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.
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.
The US urban area designation gives the best representation of how these cities truly stack up compared to each other.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean1the1
The US urban area designation gives the best representation of how these cities truly stack up compared to each other.
I disagree, and I think MSA is more representative although it too has flaws. The United Stares UA designation has inconsistencies in how it calculates across the board. Also that is the most outdated metric he listed and the numbers are still from 2010.
Last edited by the resident09; 10-16-2018 at 09:35 PM..
The US urban area designation gives the best representation of how these cities truly stack up compared to each other.
I vastly prefer Demographia's Urban Area over the United States' Urban Area by several folds and for numerous reasons.
The primary reason being that they have an updated list for every year, whereas the United States version only does one list per decade on the census. It's been over 8 years since the 2010 census and a lot has changed for a slew of cities yet the American Urban Area metric cannot be relied upon to capture those year-over-year changes. How sad.
I also like that Demographia classifies each and every single urban area with a combination source code. For example; New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and San Francisco Bay Area are classified as Urban Area N/A. Meaning the source of their urban area components comes from the United States census bureau's metric but Demographia merges clusters where it views there is extensive urbanization. The United States Urban Area prefers to keep clusters torn apart rather than conjoined or merged together as a conglomerate (which is why you have results like San Francisco/Oakland only having 3.28 million people in its United States Urban Area), it preserves the individual identity of a cluster by doing so but marks an insufficient metric by separating areas that have bled together into one congregation. Demographia, however, believes that clusters should be merged when there is direct urbanization connecting one cluster to another without breaks in the urbanization, when the lines between one place to the next have faded away.
Other metropolitan areas in the United States such as Miami/Fort Lauderdale and Washington D.C. are classified as Urban Area A/A. Meaning their boundaries, populations, and definitions on Demographia's Urban Area model is the exact same as the boundary and definition of the United States Urban Area. Meaning the population you see for Miami/Fort Lauderdale and Washington D.C.'s Demographia Urban Area in 2018 is what their population would be right now for the United States Urban Area if the United States Urban Area did annual population captures. This is attributed to the boundaries being co-terminus between the two metrics for these two cities.
The Demographia Urban Area, while still maintaining some minor flaws of their own like every other metric, are a remarkably more reliable metric than the United States Urban Area. Demographia does a superior job of encapsulating each city's urbanization uniquely in a classification system with the use of combination source codes.
Here is what each component of the source code means (the legend):
I use Global Urban Agglomeration:
01. Chicago: 9,750,000
02. Washington, D.C.: 8,500,000 (including Baltimore)
03. San Francisco: 7,800,000 (including San Jose and Oakland)
04. Toronto: 7,300,000 (including Hamilton)
and CSA for broader:
CSA / GGH:
01. Chicago: 9,901,711
02. Washington DC-Baltimore: 9,763,116
03. San Francisco Bay Area: 9,658,361
04. Toronto: 9,370,000
City proper is the dumbest. The Washington Beltway is 255 square miles with nearly 1.9 million people. San Francisco's probably the same, if not more. DC isn't as dense as Chicago, but comparing a 61 square mile slice to one that is 200+ is bizarre.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
I use Global Urban Agglomeration:
01. Chicago: 9,750,000
02. Washington, D.C.: 8,500,000 (including Baltimore)
03. San Francisco: 7,800,000 (including San Jose and Oakland)
04. Toronto: 7,300,000 (including Hamilton)
and CSA for broader:
CSA / GGH:
01. Chicago: 9,901,711
02. Washington DC-Baltimore: 9,763,116
03. San Francisco Bay Area: 9,658,361
04. Toronto: 9,370,000
City proper is the dumbest. The Washington Beltway is 255 square miles with nearly 1.9 million people. San Francisco's probably the same, if not more. DC isn't as dense as Chicago, but comparing a 61 square mile slice to one that is 200+ is bizarre.
The UA metrics are flawed and off too, one has to ask themselves, is Atlanta actually more populous or more urbanized than the Washington region? Absolutely not. I don't think Miami is more populous either but it is intensely urbanized on a thin strip of land. The density numbers for Atlanta's UA are an absolute joke, at like 773 people/km, DC's is more than double that in less than half the land.
What i really expect to see is even the urban areas will get adjusted and tweaked, then you may see more balance across the metrics. The SF Bay Area and the DC and or combined DC/ Batimore regions are absolutely two of the 6 most populous regions of the U.S.in every way possible. In nobodies world is the SF Bay Area just 3.5 million.
