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.
I never really thought much about Toronto, as it's in Canada, and I live in the US. This constant promotion of Toronto, though, has made me NEVER to want to visit it. I've been to Vancouver, Quebec City, and other, smaller cities in Canada. For some reason, I have no desire to visit Toronto. Before I was ambivalent, now I just don't like it. Sometimes, that's what happens.
C'mon, that just silly. You're really letting the city vs. city "discussions" influence your opinion of a major city that you've never been to so much that you genuinely dislike it now and would never want to visit it?
Mr Burns I have no problem with you not wanting to visit Boston. You didn't have to say you've never been. It was blatantly obvious based on Your understanding or lack thereof of Boston/Cambeidges urbanity.
C'mon, that just silly. You're really letting the city vs. city "discussions" influence your opinion of a major city that you've never been to so much that you genuinely dislike it now and would never want to visit it?
Actually, yeah. Aside from that, Quebec and Vancouver are more unique...Toronto just sounds like another big city. I know this isn't on the city, but from what I've read, I'm just not interested.
Mr Burns I have no problem with you not wanting to visit Boston. You didn't have to say you've never been. It was blatantly obvious based on Your understanding or lack thereof of Boston/Cambeidges urbanity.
I know enough to tell when there is boosting or boundary stretching going on to make Boston compete where it simply can't.
I know enough to tell when there is boosting or boundary stretching going on to make Boston compete where it simply can't.
Boston has a significantly larger economy than Toronto and a similar population. There is no "boosting". The CSA metric is common to all U.S. urban centers.
And it has nothing to do with "exchange rates" as someone claimed. That doesn't even make sense, as current rates are pretty much near historical norms.
Boston has a significantly larger economy than Toronto and a similar population. There is no "boosting". The CSA metric is common to all U.S. urban centers.
And it has nothing to do with "exchange rates" as someone claimed. That doesn't even make sense, as current rates are pretty much near historical norms.
I'm referring to the thread topic, GDP and CSA are not part of the discussion.
It is incredibly misleading to claim that Boston and Toronto have similar population.
Toronto has 2.7 million in 243 sq miles. Boston needs well over 700 sq miles to reach that population.
Toronto's urban area has 6.5 million in 900 sq miles. The Boston region needs an insane 4500 sq miles to reach that population.
Of course Boston's defined urban area is also 50% less populous than Toronto's while gobbling up double the area.
It is only when we look at Boston's CSA that the population figures begin to equalize. CSA is a useful metric for some measures, but as a reflection of the size of the core city it's absolutely useless -- and no CSA exemplifies that more than Boston's. Its CSA population density is less than that of England and Netherlands. It would be no more absurd to hold out London as a city of 55m or Amsterdam as a city of 17m than to hold out Boston as a city of 8m. And does it even pass the smell test? Has anyone who has ever visited Boston thought to himself "wow this city is really huge"? Like "double the size of Rome" huge. Doubt it. City data might be the only place in the world where some people really believe that CSA population is an accurate representation of city size.
Anyways this thread is not about that, it's about urban cores. And considering that Boston is actually not a terribly big city, its urban core is exceptional. Especially by North American standards.
Just out of curiosity, why would you post on a topic that you do not understand? It's odd that you would make statements and then follow it up with "admittedly I know very little about how GDP is calculated.."
Kind of like how you are clearly not very well traveled but enjoy the city vs city discussions. It's just strange.
In Mr. Burns' defense I think it's 1000% better that he admitted he didn't know much about the topic and even offered for people to correct him.
There are a lot of people out there that for whatever reason have issues with admitting that they don't know about a topic and think they know everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Yes, there are, but we're talking single to low double digits and most of them have an ancillary use like a historic home museum or the mayor's official residence aside from a handful in Inwood. There's also this ridiculous thing.
That's exactly the kind of thing I was expecting. A giant mansion somewhere Uptown. According to the Wikipedia article that is the only and very last single family home left in Manhattan. Very interesting.
It is incredibly misleading to claim that Boston and Toronto have similar population.
Toronto has 2.7 million in 243 sq miles. Boston needs well over 700 sq miles to reach that population.
Toronto's urban area has 6.5 million in 900 sq miles. The Boston region needs an insane 4500 sq miles to reach that population.
Of course Boston's defined urban area is also 50% less populous than Toronto's while gobbling up double the area.
It is only when we look at Boston's CSA that the population figures begin to equalize. CSA is a useful metric for some measures, but as a reflection of the size of the core city it's absolutely useless -- and no CSA exemplifies that more than Boston's. Its CSA population density is less than that of England and Netherlands. It would be no more absurd to hold out London as a city of 55m or Amsterdam as a city of 17m than to hold out Boston as a city of 8m. And does it even pass the smell test? Has anyone who has ever visited Boston thought to himself "wow this city is really huge"? Like "double the size of Rome" huge. Doubt it. City data might be the only place in the world where some people really believe that CSA population is an accurate representation of city size.
Anyways this thread is not about that, it's about urban cores. And considering that Boston is actually not a terribly big city, its urban core is exceptional. Especially by North American standards.
Not many people make the effort to understant these. You use wikipedia to find population of the "metropolitan area" and then decide which city is "bigger" - laughable.
Boston has a dense core, however, Boston's suburbs are one of the least dense in America, at par with Atlanta. Toronto's suburbs are far denser.
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.
