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.
LA did demolish a lot more of it's 19th century buildings though, so its easy to think that the city didn't exist until 1900...
So did Toronto... here's a couple examples:
Pre WWII:
Post:
Sad... isn't it?
All the lucky cities that managed to escape most of these downtown massacres are the ones out there that essentially died post WWII like Detroit, Cinci, Cleveland, Pitt, Buffalo, etc...
I'm not saying they didn't lose much of their history for the sake of parking lots too, it just wasn't on such a mass scale as Toronto and LA as they boomed like bats out of hell from the 50's - 80's.
Last edited by ThroatGuzzler; 05-26-2011 at 03:23 PM..
LA is kinda cool because they moved the financial district to a cleared residential neighborhood (Bunker Hill) in the 60s. That means most of the old 10s/20s/30s downtown core is still there.
The big loss was the victorian and mid 1800s core, which was demolished during the 20s and 30s to make way for Union Station and City Hall, and then later cleared further for the civic center and the 101 freeway.
There's a very tiny bit of this early core still left around little tokyo, main street, and olvera street/chinatown:
LA is kinda cool because they moved the financial district to a cleared residential neighborhood (Bunker Hill) in the 60s. That means most of the old 10s/20s/30s downtown core is still there.
The big loss was the victorian and mid 1800s core, which was demolished during the 20s and 30s to make way for Union Station and City Hall, and then later cleared further for the civic center and the 101 freeway.
There's a very tiny bit of this early core still left around little tokyo, main street, and olvera street/chinatown:
Toronto was 595,000 in 1997 and had 2,400,000 by the first of the year 1998 as the mayor back then wanted to mega merge with the nearby suburban cities and township and successfully did so to be this big city. What a sham! The real population now is actually 694,000 if stuck with original boundary. The city cheated, so keep this in mind.
Toronto was 595,000 in 1997 and had 2,400,000 by the first of the year 1998 as the mayor back then wanted to mega merge with the nearby suburban cities and township and successfully did so to be this big city. What a sham! The real population now is actually 694,000 if stuck with original boundary. The city cheated, so keep this in mind.
That's ridiculous. Los Angeles has an area of 502.693 square miles today, while Toronto is still less than half of that with only 243.2 square miles to call it's own.
Toronto was 595,000 in 1997 and had 2,400,000 by the first of the year 1998 as the mayor back then wanted to mega merge with the nearby suburban cities and township and successfully did so to be this big city. What a sham! The real population now is actually 694,000 if stuck with original boundary. The city cheated, so keep this in mind.
I always wondered what was the reason this was done. I remember Montreal was always the largest city, or did they do the same thing.
I always wondered what was the reason this was done. I remember Montreal was always the largest city, or did they do the same thing.
Montreal was the largest "city proper" in Canada until the Toronto merger in the early 21st century. Toronto was actually only the third-largest '"city proper" in Canada before its merger. Calgary "city proper", which includes virtually all of its metro, was even bigger than Toronto.
But Toronto's metro was still by far the biggest in Canada, and has been since around 1980. Toronto's metro was (pre-merger) and is (today) one and a half times the the size of Montreal's and four to five times the size of Calgary's.
So Toronto has been considered Canada's largest city since 1980. Before then it was Montreal as you said.
For the record, Montreal also merged with some close-in suburbs in the early 2000s, pushing the city-proper's population from around 1 million to around 1.8 million. But it is still less than Toronto's merged city proper.
Toronto and its former inner suburbs joined together to form a two tiered municipality in the 1950s called the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, or "Metro". They shared, police, transit and many other services and in many ways acted together as a single city made up of the old city and five boroughs. All that happened in 1998 was the second tier of government was eliminated and the municipality changed from being "Metropolitan Toronto" to the present City of Toronto.
Toronto was 595,000 in 1997 and had 2,400,000 by the first of the year 1998 as the mayor back then wanted to mega merge with the nearby suburban cities and township and successfully did so to be this big city. What a sham! The real population now is actually 694,000 if stuck with original boundary. The city cheated, so keep this in mind.
As usual durf, you're lying. The mayor was AGAINST the merger. As for your "cheating" comment, every city in the world has grown in size over time. Hell, Brooklyn was once a seperate city from New York, so according to you it "cheated" too. So you've lied twice in one post:
a. you lied when you said the mayor wanted to merge with nearby suburban cities and "townships" (what "townships"?)
b. you lied when you said they city "cheated", because all cities grow in size over time.
Oh, I just caught a third lie. The population was well over 600,000 in 1997, not 595,000.
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.