(In reality) there is nothing small population wise about DC or its surroundings. At 100 sq mi (smaller than Philly) DC+Alex+Arlington is 1.2 million. At 255 sq mi (The Beltway, smaller than Chicago) it's practically 2 million. Just encompassing immediate beltway touching jurisdictions that actually touch 495 the region is between 4-5 million. Then at no more than a 25-30 mile radius outside of downtown your between 7-8 million in the DC region.
With all that said, DC region keeps somewhat of a live able and manageable feel than that of a true megacity, and I think this adds to the region's appeal. Big/megacity level amenities, yet there is a way to find your little niche or corner of the metro to call home and not feel overwhelmed.
Last edited by the resident09; 10-17-2018 at 10:30 PM..
We are comparing them at the metropolis level, meaning comparisons with the use of MSA, CMA, GTA, CSA, GGH, or any international urban area or urban agglomeration standards are encouraged for use and city propers are not (unless it is a topic that is only measured by city proper).
These four have been compared before but only on specific topics and not on an overall basis of their qualities as cities. With the exception of New York, Mexico City, and Los Angeles, these are the four next most prominent places in all of North America. All four cities are vastly different from one another but they are all wonderful cities in their own way. Among the best and biggest that North America has to offer in this day and age.
Compare them on what they have to offer, their standard of living, and what their socioeconomic (social and economic), physical (urban) and natural (nature) environments are like.
- Location
- Climate
- Topography
- Economy
- Costs and expenses
- Public education (K-12) and higher education (colleges and universities)
- Public Transport (buses, inner city rail, commuter rail, tramways)
- Amenities
- Diversity
- Culinary scene
- Music scene
- Political scene (type of politics and mindset)
- Neighborhoods (historic, ethnic, affluent, middle-class, so on)
- Suburbs
- Entertainment (sports themes, major conventions, themeparks, waterparks, so on)
- Nightlife scene
- Image as a city
- Safety
- History
- Level of Customer Service
- User friendliness (the city is easy to get around, easy to understand, things come easy here)
- Cultural institutions and performing arts
- City parks, public spaces, and greenbelts
If I left out a criteria point, then feel free to add it in here.
Which one would be the preferred choice (to live)? Which one is the preferred choice (to visit)? How would you rank the 4 overall?
I'll go down the list! I'll keep it simple, not much explanation.
- Location:
The best for location would be San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Chicago, then Toronto worst
- Climate:
San Francisco best, then D.C., Chicago, and worst, Toronto
- Topography:
San Francisco, D.C., Toronto, and Chicago worst (I took into account proximity to mountains)
- Economy
San Francisco, Chicago, D.C., and last, Toronto
- Costs and Expenses:
Chicago best, then D.C., Toronto, and worst, San Francisco
- Public and Higher Education:
Chicago would be the best, then D.C., San Francisco, and Toronto last (it probably has respectable and quality secondary education, I think it loses higher education by a bit though)
- Infrastructure:
This is hard. All are about the same, but I'd think the best would be Toronto, followed closely by D.C., then San Francisco, Chicago would be the worst from my experience, especially once you go too far outside the CBD. They're all a bit of a tossup though, none are condemnably bad or extremely good, and Canada tends to have less developed infrastructure than the US outside of it's metropolitan centers
- Airports:
Best - Chicago, D.C., Toronto, and San Francisco last
- Urban Offerings:
This seems redundant and general but I'll say D.C., Chicago, Toronto, and then San Francisco. A bit of a tossup the farther down the list, but the insane amount of free museums in D.C. raises it's position. Toronto and San Fran are about equal, but since Toronto is larger in it's core, I'll give it to TO.
