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.
There are far more rich in Chicago than in Toronto. Probably minimum 2x as many, but I would guess higher. The North Shore has no equivalent in Canada, and even the North Shore is not among the very top wealth centers in the U.S.
There are probably like 15 U.S. cities with more rich than in Toronto, because the U.S. is on average, richer, and the U.S. has greater wealth inequality than Toronto.
I think you mentioned that the Bridal Path was the richest nabe in Toronto yet its Rosedale... Additionally, it is not the concentration of one area like the North Shore it Is the overall wealth in a number of nabe's within a city... Toronto is more than just Rosedale.. The Bridal Path and Forest Hill are also wealthy and you don't even have to stay in those areas to get housing values + 1million dollars in T.O.. I'm not dismissing the fact that there are wealthy people in Chicago or that given its CSA/MSA count is higher in absolute wealth, but pound for pound In comparable areas, it most likely more comparable than what you think. Toronto certainly has more millionaires per capita.. basic mathematics proves that!
Though there's 10 more known billionaires in Chicago than Toronto. However, if you read my entire post you'd realize I was saying that Chicago probably overtakes it once you account for all the other surrounding areas of Chicago.
I think you need to compare the wealth of the two urbanized areas.. The GTA is 6.3 million people and I do believe Chicago has an equivalent urbanized area in terms of size and overall density. When you go beyond that, things start to become far less urban and don't resemble anything 'connected' in a meaningful way to the city of Chicago (hiterlands of Chicago). It would be interesting to compare the GDP of comparable areas and compare the absolute wealth for both. I think Chicago would be on top but I don't think by much! Its just hard to get meaningful data that would do an apples to apples comparison justice. Toronto certainly has proven its cred in terms of number of millionaires and multimillionairs. The value of even a moderate house can fetch 3/4 of a million to 1 million in the city so the value of real estate as I've mentioned, has made some modestly wealthy people in the city. Plus, drop those 10 extra billionaires in Chicago and it might actually be a horse race !
I think you need to compare the wealth of the two urbanized areas.. The GTA is 6.3 million people and I do believe Chicago has an equivalent urbanized area in terms of size and overall density. When you go beyond that things start to become for less urban for - the other reaches of Chicagoland I suppose. It would be interesting to compare the GDP of comparable areas and compare the absolute wealth. I think Chicago would be on top but I don't think by much! Its just hard to get meaningful data that would do an apples to apples comparison justice. Toronto certainly has proven its cred in terms of number of millionaires and billionaires. The value of even a moderate house can fetch 3/4 of a million to 1 million in the city so the value of real estate as I've mentioned, has made some modestly wealthy people in the city. Plus, drop those 10 extra billionaires and it might actually be a horse race!
Chicago Urban Area is 8.3 million over 2,442 square miles (6,326 square kilometers for the sane) which is a bit smaller than the GTA, so the Chicago urban area is significantly denser. Dropping those ten extra billionaires would be like dropping the bottom 20% on the socioeconomic ladder from Chicago which seems pretty extreme.
Really though, Chicago from take from this that it should become even greater. There are a lot of fairly low-hanging fruit Chicago could take to outpace Toronto--it just needs the political will to reach from them.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-30-2014 at 11:13 PM..
It's not highly debatable, at all. It's a joke. Can the AGO even match the Albright-Knox in Buffalo? Doubt it. Toronto traditionally wasn't that big or prosperous, and so never had the art collections of the industrial age you see in nearby U.S. cities.
It isn't even debatable that the AGO or symphony can match the corresponding art museums or symphonies in Cleveland or Detroit. To compare to Chicago is even greater nonsense.
The AGO isn't anything to dismiss - particularly if you like Canadian art and Henry Moore sculptures. The ROM has some pretty good exhibits - its one of the better museums on the continent actually and it is better than the Field Museum for sure! It is quite well known for its far east exhibits.. There are also niche museums in both cities that are impressive so you are looking at things through tunnel vision when it comes to the cultural prowess of Toronto.
You keep talking about 'traditionally prosperous' - well Toronto is prosperous now and has been relative to most U.S cities for over 40 years. It has afforded the city to have a larger live theatre scene than Chicago or any other U.S city than NYC and it also has more than its fair share of festivals (need I mention TIFF). Toronto in the here and now also has the third largest creative arts industry in North America after NYC and L.A so I think that says a lot actually. Though we can all target an argument for our own biased objective.
Comparing the cultural prowess of Toronto and Chicago makes sense to me - comparing the overall cultural prowess of Toronto to Detroit and Cleveland makes no sense at all. Certainly the ROM and AGO both are more visited than anything museum in Cleveland or Detroit..
