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.
I'm aware of the difference and do agree that theres no fair/even way to compare-contrast population statistics against them other. CMA would be equivalent to an American cities MSA where whole counties (irregardless of land area/density) are tallied into the population.
LA - San Bernardino - Mission Vejo (Essentially Greater LA) combined UA's hold 15.2 million in 2,434 sq. miles. I think it's pretty safe to assume that unless the city in question is NYC or Mexico City... no city in NA comes remotely close to LA in terms of sheer scope, vastness or people crunching on a metro level.
Yea, I think LA is larger on a metro level than Chicago and Toronto, occupying a space between those and NYC and Mexico City. It's big!
A UA for Toronto would probably ditch a bit of land that it has now due to how the area strongly develops along corridors, and then would take in urbanized parts of Hamilton placing it closer to Chicago, but both would still be notably less than wha the UA for Los Angeles is.
LA - 12.6 million in 1,737 sq. miles.
Chicago - 8.6 million in 2,443 sq. miles
Toronto doesn't have an American equivalent to Urban Area, but "Greater Toronto" has 6.4 million people in 2,750 sq. mil.
Take that for what it's worth
Like others have said, Toronto is more akin to Atlanta/DC where the cities have multiple high-density TOD nodes built around their metro systems with surrounding by suburbia in between said nodes.
Greater LA is about as uniformly built/developed as major metro can get. So it's an apple vs. oranges comparison.
Right. If we're talking about the inner city, Chicago and Toronto are very similar in built form, with LA being a misfit. Even Arlington and Central Atlanta would resemble Toronto proper much more in their TOD driven pockets of urbanity that LA won't have until the purple line comes to Century City in a few years, and even then Century City is small compared to Bulkhead, Rosslyn, and Toronto's edge cities.
If we're talking about suburbs, then like I said, Toronto's outer suburbs, excluding some high rise pockets like Central Mississauga and parts of Richmond Hill, are much denser than an average Chicago suburb and actually closely resemble LA outer suburbs like Irvine in built form, in their compactness, their generous use of zero lot lines, townhomes, infill apartment complexes, townhomes, extensive bikeway systems, and strict, sharp urban growth boundaries.
In all fairness to Toronto, Greater Toronto actually has a built up area density that is higher than Greater LA. And Greater LA's built up area density is higher than any other US metro area's built up density. Just look at Demographia list to find out. They used a cutoff of 1000 plan for US urban areas and a cutoff of 400/sq km for Canada, the two cutoffs are almost the same.
Then again, Demographia included the built up areas of the Inland Empire, the sprawliest part of SoCal, in their LA calculations.
Yea, I think LA is larger on a metro level than Chicago and Toronto, occupying a space between those and NYC and Mexico City. It's big!
A UA for Toronto would probably ditch a bit of land that it has now due to how the area strongly develops along corridors, and then would take in urbanized parts of Hamilton placing it closer to Chicago, but both would still be notably less than wha the UA for Los Angeles is.
I remember that LA built up area, including the Inland Empire, was still not as big as Atlanta's built up area. It's in the Demographia study.
LA - 12.6 million in 1,737 sq. miles.
Chicago - 8.6 million in 2,443 sq. miles
Toronto doesn't have an American equivalent to Urban Area, but "Greater Toronto" has 6.4 million people in 2,750 sq. mil.
Take that for what it's worth
Like others have said, Toronto is more akin to Atlanta/DC where the cities have multiple high-density TOD nodes built around their metro systems with surrounding by suburbia in between said nodes.
Greater LA is about as uniformly built/developed as major metro can get. So it's an apple vs. oranges comparison.
Agree. With the exception of maybe Montreal, most Canadian cities are built like that, and increasingly more so as government policies always push for TOD in the Canadian context. Every subway or LRT station essentially serves as a mini population center.
Right. If we're talking about the inner city, Chicago and Toronto are very similar in built form, with LA being a misfit. Even Arlington and Central Atlanta would resemble Toronto proper much more in their TOD driven pockets of urbanity that LA won't have until the purple line comes to Century City in a few years, and even then Century City is small compared to Bulkhead, Rosslyn, and Toronto's edge cities.
