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.
[quote=Ice Cream Man;29664102]Which city is most urban. Why?
Architecture: Chicago
Culture: Chicago
Entertainment: Los Angeles
Events: Los Angeles
Festivals: Chicago
Diversity: Toronto
Food: Los Angeles
Museums: Chicago
History: Chicago
Neighborhoods
Nightlife: Toronto (?)
Parks: Los Angeles
Squares: Toronto
Shows: Toronto
Wow factor: Los Angeles
Transit: Chicago
density: Chicago
Narrow streets: Toronto
Pretty healthy mix here-but specifically speaking to urbanism-LA perhaps over the widest area is somewhat urban, being largest and all, Toronto has the most places within area I would consider urban, and Chicago to me is the most urban at it's core. So I guess it depends, but in the traditional sense, I would think Chicago would feel the most urban, at least.
[quote=gwillyfromphilly;35879034]L.A. and Chicago's public squares aren't that great either. I choose Toronto by default.
Daley Plaza, Federal Plaza, Millenium Park, Navy Pier, along with public areas in Grant Park and Lincoln Park are pretty great, sorry. One thing that is not lacking in Chicago is fantastic public gathering places and open areas along the lake and in the parks.
I'd say Toronto. Chicago has a dense inner city area, but very low density outer suburbs.
Lod Angeles has a relatively low density inner city but has the densest outer suburbs in America, so dense in fact that an LA outer suburb like Irvine resembles a Toronto outer suburb like Markham in density far more than an outer Chicago suburb like Naperville. Both Markham and Irvine are filled with townhomes, duplexes, mid rise apartments, and zero lot lines, with only minimal green space between subdivisions, and a very clear cut urban growth boundary, while Naperville has large lots and lots of rambling creeks and woods and fields between subdivisions that will never be developed.
Toronto has both the dense inner city and the dense suburbs.
Not true.
When looking at the most densely populated zip codes, NYC unsurprisingly dominates. Los Angeles and San Francisco are the next two places that pop up, with Chicago being a relatively distant third.
L.A. city in the basin (roughly the size of Chicago) is pretty much all 10-15,000 ppsm areas, surrounded by even denser inner ring suburbs. If you meant city limits by "inner city", well yes it is less dense than Chicago, but not by much, and the way things are going Los Angeles could very well surpass Chicago in population density in its 469 square miles vs. Chicago's 227.
So the metro area of L.A. annihilates Chicago in density and depending how you look at it, the core cities are nearly even.
Toronto loses to Montreal and Vancouver in density, so its status as Canada's most urban city is questionable. Looking at other cities in Ontario, I don't see any nearly as dense as Toronto, while Los Angeles is surrounded by large cities of equal or higher density.
When looking at the most densely populated zip codes, NYC unsurprisingly dominates. Los Angeles and San Francisco are the next two places that pop up, with Chicago being a relatively distant third.
L.A. city in the basin (roughly the size of Chicago) is pretty much all 10-15,000 ppsm areas, surrounded by even denser inner ring suburbs. If you meant city limits by "inner city", well yes it is less dense than Chicago, but not by much, and the way things are going Los Angeles could very well surpass Chicago in population density in its 469 square miles vs. Chicago's 227.
So the metro area of L.A. annihilates Chicago in density and depending how you look at it, the core cities are nearly even.
Toronto loses to Montreal and Vancouver in density, so its status as Canada's most urban city is questionable. Looking at other cities in Ontario, I don't see any nearly as dense as Toronto, while Los Angeles is surrounded by large cities of equal or higher density.
Man you beat me to it, they love this "oh LA is so suburban" thing on here. I never been to TO or Chi so can't speak from personal experience, but I was about to make the same points you just did...
This shows a simple Super-skinny needle one like NYC has gotten lately. It is a Swiss architectural firm.
Chicago got some nice skyscrapers last few years. One supertall near completion - Vista Tower, another started in March building it - One Chicago Square and one just approved by the city that is still a year or more from starting as the Tribune Tower supertall. Others built fell sbort of official supertall status.
If this ultra-skinny one does get built in Toronto and sucessful? No doubt more may come. Make of it what you will.
When looking at the most densely populated zip codes, NYC unsurprisingly dominates. Los Angeles and San Francisco are the next two places that pop up, with Chicago being a relatively distant third.
L.A. city in the basin (roughly the size of Chicago) is pretty much all 10-15,000 ppsm areas, surrounded by even denser inner ring suburbs. If you meant city limits by "inner city", well yes it is less dense than Chicago, but not by much, and the way things are going Los Angeles could very well surpass Chicago in population density in its 469 square miles vs. Chicago's 227.
So the metro area of L.A. annihilates Chicago in density and depending how you look at it, the core cities are nearly even.
Toronto loses to Montreal and Vancouver in density, so its status as Canada's most urban city is questionable. Looking at other cities in Ontario, I don't see any nearly as dense as Toronto, while Los Angeles is surrounded by large cities of equal or higher density.
Looking at Demographia's list of the top five hundred urban areas in the world, Metro Chicago has the least dense built up area, while Metro Los Angeles has the densest built up area in the US, but Greater Toronto has a somewhat denser built up area than Greater LA. The cutoff in determining a built up area for US cities is 1,000 per square mile and for Canada it's 1036 people per square mile.
Nonetheless, it's the pockets of heavy urbanity that count the most. Chicago's loop is simply more impressive than anything Greater LA has to offer. And Manhattan, too. No one's debating NYC is more urban than LA, even though technically Greater LA has a higher density than Greater NYC.
Oh boy. Another X number of bodies / square mile density comparison again.... this is really heating up....
I think people do sell short LA.
Fundamentally the difference between inner city LA and inner city Toronto or Chicago (let’s say from the 6th to 100th sq mile) is pretty negligible. Like Downtown LA is a little underwhelming compared to the other two but LA is not hugely different.
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.