- Architectural Style:
Chicago, D.C., San Francisco (HUGE GAP) Toronto is definitely the worst. In fact, all of those four US cities have pretty great architecture, it's just a tossup depending on personal choice
- Public Transport:
D.C., Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago - San Fran and Chicago are a tossup, but Chicago is sort of known for it's dirty buses and EL trains, so...although Chicago's Metra is better than any equivalent in San Fran or Toronto
- Amenities (Convenience?):
Chicago, D.C., Toronto, San Fran - I really feel this is just a case of size adjusted for cost of living
- Diversity:
Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco, D.C. - San Fran and D.C. are a bit of a tossup
- Culinary Scene:
San Francisco, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Toronto worst
- Music Scene:
US stomps Canada for this: San Francisco, Chicago, D.C., then Toronto. Toronto has some popular current exports like Drake and Bieber, but in terms of traditionally cherished musical heritage, all 4 American metros listed outpace Toronto by a lot
- Political Scene:
Extremely subjective. For me: D.C., Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco worst, by far. This wasn't my ranking of how politically productive or active I see these cities being, just whether I personally felt that I, or any other like-minded person, could manage the political landscape
- Neighborhoods:
Best - D.C. has a strong array of neighborhoods, surprisingly, then Chicago, San Francisco, and Toronto - worst. None of Toronto's neighborhoods are that cool
- Suburbs:
For aesthetics and character, I'd say D.C., then Chicago, San Francisco, then Toronto last - not very exciting suburbs. For livability, I'd say D.C., Chicago, Toronto, then San Francisco - which is just a whole agglomeration of expensiveness
- Entertainment/Nightlife:
San Francisco, Chicago, Toronto, D.C. last. D.C. and TO are sort of a tossup
- Image:
Does the image have to be positive?
The cities with a distinct or fashionable image, from best to worst, are San Francisco, Chicago, D.C., and then Toronto. Which isn't to say Toronto has a bad image, I just don't think it has a distinct enough reputation outside of Canada. It's pretty culturally neutral
- Safety:
Ignoring recent events, for the past decade: Toronto, D.C., San Fran, then Chicago worst
- History:
D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, and worst, Toronto
- Service Quality:
Best, Chicago, then D.C., Toronto, and worst, San Francisco
- Accessibility/Ease of Travel:
Best - Toronto, then Chicago, D.C., least accessible/ease of travel would be San Francisco, not by a lot at all, but it has a weirder layout than any of the rest
- Culture:
Best - Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, and Toronto - Worst
- City Parks, Public Spaces, and Greenbelts:
Best - Washington, D.C., Toronto, Chicago, then San Francisco - Worst. San Fran has more natural beauty and natural getaways than all of them though, so that makes up for it
Tallying up the results, it seems overall, I'd rank them:
BEST - 1) Washington, D.C.
2) Chicago
3) San Francisco
WORST- 4) Toronto
Last edited by velvetlaptop; 07-15-2020 at 09:41 PM..
Seems you still feel Torontonians need to come back to the thread to promote things YOU see as superior to the states? As if their poll loss was premature and unwarranted given the factors you seek input?
* I do believe ? If you want Specifics on Canada, Ontario and Toronto in particular? Is better asked directly in their forums?
Especially since the seeking is primarily toward one nation and city on the list. The vs other cities is on these topica you want to activate here now? (as if it was not used enough for this thread and poll?) Are actually a case in a National policy and even political differences in the nation's. Cities and states its true. Can do additional forms of aid to schools and students and Universities in scholaships also.
But again on schools? You surely know the US systems in place. Purhaps you feel Canada can teach the US a better gentler Healthcare and precriptions system and how to better educate in the Public school systems the US Never rates high in But for its Universities?
Knowing the vast majority of US Public School systems in the US gain lower grades then Canada especially - virtually everywhere. With its Suburbs generally scoring higher and small town America, then it's major and even moderate sized cities.
As for crime? Again a given Toronto not having Illegal immigrants and the massive Latino influx overall. Just illegals alone are estimated as many as the WHOLE population of all Canada.
Then you surely know crime issues and statistics of US cities. So I do not see a need to compare it to Toronto? That is understood as rising but not nearly the US cities in this list.
* Again, asking SPACIFIC info on Toronto's having NO GO neighborhoods?? It is better asked in ----> their forum.
As to aid you in a choice of next city to transfer too? I say with such interest in Toronto? In threads you included it and saw it should WIN to rate higher? It's a given it should be a NEXT CITY to transfer to.
Canada has highly ranked public schools, but this is largely, like many of the differences between the countries, a matter of mere demographic and size differences.
You say public school "systems", which delegitimizes your claims. The US actually has very highly performing public schools in most regions of it's country, the highest best in the world - Massachusetts, Illinois, California, Florida, etc, have all had public school systems ranking near the top of global education systems, among the likes of Finland and South Korea, way higher than Canada - but the more diverse American populace impacts things - education is decentralized, and certain demographics in certain schools skew the average PISA test score down. So it's a relatively arbitrary designation, like a lot of the less concrete quality of life measurements and metrics are.
