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.
The Greater Golden Horseshoe has been growing by over 150,000 people per year over the last few years, latest estimates have it well past 9.5 million now.
Here are a couple of graphics that show the differences between what constitutes the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) The Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
It is interesting that Toronto is last place in this poll when it is becoming more popular than other metros.
It has the least to offer among the options. Not sure what 'popularity' you're talking about, other than tons of immigrants moving there because they can't get into the U.S.
You state that "America should try to build like Canada, Australia, or the United Kingdom" and that is a very ignorant statement and very sanctimonious.
The US should not "do" anything it doesn't want to. Americans have a unique culture and their built form reflects both in it's good and bad attributes. Americans enjoy one of the world's highest standards of living with their current built form so clearly it has worked for them. Perhaps Americans don't want to live in glorified walk-in-closets like the British have to or maybe they don't want Canada or especially Australia's sky high real estate prices? Americans have a strong independent streak and this is simply reflected in their built form...........Americans like their space and there is nothing wrong with that.
American cities may sprawl forever but unlike European cities, they don't have miles of unending suburban commie blocks that ring the major cities in a built form only Stalin could love. Those suburban European areas may have higher densities and better public transit but they aren't near as liveable or pleasant.
Canada adopted the US approach to urban planning in the 50s and 60s, so this is different from Europe, which I agree with its endless sprawl of packed low rise density is not livable at all. The closest example we have in North America is San Francisco, which is just terrible.
But there are flaws in the endless SFH sprawl as well, so is having downtowns that are primarily large office towers with plazas at the base and surrounded by surface parking lots.
It's a foolish position to say just because America does it, it's the best way, and that better ways shouldn't be explored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
It has the least to offer among the options. Not sure what 'popularity' you're talking about, other than tons of immigrants moving there because they can't get into the U.S.
Canada has a merit based immigration system making it more difficult to get into than the US. Toronto is Canada's largest city so it's a default choice for most new immigrants.
Canada adopted the US approach to urban planning in the 50s and 60s, so this is different from Europe
I have to disagree with this. I think Canadian sprawl, at least in Ontario is more of like a United States crossed with United Kingdom hybrid. As a former resident of London, I actually see a lot of commonalities between London and Toronto, especially when it comes to sprawl and the possible "sprawl containment" strategies that both regions have utilized and implemented.
I think Toronto did well to take the encircled greenbelt from London's playbook. It's probably amounted to a great deal in giving people a large and extensive recreational network to utilize, while also capping development in order to preserve the wilderness and wildlife, it's probably also helped the region maintain better air quality too. While this hasn't prevented sprawl in either place as sprawl simply jumped the greenbelt over to the other side where far flung suburbs and communities have developed, it did however put a premium on the land inside the greenbelt, thus leading to more rapid infill and development throughout much of the cityscape. Which in turn encourages vertical expansion rather than horizontal expansion. Especially in the central core of the city.
The greenbelt was a recent adoption, for much of Toronto's history it's followed the American playbook of large wide expressways and sprawling SFH suburbs.
Here is a look at the pantheon of major metropolitan regions in the Western Hemisphere (meaning North America and South America). First before that we'll look at the total population of North America and South America. To see how the continents as a whole compare.
01. Total Population of North America: 579,024,000
02. Total Population of South America: 420,458,044
I'll keep the list to a manageable number, only areas that exceed 9 million people. Will use the "extended metropolitan region" metrics when applied to the United States (CSA) and Canada (GGH).
01. New York: 23,035,605 (North America)
02. São Paulo: 21,242,939 (South America)
03. Mexico City: 21,157,000 (North America)
04. Los Angeles: 18,788,800 (North America)
05. Buenos Aires: 13,834,000 (South America)
06. Rio de Janeiro: 12,981,000 (South America)
07. Bogotá: 10,350,000 (South America)
08. Lima: 10,072,000 (South America)
09. Chicago: 9,901,711 (North America)
10. Washington DC-Baltimore: 9,763,116 (North America)
11. San Francisco Bay Area: 9,658,361 (North America)
12. Toronto (GGH): 9,370,000 (North America)*
* I don't have more recent numbers for Toronto's GGH.
What's interesting is that North America is the one that has the larger overall population but South America is the one to have more megacities.
Megacity Counter by Continent:
1. South America: 5 (Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Bogota, and Lima)
2. North America: 3 (New York, Mexico City, and Los Angeles)
Obviously if one values the CSA metric then it seems readily apparent that North America will leapfrog South America in the number of megacities on each continent in the next several years. If one does not value the CSA metric, well then just ignore this.
The two American continents combined should have passed 1 billion people by now. I remember when I was 16 years old and in high school when I first saw Rio de Janeiro's metropolitan area population for the first time. It was in the 12 millions and at the time megacities were so rare that Rio de Janeiro was among only a dozen and a half places worldwide to meet that threshold. I'm 27 years old now and Rio de Janeiro is still in the 12 millions, likely stagnant or something, and will probably be passed by the majority of the places ranked right under it from both North America and South America.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-13-2018 at 04:45 PM..
The greenbelt was a recent adoption, for much of Toronto's history it's followed the American playbook of large wide expressways and sprawling SFH suburbs.
Except Toronto's expressway network is much smaller than what you find in most large American metros, and Toronto's suburbs are much denser, with lots of high-rise residential buildings and much higher transit use.
United States Urban Area / Canadian Population Centres:
01. Chicago: 8,608,208
02. Toronto: 5,429,524
03. Washington, D.C.: 4,586,770
04. San Francisco/Oakland: 3,281,212
05. Baltimore: 2,203,663
06. San Jose: 1,664,496
07. Hamilton: 693,645
Looks like overall Chicago comes out on top more often than not size-wise. That's a 5-1 Chicago win. LOL @ San Francisco/Oakland's United States Urban Area population.
Last edited by Yac; 11-19-2020 at 03:42 AM..
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.
