Does Toronto's urban structure have more in common with large US Midwest Cities or large US Northeast Cities? (life, states)

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by Atticman

Yeah, but by 1900 Toronto was a much bigger city than both Houston and Atlanta and had a lot more 19th century urban fabric, most of which still remains (talking about areas outside the downtown core). There was one very major fire in the heart of the downtown financial district in 1904, the other big fire in 1849 destroyed several blocks of mostly wooden buildings. Most of both of those areas would have been redeveloped as the city grew anyway, but it is true that the 1904 fire did destroy some great old buildings that might have survived to this day.

Montreal's downtown has more old, grand structures still remaining given the city's prominence in Canada during the 19th and early 20th century when constructing such buildings was in fashion. Toronto still does have a respectable stock of somewhat less grand old buildings, but to the casual visitor, they tend to get lost among all the newer construction and are not as noticeable as those in Montreal. Union Station and the Royal York Hotel are probably the most prominent such structures in downtown Toronto.

Atlanta also had a fire,well actually the only city in a America burned down almost completely by war in the US.
Houston also in 1912.
Galveston outside Houston has some great Victorian architecture as well as Atlanta but you find it its older neighborhoods

[nephi215]

Originally Posted by Atticman

Yeah, there are areas that definitely look similar:

https://goo.gl/maps/bMLP4Dc9zPP2

https://goo.gl/maps/MEpfcsAVgx82

https://goo.gl/maps/6gvALr9yC2m

That looks nothing like the street views the NYC street views that the person referenced. Blocks upon blocks of large 5+ story tenement housing with fire escapes attached to the facades mixed in with large co-ops/Apartment buildings is uniquely NYC.

[Bloomfield1]

Originally Posted by nephi215

That looks nothing like the street views the NYC street views that the person referenced. Blocks upon blocks of large 5+ story tenement housing with fire escapes attached to the facades mixed in with large co-ops/Apartment buildings is uniquely NYC.

Yeah, those pics don't look anything like NYC, or really anywhere along the East Coast.

They look exactly like a typical Midwestern U.S. city, except with far more 1960's-era highrise residentials, which makes sense, as Toronto boomed exactly when Midwest U.S. cities declined. You remove the highrises, and you basically have a bigger Milwaukee or Cleveland (at street level, at least)

[Bloomfield1]

Originally Posted by Atticman

Yeah, but by 1900 Toronto was a much bigger city than both Houston and Atlanta and had a lot more 19th century urban fabric, most of which still remains (talking about areas outside the downtown core).

Toronto was possibly a bigger city, but probably not a "much" bigger city that Houston or Atlanta in 1900.

I cannot find population statistics for Toronto in 1900, as Canada records historic population figures different than in the U.S. It's listed online as 200,000, but this is the figure only for the geography of the current, consolidated city of Toronto. Toronto was much smaller until recently, and you can't give a historical population by including areas that weren't part of the city at that point. Otherwise, practically every U.S. city would have a doubled or tripled population in 1900. Outside of NYC, Boston and SF, almost every American city annexed land post-1900.

That said, even with the 200,000 figure, Toronto in 1900 was much smaller than St. Louis, Cincy, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Buffalo. It was about the same size as Minneapolis. It was barely larger than Providence, RI (which is tiny compared to Old Toronto city limits, to say nothing of gigantic Toronto city limits).

I think it's fair to say that since Toronto was historically smaller than even Lousiville (even with Toronto's massively greater land area) then there isn't that much historic built form, at least compared with someplace like Philly, which had at least 6-7 times the historic population.

[Atticman]

Originally Posted by nephi215

That looks nothing like the street views the NYC street views that the person referenced. Blocks upon blocks of large 5+ story tenement housing with fire escapes attached to the facades mixed in with large co-ops/Apartment buildings is uniquely NYC.