If we're talking about suburbs, then like I said, Toronto's outer suburbs, excluding some high rise pockets like Central Mississauga and parts of Richmond Hill, are much denser than an average Chicago suburb and actually closely resemble LA outer suburbs like Irvine in built form, in their compactness, their generous use of zero lot lines, townhomes, infill apartment complexes, townhomes, extensive bikeway systems, and strict, sharp urban growth boundaries.
In all fairness to Toronto, Greater Toronto actually has a built up area density that is higher than Greater LA. And Greater LA's built up area density is higher than any other US metro area's built up density. Just look at Demographia list to find out. They used a cutoff of 1000 plan for US urban areas and a cutoff of 400/sq km for Canada, the two cutoffs are almost the same.
Then again, Demographia included the built up areas of the Inland Empire, the sprawliest part of SoCal, in their LA calculations.
Part of why downtown LA is such a weak employment center is because there are so many other nodes including Century City. The development of Los Angeles springs from multiple centers melding each other as the suburbs grew and the area once had a very large urban rail passenger network. New, outer suburbs like Irvine certainly exist, but well before that there was downtown Culver City, central Hollywood, downtown Long Beach, downtown Santa Monica, downtown Burbank and downtown Pasadena. These were all naturally occurring TODs from a while back and now several of them are linked by rail transit again though rail transit that's still in need of some heavy improvement.
Agree. With the exception of maybe Montreal, most Canadian cities are built like that, and increasingly more so as government policies always push for TOD in the Canadian context. Every subway or LRT station essentially serves as a mini population center.
I think LA is trying to get it's TOD groove going but I fail to see how, other than Century City, what other major TOD nodes there might be. And even Century City ain't growing as fast as other TOD hubs, most high rise construction in LA is happening in Downtown. If you're going to pick another American city with central city TOD nodes like those in Toronto and Chicago, Arlington, VA is a much, much better choice than LA. Although when it comes to outer suburbs, LA is definitely the US city that most resembles Toronto in terms of built form and layout.
Part of why downtown LA is such a weak employment center is because there are so many other nodes including Century City. The development of Los Angeles springs from multiple centers melding each other as the suburbs grew and the area once had a very large urban rail passenger network. New, outer suburbs like Irvine certainly exist, but well before that there was downtown Culver City, central Hollywood, downtown Long Beach, downtown Santa Monica, downtown Burbank and downtown Pasadena. These were all naturally occurring TODs from a while back and now several of them are linked by rail transit again though rail transit that's still in need of some heavy improvement.
To be sure, LA had plenty of streetcar satellite cities, as did most NA cities. But in the modern era, Culver City, Pasadena, Burbank, and Santa Monica aren't particularly impressive in terms of very dense office buildings that characterize modern TOD.
I think LA is trying to get it's TOD groove going but I fail to see how, other than Century City, what other major TOD nodes there might be. And even Century City ain't growing as fast as other TOD hubs, most high rise construction in LA is happening in Downtown. If you're going to pick another American city with central city TOD nodes like those in Toronto and Chicago, Arlington, VA is a much, much better choice than LA. Although when it comes to outer suburbs, LA is definitely the US city that most resembles Toronto in terms of built form and layout.
What are you talking about? Much of LA's midrise and highrise construction in recent years has been along the rail transit lines.
What are you talking about? Much of LA's midrise and highrise construction in recent years has been along the rail transit lines.
Yes, mostly in Downtown, a few in Hollywood, and even fewer in Century City. I know Downtown has rail transit. But at this current pace, Century City ain't ever going to catch up to Toronto's edge city TODs.
To be sure, LA had plenty of streetcar satellite cities, as did most NA cities. But in the modern era, Culver City, Pasadena, Burbank, and Santa Monica aren't particularly impressive in terms of very dense office buildings that characterize modern TOD.
They're dense, walkable, and tall depending on which one you're talking about. That there are many of them and that they are so dense and walkable is to me the most solid argument for why LA might be considered the most urban even if downtown LA is not.
I'm not sure what you want to define by most impressive here. You've got a large pick of secondary employment centers, and generally at least one of them will meet some criteria. The main thing is that there are many of them though the main ones are downtown Culver City, central Hollywood, downtown Long Beach, downtown Santa Monica, downtown Burbank and downtown Pasadena.
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.
