U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada > Toronto
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2016, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,444 posts, read 5,675,111 times
Reputation: 4507

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSoCal View Post
Whatever.

It is not considered proper etiquette to respond to some one with "whatever".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2016, 09:49 AM
 
800 posts, read 582,990 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLuis View Post
It is not considered proper etiquette to respond to some one with "whatever".
Don't think Americans put as much weight into politeness than Canadians. Whatever.

Never been to San Fran but I'm guess the bay area flat out has more urban culture. More rich in history. Toronto history is damn boring.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2016, 12:54 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 12,391,227 times
Reputation: 7742
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSoCal View Post
The population doesn't make it any better. The fact is that San Francisco is very unique in a beautiful setting. Toronto is just a big city with nothing very attractive about it. If I want a big city, I will go to New York city which is a great place to visit. We visit Manhattan every summer.

I have spent a lot of time in both cities.
what exactly makes SF so unique? Have you travelled around the world?

I am in Nice now, and I can assure you whatever SF has Nice has it too, probably better, with better weather too, and way nicer buildings. Have you seen Nice? Beathtaking views. Lisbon has everything SF does. Vancouver has it too. Xiamen China has the beautiful setting.

Oceans and mountains nearby doesn't make a city "unique". I have seen too many cities to find SF particularly attractive. SF is soooooo overrated. I almost bores me. I feel sick when every time people show a photo of SF, half of the photo is the bay and GGB.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2020, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Illinois
59 posts, read 15,642 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
what exactly makes SF so unique? Have you travelled around the world?

I am in Nice now, and I can assure you whatever SF has Nice has it too, probably better, with better weather too, and way nicer buildings. Have you seen Nice? Beathtaking views. Lisbon has everything SF does. Vancouver has it too. Xiamen China has the beautiful setting.

Oceans and mountains nearby doesn't make a city "unique". I have seen too many cities to find SF particularly attractive. SF is soooooo overrated. I almost bores me. I feel sick when every time people show a photo of SF, half of the photo is the bay and GGB.
Your SF hatred is just obnoxious.

Vancouver doesn't at all have everything SF does, it's architecture is boring and it doesn't have the vibrant culture. Ditto Lisbon, which is architecturally decent, but has the drawback of not being as global as San Fran.

I wouldn't say Nice has way nicer buildings. I also wouldn't say it has "better weather".

I find it funny how whenever American cities are mentioned, you discount and ignore all the things that you praise Canadian cities for...odd. Half the posts comparing Vancouver to other cities root for Vancouver for nothing but nearby mountains.

To brush aside your absurd San Francisco hatred, San Francisco has a much more noted history than Toronto. It also is statistically more dense, and has a more eclectic array of architectural styles than does Toronto. It was also settled by Spain, so it has old Presidios and architecture modeled off of Spanish colonial styles. Unique, and not at all found in Canada.

And that cultural vibe is something that a lot of Canadian cities (and Australian cities) lack. Say what you will about even the most derided of American cities on City-Data (Atlanta, Houston or Dallas), or the most derelict of them, like Detroit or Memphis, these places are still more culturally significant on a global scale, and have undeniably more vibrant cultural fixtures (historic music scenes, particular historical intrigue, interesting art and architectural scenes, literary significance, centers for fashion of all sorts, counterculture scenes...) that the vast majority of Canadian and Australian cities simply cannot match...only Montreal and Melbourne come close, and both still don't touch them.

Sure, those places might be nicer places to live than some of them, but that doesn't really matter - New Orleans, Charleston, Detroit, St. Louis, even Kansas City all have a certain amount of globally-renowned culinary, architectural, and/or musical histories and associations that surpass almost anything any Canadian or Australian city has to offer. This isn't just confined to American cities - Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester are sort of ugly, industrial, gray, sprawling cities in the UK, much worse in appearance, IMO, than most major American cities, and yet all of these cities soundly trounce most any Canadian or Australian cities in such elements as musical and literary exports, architectural histories, and subculture/counterculture scenes.

San Fran was, and, to a significant degree, still is, the center for bohemianism in NA and one of the world centers for bohemianism period. The birthplace of hippie counter-culture, a thriving psychedelic music scene, a noted history of Spanish colonialism, a long history of Asian habitation, greater architectural diversity, unique WW2 history, the technological innovation center of the world, a center for the Beatnik movement, epicenter for LGBT culture...I have no idea how you can claim San Fran isn't as unique as Toronto. Toronto is extremely sterile and boring in comparison.