Chicago Urban Area is 8.3 million over 2,442 square miles (6,326 square kilometers for the sane) which is a bit smaller than the GTA, so the Chicago urban area is significantly denser. Dropping those ten extra billionaires would be like dropping the bottom 20% on the socioeconomic ladder from Chicago which seems pretty extreme.
Really though, Chicago from take from this that it should become even greater. There are a lot of fairly low-hanging fruit Chicago could take to outpace Toronto--it just needs the political will to reach from them.
The Greater Toronto Area has 6.345 million people in 883 square miles with 7200 people per square mile....Where is Chicago denser or more populated in 883 square miles?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
The Greater Toronto Area has 6.345 million people in 883 square miles with 7200 people per square mile....Where is Chicago denser or more populated in 883 square miles?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
The AGO isn't anything to dismiss - particularly if you like Canadian art and Henry Moore sculptures. The ROM has some pretty good exhibits - its one of the better museums on the continent actually and it is better than the Field Museum for sure! It is quite well known for its far east exhibits.. There are also niche museums in both cities that are impressive so you are looking at things through tunnel vision when it comes to the cultural prowess of Toronto.
You keep talking about 'traditionally prosperous' - well Toronto is prosperous now and has been relative to most U.S cities for over 40 years. It has afforded the city to have a larger live theatre scene than Chicago or any other U.S city than NYC and it also has more than its fair share of festivals (need I mention TIFF). Toronto in the here and now also has the third largest creative arts industry in North America after NYC and L.A so I think that says a lot actually. Though we can all target an argument for our own biased objective.
Comparing the cultural prowess of Toronto and Chicago makes sense to me - comparing the overall cultural prowess of Toronto to Detroit and Cleveland makes no sense at all. Certainly the ROM and AGO both are more visited than anything museum in Cleveland or Detroit..
The 883 Sq miles in the demographia link includes only the urbanized area of the GTA.. your link includes all the rural areas within the GTA. An example of that: Toronto has double the number of highrise buildings than Chicago so it has more concentrated density in its general urban form.. Chicago obviously has pockets of density but generally speaking its density tracts aren't as dense as Toronto in comparative urbanized areas. Having said that, the GTA has more rural areas (Toronto's Ravine systems are among the most extensive in the world for eg) than Metro Chicago and certainly the Greater Golden Horseshoe has more rural areas than Chicoland. Chicago just spreads itself out more expansively in lower density but more contiguous urbanity.
Mississauga (part of the GTA) is a perfect example whereby you have a high concentration of urbanized density in a satellite city of Toronto
You don't see this type of development in a satellite city in Chicago. Having said that, the Credit valley river is also in Mississauga and demographia wouldn't have included something like this in it stats:
The GTA constantly alternates between heavy clusters of urbanized density and very spare rural areas. At any rate, Toronto, Metro Toronto and the Greater Golden Horsehoe have been growing more than Chicago, Metro Chicago and Chicagoland for awhile now and that isn't looking to change anytime soon. First Toronto proper exceeded the population of Chicago proper and you'll find as time goes by most likely, the same will happen the further you go out as well.
Feel free to read up on it.. There's more than Canadian Art and Henry Moore Sculptures if they don't flick your bic. There's also expansive Baroque, Renaissance, European, Oceanic and African art as well..
The 883 Sq miles in the demographia link includes only the urbanized area of the GTA.. your link includes all the rural areas within the GTA. An example of that: Toronto has double the number of highrise buildings than Chicago so it has more concentrated density in its general urban form.. Chicago obviously has pockets of density but generally speaking its density tracts aren't as dense as Toronto in comparative urbanized areas. Having said that, the GTA has more rural areas (Toronto's Ravine systems are among the most extensive in the world for eg) than Metro Chicago and certainly the Greater Golden Horseshoe has more rural areas than Chicoland. Chicago just spreads itself out more expansively in lower density but more contiguous urbanity.
Mississauga (part of the GTA) is a perfect example whereby you have a high concentration of urbanized density in a satellite city of Toronto
You don't see this type of development in a satellite city in Chicago. Having said that, the Credit valley river is also in Mississauga and demographia wouldn't have included something like this in it stats:
The GTA constantly alternates between heavy clusters of urbanized density and very spare rural areas. At any rate, Toronto, Metro Toronto and the Greater Golden Horsehoe have been growing more than Chicago, Metro Chicago and Chicagoland for awhile now and that isn't looking to change anytime soon. First Toronto proper exceeded the population of Chicago proper and you'll find as time goes by most likely, the same will happen the further you go out as well.
Yes, but in trying to make a like with like comparison, where do you get equivalent numbers for Chicago?
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.
!