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.
Ok so I walk through Chicago - will this lead me to the conclusion than that based on my observations at any given time that the city is more densely populated in its core or has a greater population when statistics clearly show this is not the case. I'm not claiming to be an expert on anecdotal opinions.. i'm talking about population, density and growth trends based on things far more objective..
Clearly - Chicago has a larger CBD in terms of built form.. the gap is closing and again - Toronto is clearly building more than Chicago in terms of highrises and is the skyscraper construction capital of the western world right now... not my opinion or observation either!
Of course the gap is closing and I never stated otherwise. Stats say that and you can't dispute it, however this is because of the talk of "cohesion" and "vibrancy." Yes, there is only so much one can experience in a small trip or two to anywhere in the world. So of course you have your experiences, but in the end, it's good to have a sense of humility versus someone who actually lives there.
I have never said that Toronto isn't vibrant, cohesive, etc once or versus Chicago. Most of my statements have to do with either Chicago alone or Los Angeles every once in awhile (since I used to visit LA every year for the first 21 years of my life and half my family still lives there), but not Toronto because your left pinky obviously knows more than my entire self about the city. It's always funny to me though that whenever you would say "what does this have to do with Toronto!?" after making a general informative statement about Chicago alone, that you wouldn't even mention Los Angeles. This thread is about Los Angeles, Toronto, and Chicago, not just Toronto and Chicago. So if you are going to get people on that too, at least mention Los Angeles, and not just YOUR city.
Well let me be clear I never claimed Chicago wasn't vibrant or cohesive.. what I have always stated is that based on statistics, my opinion and yes limited observation (which is fluffy granted) and what I've heard - Chicago doesn't seem to mate its residential nabe's and CBD into the same tightly packed fusion as Toronto in its core and i'm referring very specifically to DT Toronto and immediate environs in Old Toronto.. That's it- so what this means is that in Toronto's more compact DT core and backed by statistics it isn't a far stretch to conclude you are going to have greater pedestrian traffic and 'vibrancy'
I drove with a friend through Chicago and I found it actually was very impressive in vibrancy all over and not just in the core...Toronto has an exceptional core imo but once you leave it and head to areas like Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke becomes depressing fast in terms of the overall look of the city.. wide streets and utter suburbia - Chicago in that regard is far more urban generally speaking outside the core than Toronto is outside its core...and more attractive - unless you consider Moscow commie blocks attractive.
My feeling is - and this is fluffy as well yes - but is that L.A is not on the level of Toronto or Chicago based on urbanity in its core...this isn't widely rejected either!
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Of course the gap is closing and I never stated otherwise. Stats say that and you can't dispute it, however this is because of the talk of "cohesion" and "vibrancy." Yes, there is only so much one can experience in a small trip or two to anywhere in the world. So of course you have your experiences, but in the end, it's good to have a sense of humility versus someone who actually lives there.
I have never said that Toronto isn't vibrant, cohesive, etc once or versus Chicago. Most of my statements have to do with either Chicago alone or Los Angeles every once in awhile (since I used to visit LA every year for the first 21 years of my life and half my family still lives there), but not Toronto because your left pinky obviously knows more than my entire self about the city. It's always funny to me though that whenever you would say "what does this have to do with Toronto!?" after making a general informative statement about Chicago alone, that you wouldn't even mention Los Angeles. This thread is about Los Angeles, Toronto, and Chicago, not just Toronto and Chicago. So if you are going to get people on that too, at least mention Los Angeles, and not just YOUR city.
Ontario already exceeds Illinois in population and that gap will be widened in Ontario's favour.
I'm not sure how this point is really relevant to urbanity in Toronto...? Sure, the province of Ontario (at nearly 9x the land area of Illinois and slightly 1.5 times larger than Texas!) has *both* the Canadian capital city and also the largest metropolitan area in Canada and manages to "beat" the population of Illinois by a whopping 700,000 people. Does that really paint a picture in favor of Ontario?
Well since you seem to like perspective - how about this - the vast majority of the population in Ontario reside in Southern Ontario - which is not much bigger and roughly the same size as Illinois... sooo. If you want to experience rural - go to central and northern Ontario. It makes Nebraska look urban. There are large swaths of Northern Ontario where human feet have not touched.
Ottawa - Canada's capital is politically potent in the area of Canadian politics and the global politics of a middle power, otherwise the city is no more important economically to Canada than Edmonton. Certainly in Ontario - Ottawa has minimal economic clout.. all the real decisions economically are made in Toronto.
How i linked my point to urbanity is projected growth in Ontario and the lions share of that is for Southern Ontario and more specifically the Greater Golden Horsehoe... lotsa growth and as a result - people are going to be attracted to the urban magnet of Old Toronto by far the most interesting part.
Lets also take into account that Illinois packs a lot of punch for a small state so yes - I see this as favourable to Ontario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos
I'm not sure how this point is really relevant to urbanity in Toronto...? Sure, the province of Ontario (at nearly 9x the land area of Illinois!) has *both* the Canadian capital city and also the metropolitan area in Canada and manages to be the population of Illinois by a whopping 700,000 people. Does that really paint a picture in favor of Ontario?
Haha - did you know there are rivers the size of the Potomac in Northern Ontario that have been untouched.. people don't realize how absolutely remote Northern Ontario really is. I couldn't find one solitary city north of Timmins which isn't even that far north in Ontario on google maps - I did find Polar Bear Park lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticman
^ Yeah, but over 90% of Ontario's population is concentrated in Southern Ontario, which makes up 10% of Ontario's land area.
I'm familiar with Chicago and consider the area cohesive IMO. And remember we are speaking about Toronto, LA and Chicago here. I think everyone knows LA is a joke. This leaves Chicago and Toronto for cohesiveness.
What is the most urban of three in your opinion?
What do you call cohesive then? Because there isn't ONE inch of Los Angeles that isn't the side of a mountain that has any empty space. Chicago? Go 5 miles outside of the loop and your in the sticks. I can ride a Metra train for like 20 minutes and get off at a stop were I can see CORNFIELDS! Yeah, tall buildings aren't going to bring the 1950's back...oops, did I say 1950's? I meant to say THE LAST TIME CHICAGO MATTERED TO THIS COUNTRY.
What do you call cohesive then? Because there isn't ONE inch of Los Angeles that isn't the side of a mountain that has any empty space. Chicago? Go 5 miles outside of the loop and your in the sticks. I can ride a Metra train for like 20 minutes and get off at a stop were I can see CORNFIELDS! Yeah, tall buildings aren't going to bring the 1950's back.
Name the stop.
Name where the "sticks" start 5 miles out of the loop.
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.
Chicago Urbanized Area +
Toronto Urban Area
3,117 sq miles
Population: 13,470,999
Los Angeles + Riverside/ San Bernardino Urbanized Areas
2280 sq miles
Population: 14,083,662
Call L.A.'s sprawl whatever you wish, just don't call it less efficient than Chicago's or even Toronto's, because it isn't.
Also, the irony of a someone from the land of the 1,000 ppsm megapolis (BosWash) calling L.A.'s sprawl "awful" is not lost on this poster.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 06-06-2013 at 01:22 AM..
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.
