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.
Also, sure Brooklyn has suburban areas but once again it's not the main center of the city...that would be manhattan. You could not find any areas similar to what I linked in/near the center of Manhattan.
Wrong. This thread is Toronto vs. Brooklyn. Manhattan has nothing to do with it. So what if there are no suburban areas in Manhattan. There are no suburban areas in downtown Toronto either.
Wrong. This thread is Toronto vs. Brooklyn. Manhattan has nothing to do with it. So what if there are no suburban areas in Manhattan. There are no suburban areas in downtown Toronto either.
That's true. Let's stay on track--Brooklyn has far fewer "suburban" areas in its borders than Toronto does. It is a complete blowout here which isn't surprising given that they have the same population size but Toronto has three times the area. The comparisom to outer boroughs against other cities does highlight just how massive the gap between NYC as a whole and any other city in the US and Canada when it comes to urbanity.
That's true. Let's stay on track--Brooklyn has far fewer "suburban" areas in its borders than Toronto does. It is a complete blowout here which isn't surprising given that they have the same population size but Toronto has three times the area. The comparisom to outer boroughs against other cities does highlight just how massive the gap between NYC as a whole and any other city in the US and Canada when it comes to urbanity.
And there aren't all that many areas like this within its borders. Brooklyn is truly an urban monster in its own right. Twice as dense as the next most urban major city in the US and Canada.
And there aren't all that many areas like this within its borders. Brooklyn is truly an urban monster in its own right. Twice as dense as the next most urban major city in the US and Canada.
Mill Basin might be a bit more so, was built on undeveloped land in the 40s and 50s and far enough from the denser areas of Brooklyn it's all detached houses
Victorian Flatbush is an enclave of detached homes surrounded by mostly apartment building neighborhoods. Was built as a neighborhood for the rich around 1900, with a similar demographic that Greenwich has today.
You didn't answer my question. By what metrics is Chicago more urban than Toronto?
You can show suburban-looking Google Streetviews of Toronto. But you can do the exact same thing for Chicago. The population density in the two cities is basically identical.
The population density is definitely NOT the same in Toronto as it is in Brooklyn. You're just flat out wrong about that. All you had to do was take a look at the wiki page for each place to avoid this embarrassment-
Mill Basin might be a bit more so, was built on undeveloped land in the 40s and 50s and far enough from the denser areas of Brooklyn it's all detached houses
Victorian Flatbush is an enclave of detached homes surrounded by mostly apartment building neighborhoods. Was built as a neighborhood for the rich around 1900, with a similar demographic that Greenwich has today.
Thanks for the tour! I didn't realize there were areas like Victorian Flatbush in Brooklyn. It's crazy how many people there are in such a smaller area with such diverse housing. Pretty cool.
They won't stop until you bow down and proclaim Toronto the greatest city since Babylon. No joke, the Toronto fanboys on C-D are drunk with inferiority complexes. Tell them they are special snowflakes and move on. And tell them Toronto is diverse. That makes them tingle all over. If you can state, "and Chicago's totally in decline," they might even make you their leader.
What's your obsession with Toronto? And it is an obsession.
Inquiring minds need to know.
Mill Basin might be a bit more so, was built on undeveloped land in the 40s and 50s and far enough from the denser areas of Brooklyn it's all detached houses
Victorian Flatbush is an enclave of detached homes surrounded by mostly apartment building neighborhoods. Was built as a neighborhood for the rich around 1900, with a similar demographic that Greenwich has today.
That's pretty much as suburban as it gets in Brooklyn, and those types of houses are a rarity. The vast majority of Brooklyn is much more urban. Plus, many of those are right by the beach. Beach neighborhoods tend to be less urban. Brooklyn as a whole is one of the most urban places in North America, probably only second to Manhattan. I don't think it is even close or debatable at all. Also transit and walkability play a huge part in this as well, where Brooklyn is a clear winner. And Brooklyn being almost 4 times as dense as Toronto speaks for itself.
Suburban neighborhoods in Toronto are much more suburban and more common. Although Brooklyn is clearly way more urban than Toronto, Toronto is still one of the most urban places in North America, probably the most urban place in Canada, which is definitely something to be proud of.
The population density is definitely NOT the same in Toronto as it is in Brooklyn. You're just flat out wrong about that. All you had to do was take a look at the wiki page for each place to avoid this embarrassment-
Brooklyn: 37,137.1/sq mi
Toronto: 10,747/sq mi
Brooklyn is slightly denser than the NYC average, if NYC is much denser than Toronto, it's not surprising that the same would be true of Brooklyn
I still stand by my point that Toronto is a real city and Brooklyn isn't.
Brooklyn certainly has a gritty urban edge that makes it interesting. The reality however is that Brooklyn wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Manhattan. Brooklyn is a great part of a great city but Toronto is a great city. Period.
Toronto sprawls into it's suburbs but that's only because it annexed a huge area in the late 90s. The original city of about 850k is incredibly urban and dense. If Brooklyn was to all of a sudden annex huge suburban areas that are next to it then it too would be considered an "urban area up against sprawling suburbs."
Toronto is a complete city and Brooklyn isn't. It's a great area but not a true complete city with all the good, bad, and ugly that all cities have. Manhattan is also not a "real" city as it simply part of the whole. It is part of NYC which is probably the greatest city in the world but when you start picking and choosing one area to another than it simply diminishes the comparison.
Yes, I think Toronto is a fantastic city but it's not just about Toronto from where I'm making my beliefs. It would be equally unfair to compare Denver or Houston or Boston or Montreal or Cleveland to Brooklyn.
A city is made up of many different parts......social, economic, geographical, cultural, and political. A city is an ecosystem and Brooklyn is simply part of an urban ecosystem as is Manhattan or Queens. This is absolutely in NO way a slant against Brooklyn but if you want to compare a city to a city than it's a fair comparison and if you want to compare a part of a city to another part of a city then it is a fair comparison.
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.
I didn't realize there were areas like Victorian Flatbush in Brooklyn. It's crazy how many people there are in such a smaller area with such diverse housing. Pretty cool.