Well I said they looked similar, not exactly the same. To say they look nothing alike is kind of pushing it, don't you think? Toronto doesn't really have those NYC style tenements with front facing fire escapes, but it does have neighbourhoods with a mix of old apartment buildings and large co-ops/hi-rise apartment buildings.

https://goo.gl/maps/bQBuHcXiQfJ2

Toronto does have some examples of old, 5+ storey buildings with front facing fire escapes, but they tend to be more industrial type buildings that have been converted to residential lofts.

https://goo.gl/maps/eGQa5A2jRNS2

[King of Kensington]

Toronto is much more like Queens NY than it is like Cleveland or Houston/Atlanta.

[Bloomfield1]

Originally Posted by King of Kensington

Toronto is much more like Queens NY than it is like Cleveland or Houston/Atlanta.

Where are these "thousands of rowhouses" in Cleveland BTW?

Cleveland, like Toronto has thousands of attached homes per the U.S. Census. Eastern seaboard cities tend to have hundreds of thousands of such homes.

Toronto is demographically much like Queens, NY, but doesn't really look like Queens.

[intheclouds1]

lol wow. Toronto is pretty ugly....

[Atticman]

Originally Posted by Bloomfield1

Toronto was possibly a bigger city, but probably not a "much" bigger city that Houston or Atlanta in 1900.

I cannot find population statistics for Toronto in 1900, as Canada records historic population figures different than in the U.S. It's listed online as 200,000, but this is the figure only for the geography of the current, consolidated city of Toronto. Toronto was much smaller until recently, and you can't give a historical population by including areas that weren't part of the city at that point. Otherwise, practically every U.S. city would have a doubled or tripled population in 1900. Outside of NYC, Boston and SF, almost every American city annexed land post-1900.

That said, even with the 200,000 figure, Toronto in 1900 was much smaller than St. Louis, Cincy, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Buffalo. It was about the same size as Minneapolis. It was barely larger than Providence, RI (which is tiny compared to Old Toronto city limits, to say nothing of gigantic Toronto city limits).

I think it's fair to say that since Toronto was historically smaller than even Lousiville (even with Toronto's massively greater land area) then there isn't that much historic built form, at least compared with someplace like Philly, which had at least 6-7 times the historic population.

The 200,000 figure is for what was then the city of Toronto within its boundaries at that time. Its boundaries were quite small then (much smaller than the 37 square miles of what is currently referred to as old Toronto) and as I already stated upthread the metro area in 1900 had over 400,000 (the metro at that time would have fit into the current boundaries of the present day city). Houston had less than 50,000 and Atlanta about 90,000. Toronto was much bigger than they were in 1900.

The historic built form of Toronto and its adjoining suburbs in 1900 was enough to house over 400,000 people, just because there were other cities at the time with bigger populations and larger built-up areas doesn't mean that Toronto wasn't still a fairly substantial urban centre at that time, and by WW2 the population of the Toronto metro area had more than doubled, so the Toronto area currently has a pre-war urban fabric of about 60 square miles containing one million people. Unlike many U.S. cities which lost huge swaths of pre-war urban fabric to urban renewal, expressway development, and extreme urban blight caused by arson, poverty, race riots, white flight etc., most of Toronto's pre-war urban fabric is perfectly intact and remains healthy to this day, which is why Toronto is currently a much more walkable and urban feeling city than any of those cities you listed above, even if they were bigger than Toronto once upon a time. Of all the cities you listed above, only Philly seems comparable now in terms of old, walkable urbanity.

[King of Kensington]

Originally Posted by Bloomfield1

Cleveland, like Toronto has thousands of attached homes per the U.S. Census. Eastern seaboard cities tend to have hundreds of thousands of such homes.

Toronto is demographically much like Queens, NY, but doesn't really look like Queens.

They have some similarities in urban form as well. They were both built up largely around the same time. Queens also has a SFH/big apartment mix that's similar to Toronto.

In terms of resemblance to Midwestern/Great Lakes cities, I'd say it's basically age, climate and more of a grid pattern than the old coastal cities.