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.
Architecture
Culture
Entertainment
Events
Festivals
Diversity
Food
Museums
History
Neighborhoods
Nightlife
Parks
Squares
Shows
Wow factor
Transit
density
Narrow streets
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-21-2013 at 08:58 PM..
Reason: OP messaged me criteria to add to the "vague" topic this thread was before.
Chicago and Toronto are close, then LA after it. I actually had some coworkers from Toronto in the office a month ago..first time in Chicago. They remarked to me how much "bigger"/"busier" Chicago feels than Toronto. Very interesting.
I realize Toronto is a very dense city but I have to doubt that it has anywhere near the same amount of pre-war infrastructure as Chicago, meaning that it might not feel as urban as Chicago. That's not to say that modern development can't be urban -- it can -- but the examples of which are fewer and further between than most of the pre-war stuff that Chicago has in spades because it absolutely exploded in the late 1800's and the turn of the 20th century.
That being said, I happen to know for a fact that Toronto has the higher density metro-wide, and maybe even within the city, but Chicago is still a shell of its former self in terms of population and Toronto is reaching new highs each and every year these days. I like to compare two cities during their heyday: or Chicago in the 1930's/40's and Toronto today, to get an idea of how urban each feels. Being urban is not as simple as measuring population or density....case-in-point: St. Louis, MO.
I like to compare two cities during their heyday: or Chicago in the 1930's/40's and Toronto today, to get an idea of how urban each feels..
Luckily Chicago keeps reinventing themselves too. Building boom in the late 90s/early 00's and there has been a smaller building boom happening right now and keeps getting bigger. People are hiring, moving here, and expanding business again.
However, many poorer people are moving to the burbs or out of the state even. So the population may not change, but you may see an increase in statistics such as per capita income.
There is a pretty good graph floating around (I think it is posted on the LA vs Chicago thread in Urban Planning) that shows housing units per square mile. It shows Chicago to be a level or so higher than Los Angeles when it comes to units per square mile. Would be interesting to see where Toronto would come in on that.
I know units per square mile isn't the greatest measure, but it gives a little bit of a better idea than "Chicago has more pre-war buildings than Toronto".
If you consider a city urban based on how 'vertical' or 'condensed' it is than Toronto. Next Chicago.
Los Angeles is is very urban as well, but in a horizontal way.
Chicago and Toronto are close, then LA after it. I actually had some coworkers from Toronto in the office a month ago..first time in Chicago. They remarked to me how much "bigger"/"busier" Chicago feels than Toronto. Very interesting.
I had a visiter from Chicago tell me that Toronto seemed much more "vibrant". Interesting indeed.
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.
