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.
In addition to a very dense downtown core, Toronto also has impressive density on a metro wide level (at least by Canadian and American standards). Toronto's urbanized area (consisting of the city proper and all contiguous suburbs) is the densest among all urbanized areas in Canada and the U.S.
To me L.A is more impressive as a massive metro area than city.. The footprint of the L.A metro is extraordinary by any standard anywhere. I also would believe more easily that L.A has impressively large and contiguous density - as I've stated from the beginning - I'm just talking about a DT Core...in this regard I find Toronto and Chicago more impressive.
Having said that - I agree with you about a trip to L.A in January or Feb
LA's sprawl is awful. I don't think impressive is the word for it. The downtown core and the urban parts to which it is connected and sometimes contiguous are the parts that are good.
I agree with your observation that typically U.S cities don't seamlessly integrate a CBD and DT Core with the fusion that Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver do.. NYC in my observation is an exception and to a lesser degree Chicago. Typically the residential dwellings radiate further away from the core but are impressive in the sense they continue seemingly to infinity - lots of low-mid rise density throughout.
This is a good article and pic showing what i'm talking about
look at Mississauga - the skyline is practically all Condo's and Is in the GTA... you don't see this in the U.S at all really! Scroll down for all pics and I say again lol - this skyline is practically all residential... It doesn't take a genius to figure out that within the footprint of that area would be extraordinarily dense. Its the same thing with DT Toronto X10
I find this to be the case in most American cities. There aren't too many cities I can think of where I'd walk a half mile outside of the CBD and keep going. It's easy to leave Midtown and walk either north or south and continue walking for miles. You could leave Center City and walk down through S. Philly for a pretty decent distance. But even that walk becomes trying after a while. San Francisco probably sustains good vibrancy moving out of its CBD. I think DC keeps up the energy pretty decently while moving out of its CBD too.
I haven't done that much walking in Toronto other than a very long walk along Yonge Street. While it's definitely more cohesive than LA, the city has a lot of "tower in the park" density.
I agree with your observation that typically U.S cities don't seamlessly integrate a CBD and DT Core with the fusion that Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver do.. NYC in my observation is an exception and to a lesser degree Chicago. Typically the residential dwellings radiate further away from the core but are impressive in the sense they continue seemingly to infinity - lots of low-mid rise density throughout.
This is a good article and pic showing what i'm talking about
look at Mississauga - the skyline is practically all Condo's and Is in the GTA... you don't see this in the U.S at all really! Scroll down for all pics
The first picture (while very cool) doesn't look too much different from what can be achieved with the DTLA and Mid-Wilshire / Koreatown skylines lined up.
I'm not saying it is a great part of L.A just that it is remarkable in urban landscape as a large swath of medium to high contiguous density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
LA's sprawl is awful. I don't think impressive is the word for it. The downtown core and the urban parts to which it is connected and sometimes contiguous are the parts that are good.
The first picture (while very cool) doesn't look too much different from what can be achieved with the DTLA and Mid-Wilshire / Koreatown skylines lined up.
Sorry obviously Toronto's skyline is larger. I mean with the dual skylines in very close proximity.
Personally I think mid-rise high-density development is more "human scaled" and vibrant than loads of high-rise condos. Like this: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/493...08/5807100734/
(Note that this is not an example of the Koreatown and DTLA skylines lining up, just a shot of Koreatown, Westlake and DTLA).
The last city I lived in, Boston, is largely made up of this kind of density too. What can I say, I like being able to see the sky.
Last edited by munchitup; 06-05-2013 at 03:21 PM..
It is becoming increasingly difficult to actually capture Toronto's skyline in one photo due to the density along the north south stretch either side of yonge street and the ever increasing east west density along the lakeshore.
Toronto's DT is still amazingly vibrant so not sure. I'm seeing a lot more ped traffic as a result of the growth so I find DT more happening than ever! Toronto has pretty impressive streetscapes actually and isn't just about scrapers.. a nice blend of the new with a huge crop of beautiful Victorian housing interspersed and some great architectural gems/
Based on your pic - I do prefer the general landscape of old Toronto more but I respect your preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Sorry obviously Toronto's skyline is larger. I mean with the dual skylines in very close proximity.
Personally I think mid-rise high-density development is more "human scaled" and vibrant than loads of high-rise condos.
You missed my point yet again. I was making a general statement about Chicago that had nothing to do with Toronto. I was setting things "straight" with how Chicago is. I never once mentioned Toronto or inferred it. I bolded this statement for a reason and it's the only statement I was responding to about Chicago alone.
I agree with your observation that typically U.S cities don't seamlessly integrate a CBD and DT Core with the fusion that Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver do.. NYC in my observation is an exception and to a lesser degree Chicago. Typically the residential dwellings radiate further away from the core but are impressive in the sense they continue seemingly to infinity - lots of low-mid rise density throughout.
This is a good article and pic showing what i'm talking about
look at Mississauga - the skyline is practically all Condo's and Is in the GTA... you don't see this in the U.S at all really! Scroll down for all pics and I say again lol - this skyline is practically all residential... It doesn't take a genius to figure out that within the footprint of that area would be extraordinarily dense. Its the same thing with DT Toronto X10
Actually Chicago is one of the worst in terms of a cohesive transition from downtown into the neighborhoods. There are large dead zones to the south, southwest, northwest and, to some extent, west of downtown as a legacy of its industrial heritage and urban renewal initiatives. Washington, Boston, SF, Philly, Baltimore and Seattle are much better models for cohesive urban flow.
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.
