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.
Toronto is not really a fan favorite here, it often gets described as "boring for a city of its size" and I was just stating why I think some people don't like it as much as other world class cities. I'm also trying to wrap my head around why some people on here are still trying to deny that Chicago is more urban/vibrant feeling and looking than Toronto is ?
No one who truly knows Toronto would ever describe it as "boring for a city of its size". The city has so much constantly going on that your head would spin trying to keep up. It's every bit as vibrant as Chicago (even more so in its urban neighbourhoods away from the core), and IMO within the U.S. and Canada (and excluding NYC) only Montreal and SF are comparably vibrant throughout both the downtown and surrounding urban neighbourhoods. NYC --> Toronto, Montreal, SF --> Chicago.
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
He was talking about Chicago and Toronto, not Brooklyn and Toronto.
Alright, here's my take. I just happened to spend almost a week down there in July, so here goes...
Urbanity: Brooklyn. Its renaissance in these past few years was well executed. Impressed. Transportation:Brooklyn. Proximity to the NYC area is key Food Toronto; The toronto burbs have some pretty amazing restos. Tourists don't know where to go to find them, sadly Culture: Not sure. They're both english-speaking north american cities, so have a similar culture imho. Nightlife: Brooklynappeared to be a happening place. Liked the vibe. Toronto still has a tepid night scene. Hope that changes EventsToronto. Things to doBrooklyn Climate/weatherBrooklyn Both lousy, Brooklyn's just less lousy than T.O. Location Brooklyn Parks Brooklyn Diversity Who cares? I don't get this fixation on 'diversity'. Who gives a damn? Cost of livingToronto. Based only on my cursory look at some rental ads I saw and the general cost of things, Brooklyn's expensive. Quality of life Hmmm. For a young kid; I'd imagine Brooklyn. Slightly older, probably Toronto because its slightly more affordable. EconomyBrooklyn. Being next to Gotham is the clincher. Future Tie. Both O.K. TourismBrooklyn by a mile. Toronto has a lot a work to do before it can be considered a real destination for tourism. A LOT. Reputation Worldwide?Tie, as not many people outside NA care about either of them. Within NA: Brooklyn (Canadians love to hate Toronto...hehe) Population Tie ArchitectureBrooklyn by a few light years. I love it. I don't like the architecture in my city. SizeTie ArtNot sure Museums Not sure, perhaps Toronto. I didn't seek them out while I was in Brooklyn. Where would you rather live? (Disregarding anything in your personal life preventing you: current job, family, visa, etc)
Brooklyn, if I had the cash.
Last edited by lookyhere; 09-21-2016 at 01:33 PM..
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.
This is false. Brooklyn used to exist as its own independent city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooguy
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."
Brooklyn is on an island, and does not have suburbs surrounding it. It seems from your comments that you have never been to Brooklyn and do not know anything about it. Next to Brooklyn is Queens, the Atlantic ocean, a bay, and a river. Manhattan and Staten Island are connected to Brooklyn by bridges and tunnels. There is not really anything to annex. In fact, NYC did the same thing in the late 1800's. NYC annexed a huge area around it. Brooklyn was one of the cities that was annexed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooguy
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.
I agree to an extent. It is hard to compare Brooklyn without including other boroughs, but it is not just part of just any city, it is a very important chunk of NYC. The most highly populated borough. I think a comparison like this works better than a Toronto vs all of NYC. Brooklyn alone can definitely hold its ground in comparison with other cites, and win. It definitely gets its share of "good, bad, and uglies".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooguy
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.
I get what you're saying, and I agree with this for the most part, generally speaking. But with NYC tho, comparing all of NYC to any city in North America is not a fair comparison by any measures.
Yeah, Brooklyn is not a complete city (anymore), but it is not like we are just talking about some little part of some average city. We are talking about the most populous borough in NYC, which has about the same population as Chicago and Toronto, used to exist as an independent city, and is also its own entire county.
What I don't agree with, is that you're saying it is unfair to Brooklyn to compare it to an entire city, but I actually think that it's an unfair comparison because Brooklyn beats Toronto on almost every category, even while ignoring the rest of NYC. I think Brooklyn can compete with any North American city IMO.
Last edited by That_One_Guy; 09-21-2016 at 03:56 PM..
Reason: Spelling and wording
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
NYC as a whole: 28,052.5/sq mi
Brooklyn: 37,137.1/sq mi
Brooklyn is more dense by a pretty good amount. I wonder what the NYC average density is without Staten Island though...
I'd like to see how Brooklyn compares to NYC average when you exclude Staten Island, since Staten Island definitely brings the density down quite a bit. Maybe it would be close to that average. I'm too lazy to do the math though!
Manhattan: 72,033.2/sq mi
Brooklyn: 37,137.1/sq mi
The Bronx: 34,653.4/sq mi
Queens: 21,460.1/sq mi
Staten Island: 8,112.1/sq mi
The funny thing is, Staten Island is known to be super suburban by New Yorkers, but its density is actually pretty close to Toronto
Toronto: 10,747/sq mi
I think it kinda goes with what I said earlier: Toronto is definitely an urban city, but by New Yorkers standards it feels kind of suburban. I know density is not everything, but still.
NYC as a whole: 28,052.5/sq mi
Brooklyn: 37,137.1/sq mi
Brooklyn is more dense by a pretty good amount. I wonder what the NYC average density is without Staten Island though...
I'd like to see how Brooklyn compares to NYC average when you exclude Staten Island, since Staten Island definitely brings the density down quite a bit. Maybe it would be close to that average. I'm too lazy to do the math though!
I think it's around 33,000 / square mile. Staten Island has more parkland than any other borough, it'd be somewhat denser if you looked at typical residential neighborhoods. Still, most of Staten Island is detached or semi-detached houses with some townhouses or small apartment buildings mixed in. Nothing as urban as downtown Toronto or even inner Toronto. Staten Island is at the density level where urban layout makes a big difference in how walkable it is.
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-
In terms of density, Greater downtown Toronto now has around 200,000 people in about 5 square miles, for an average of about 40,000 ppsm. We won't know the exact numbers until the census data is released.
In terms of density, Greater downtown Toronto now has around 200,000 people in about 5 square miles, for an average of about 40,000 ppsm. We won't know the exact numbers until the census data is released.
It's currently more like 220,000 in 4.5 square miles, and that's including the sparsely populated Toronto islands and Billy Bishop Airport. So approximately 50,000 ppsm if you exclude the islands/airport. The densest census tract downtown (St. James Town) is over 185,000 ppsm.
The old pre-amalgamation 37 square mile city of Toronto is at least 20-21,000 people per sq. mi.
It's currently more like 220,000 in 4.5 square miles, and that's including the sparsely populated Toronto islands and Billy Bishop Airport. So approximately 50,000 ppsm if you exclude the islands/airport. The densest census tract downtown (St. James Town) is over 185,000 ppsm.
The old pre-amalgamation 37 square mile city of Toronto is at least 20-21,000 people per sq. mi.
Right, so the 37 square miles of what is essentially the core of Toronto is substantially less dense than all of Brooklyn even including Brooklyn's small collection of suburban parts. There is no comparison on this level between the two and no way to even make a half reasonable method of fudging the numbers to weasel one's way to saying otherwise. Bringing up numbers like these might make sense in comparing with some of the cities a tier down in urbanity from NYC, but when comparing to this outer borough of the city, it is a complete blowout.
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.
?
