. We just don't sprawl outwards uninterrupted as does Chicagoland. If anything we have nodes of hyperdensity separated by farm and marshland which are provincially protected.
Regardless - core urban areas and their densities are more important for how big a city feels and in city proper terms Toronto and Chicago are not much different population wise with Toronto being slightly more populated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
5+ million is the number thrown around for Toronto. That's what I meant by much smaller. What is the population and density of the Golden Horseshoe?
5+ million is the number that gets thrown around for Toronto. That's what I meant by much smaller. What is the population and density of the Golden Horseshoe?
By the Candian Census agency, the Toronto urban area has 4.7 million people with a density of 7,050 people per square mile. Weighted by census tracts, 14,030 per square mile. From memph's data:
This 4.7 million people in the urban area seems small. What is the methodology? What would be a similar comparison for Chicago? Memph's latest weighted for Toronto is 14853 per square mile
By the Candian Census agency, the Toronto urban area has 4.7 million people with a density of 7,050 people per square mile. Weighted by census tracts, 14,030 per square mile. From memph's data:
I think the 4.7 million figure is from the 2006 census, and it doesn't include the adjoining urban areas of Oshawa and Hamilton. The contiguous urban area of Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa has a current estimated population of 6,184,000 in 883 square miles with an overall density of 7000 people per square mile.
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.
