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.
All these cities have great urban cores. Consider both downtown and surrounding vibrant neighborhoods. Some criteria to consider:
Vibrancy
Shopping
Number of residents
Number of jobs
Amenities and attractions
Walkability
Public transportation
Nightlife
Feel free to add anything additional
In terms of DT residential population Toronto is probably at the top with 250K residents in 6.5 sq miles and growing by about 8K residents per year just in the DT core alone. By 2041 DT Toronto is expected to grow to 475K residents. Even Chicago can't keep up with such DT core growth. The daytime workforce in Toronto is half a million and it easily has the largest CBD of this group of cities.
In terms of urban area as in not just the core but also surrounding nabes - Old Toronto is probably the best choice. With a 2016 population of just under 800K residents in 37 sq miles and a population density of 21265 per sq mile - Old Toronto is actually more dense than the city of S.F
Aside from that I've been to all these cities except Philly and I think they are all very walkable. That said, in terms of overall vibrancy, population, density, retail and overall things to do i'd match S.F and Toronto equally followed by Boston and then D.C (Again I can't comment on Philly). I found D.C interesting with nice architecture but in terms of walkable nabes that are thriving, dynamic and interesting it fell short - it has a more 'grand' feel if you will with probably the most iconic points of interest and museums but in terms of overall walkability, urbanity and neighbourhoods it falls short of the others. Toronto and S.F to me are most similar at heart in terms of edge, demographics, density and just urban heart imo.
Agreed. Toronto's downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods are exploding with development and population growth. The 4.5 square mile downtown area has well over 200,000 residents and has dozens of residential skyscrapers currently under construction which will add tens of thousands more residents over the next few years. Several major office towers are also getting under way. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, every sort of retail, a highly diverse range of restaurants, superb walkability, incredible vibrancy (the sidewalks are packed), frequent subway, streetcar and bus service, great bars and clubs, many of the city's top tourist attractions -- Toronto's downtown and surrounding urban neighbourhoods are pretty close to nirvana for those who love big, busy, dense urban environments.
Agreed. Toronto's downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods are exploding with development and population growth. The 4.5 square mile downtown area has well over 200,000 residents
Curious - why you are using 4.5 square miles for DT Toronto? The city of Toronto from what I have read here
measures the DT core as 17 sq kms or 6.5 sq miles and according to this again from, Jennifer Keesmaat the City Planner for Toronto that the DT core population is as of April 2016 estimated to be around 250K
measures the DT core as 17 sq kms or 6.5 sq miles and according to this again from, Jennifer Keesmaat the City Planner for Toronto that the DT core population is as of April 2016 estimated to be around 250K
I was using a slightly smaller definition of downtown which has been often referred to in many other studies and articles -- from the lakefront to Bloor, and between Bathurst and Parliament Streets.
I have to say that the original post on this topic which also included Chicago seemed fair to me, as in my opinion Toronto and Chicago are neck and neck as far as urban cores go.
I was using a slightly smaller definition of downtown which has been often referred to in many other studies and articles -- from the lakefront to Bloor, and between Bathurst and Parliament Streets.
I have to say that the original post on this topic which also included Chicago seemed fair to me, as in my opinion Toronto and Chicago are neck and neck as far as urban cores go
I think the 17 sq km's is the one that should be used as it seems to be the area defined by the city. As for Toronto and Chicago and urban area population anyway, I would agree as the city proper of each is exactly the same 2.8 million in 240 sq miles though the gap is distancing in favour of Toronto. By the 2021 census Toronto's city proper will be easily more populated than Chicago and its DT core will also be more sizable - I think its DT core population already exceeds Chicago. That all said, these forums anyway, Toronto won't be recognized as a peer until its 1.5X larger than Chicago. As far as urban and walkable nabe's surrounding the core - i'd say Toronto is actually on the same level as Chicago right now let alone in the future. Chicago has a larger CBD so the daytime workforce is greater but Toronto's urban core is more residentially populated so it gives you more of an integrated and 24/7 busy feel than Chicago imo.
Anyway this thread isn't about Chicago because it has been deemed by the community at large vastly on a different level of urbanity than Toronto and S.F etc so we'll just leave it at that I guess lol
I work in downtown SF, I lived in Philly for 12 years, I've spent a lot of time in Boston and DC and I've visited Toronto 3x - spent a total of of 2 weeks there.
I don't know why people are putting SF at the top of their list. After 9pm it's more or less a ghost town - or more aptly a zombie town. In general it's filthy and disgusting, people shoot up in the BART stations night and day, homeless people are everywhere and it's quite common to have to jump over human excrement on the sidewalk - nearby Nob Hill, Chinatown, and North Beach are nice but but they're not all that close or easy to get to. The transit is OK but mostly it's just BART and the Muni Metro which stop at all the same stations until you get past Civic Center. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of cool neighborhoods in SF - just not downtown.
Downtown Boston is nice - much nicer than SF - but gets lower marks because it's not very well populated.
I was using a slightly smaller definition of downtown which has been often referred to in many other studies and articles -- from the lakefront to Bloor, and between Bathurst and Parliament Streets.
I have to say that the original post on this topic which also included Chicago seemed fair to me, as in my opinion Toronto and Chicago are neck and neck as far as urban cores go.
I have lived in Toronto most of my life and I have never heard it defined as the eastern border being Parliament. It's always been the Don Valley. Even Google Maps has that as "Downtown Toronto".
What goes on between Parliament Street and the Don Valley is like 1/3 the size of Boston's downtown. Lmao. Excluding that from Toronto is a handicap. Heck, that'd be leaving out the entire Distillery District.
Anyway, Toronto wins this easily. Any other answer is wrong.
Last edited by joey joe-joe; 06-12-2017 at 12:12 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.