I'll go down the list! I'll keep it simple, not much explanation.
- Location:
The best for location would be San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Chicago, then Toronto worst
- Climate:
San Francisco best, then D.C., Chicago, and worst, Toronto
- Topography:
San Francisco, D.C., Toronto, and Chicago worst (I took into account proximity to mountains)
- Economy
San Francisco, Chicago, D.C., and last, Toronto
- Costs and Expenses:
Chicago best, then D.C., Toronto, and worst, San Francisco
- Public and Higher Education:
Chicago would be the best, then D.C., San Francisco, and Toronto last (it probably has respectable and quality secondary education, I think it loses higher education by a bit though)
- Infrastructure:
This is hard. All are about the same, but I'd think the best would be Toronto, followed closely by D.C., then San Francisco, Chicago would be the worst from my experience, especially once you go too far outside the CBD. They're all a bit of a tossup though, none are condemnably bad or extremely good, and Canada tends to have less developed infrastructure than the US outside of it's metropolitan centers
- Airports:
Best - Chicago, D.C., Toronto, and San Francisco last
- Urban Offerings:
This seems redundant and general but I'll say D.C., Chicago, Toronto, and then San Francisco. A bit of a tossup the farther down the list, but the insane amount of free museums in D.C. raises it's position. Toronto and San Fran are about equal, but since Toronto is larger in it's core, I'll give it to TO.
- Architectural Style:
Chicago, D.C., San Francisco (HUGE GAP) Toronto is definitely the worst. In fact, all of those four US cities have pretty great architecture, it's just a tossup depending on personal choice
- Public Transport:
D.C., Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago - San Fran and Chicago are a tossup, but Chicago is sort of known for it's dirty buses and EL trains, so...although Chicago's Metra is better than any equivalent in San Fran or Toronto
- Amenities (Convenience?):
Chicago, D.C., Toronto, San Fran - I really feel this is just a case of size adjusted for cost of living
- Diversity:
Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco, D.C. - San Fran and D.C. are a bit of a tossup
- Culinary Scene:
San Francisco, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Toronto worst
- Music Scene:
US stomps Canada for this: San Francisco, Chicago, D.C., then Toronto. Toronto has some popular current exports like Drake and Bieber, but in terms of traditionally cherished musical heritage, all 4 American metros listed outpace Toronto by a lot
- Political Scene:
Extremely subjective. For me: D.C., Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco worst, by far. This wasn't my ranking of how politically productive or active I see these cities being, just whether I personally felt that I, or any other like-minded person, could manage the political landscape
- Neighborhoods:
Best - D.C. has a strong array of neighborhoods, surprisingly, then Chicago, San Francisco, and Toronto - worst. None of Toronto's neighborhoods are that cool
- Suburbs:
For aesthetics and character, I'd say D.C., then Chicago, San Francisco, then Toronto last - not very exciting suburbs. For livability, I'd say D.C., Chicago, Toronto, then San Francisco - which is just a whole agglomeration of expensiveness
- Entertainment/Nightlife:
San Francisco, Chicago, Toronto, D.C. last. D.C. and TO are sort of a tossup
- Image:
Does the image have to be positive?
The cities with a distinct or fashionable image, from best to worst, are San Francisco, Chicago, D.C., and then Toronto. Which isn't to say Toronto has a bad image, I just don't think it has a distinct enough reputation outside of Canada. It's pretty culturally neutral
- Safety:
Ignoring recent events, for the past decade: Toronto, D.C., San Fran, then Chicago worst
- History:
D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, and worst, Toronto
- Service Quality:
Best, Chicago, then D.C., Toronto, and worst, San Francisco
- Accessibility/Ease of Travel:
Best - Toronto, then Chicago, D.C., least accessible/ease of travel would be San Francisco, not by a lot at all, but it has a weirder layout than any of the rest
- Culture:
Best - Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, and Toronto - Worst
- City Parks, Public Spaces, and Greenbelts:
Best - Washington, D.C., Toronto, Chicago, then San Francisco - Worst. San Fran has more natural beauty and natural getaways than all of them though, so that makes up for it
Tallying up the results, it seems overall, I'd rank them:
BEST - 1) Washington, D.C.
2) Chicago
3) San Francisco
WORST- 4) Toronto
SF has by far the cleanest and most efficient international airport out of these cities.
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.