Last edited by wattsupmane; 04-25-2020 at 07:20 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2020, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Murrieta California
3,034 posts, read 4,136,410 times
Reputation: 2284
Quote:
Originally Posted by wattsupmane View Post
Your SF hatred is just obnoxious.

Vancouver doesn't at all have everything SF does, it's architecture is boring and it doesn't have the vibrant culture. Ditto Lisbon, which is architecturally decent, but has the drawback of not being as global as San Fran.

I wouldn't say Nice has way nicer buildings. I also wouldn't say it has "better weather".

I find it funny how whenever American cities are mentioned, you discount and ignore all the things that you praise Canadian cities for...odd. Half the posts comparing Vancouver to other cities root for Vancouver for nothing but nearby mountains.

To brush aside your absurd San Francisco hatred, San Francisco has a much more noted history than Toronto. It also is statistically more dense, and has a more eclectic array of architectural styles than does Toronto. It was also settled by Spain, so it has old Presidios and architecture modeled off of Spanish colonial styles. Unique, and not at all found in Canada.

And that cultural vibe is something that a lot of Canadian cities (and Australian cities) lack. Say what you will about even the most derided of American cities on City-Data (Atlanta, Houston or Dallas), or the most derelict of them, like Detroit or Memphis, these places are still more culturally significant on a global scale, and have undeniably more vibrant cultural fixtures (historic music scenes, particular historical intrigue, interesting art and architectural scenes, literary significance, centers for fashion of all sorts, counterculture scenes...) that the vast majority of Canadian and Australian cities simply cannot match...only Montreal and Melbourne come close, and both still don't touch them.

Sure, those places might be nicer places to live than some of them, but that doesn't really matter - New Orleans, Charleston, Detroit, St. Louis, even Kansas City all have a certain amount of globally-renowned culinary, architectural, and/or musical histories and associations that surpass almost anything any Canadian or Australian city has to offer. This isn't just confined to American cities - Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester are sort of ugly, industrial, gray, sprawling cities in the UK, much worse in appearance, IMO, than most major American cities, and yet all of these cities soundly trounce most any Canadian or Australian cities in such elements as musical and literary exports, architectural histories, and subculture/counterculture scenes.

San Fran was, and, to a significant degree, still is, the center for bohemianism in NA and one of the world centers for bohemianism period. The birthplace of hippie counter-culture, a thriving psychedelic music scene, a noted history of Spanish colonialism, a long history of Asian habitation, greater architectural diversity, unique WW2 history, the technological innovation center of the world, a center for the Beatnik movement, epicenter for LGBT culture...I have no idea how you can claim San Fran isn't as unique as Toronto. Toronto is extremely sterile and boring in comparison.
+1,

Excellent post and so very true.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2020, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
15,035 posts, read 10,579,044 times
Reputation: 9148
Guys, you are responding to a poster who hasn't posted in over 2 years.
They said they were ill with cancer, so draw your own conclusions.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2020, 04:13 PM
 
4,151 posts, read 1,636,952 times
Reputation: 2757
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post

If we are talking urban area density than the Toronto CMA/GTA is more dense and larger an urban area than S.F + S.J MSA's combined.
Yes, in fact Toronto has the densest urban area in all of North America, then it's Montreal, then Vancouver, then Los Angeles.

On a side note, Los Angeles' outer suburbs are very dense. Irvine, for instance, is basically as dense as Markham. Irvine and Markham are very similar in composition.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2020, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Canada
198 posts, read 64,529 times
Reputation: 171
Such a large percentage of Toronto's population is in the Boroughs of Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York. The density in those places are much lower than proper Toronto.

Toronto in it's core through (in my opinion) is much more dense than San Francisco.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2020, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Vancouver -> Montreal
18 posts, read 19,562 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by wattsupmane View Post
Your SF hatred is just obnoxious.

Vancouver doesn't at all have everything SF does, it's architecture is boring and it doesn't have the vibrant culture. Ditto Lisbon, which is architecturally decent, but has the drawback of not being as global as San Fran.

I wouldn't say Nice has way nicer buildings. I also wouldn't say it has "better weather".

I find it funny how whenever American cities are mentioned, you discount and ignore all the things that you praise Canadian cities for...odd. Half the posts comparing Vancouver to other cities root for Vancouver for nothing but nearby mountains.

To brush aside your absurd San Francisco hatred, San Francisco has a much more noted history than Toronto. It also is statistically more dense, and has a more eclectic array of architectural styles than does Toronto. It was also settled by Spain, so it has old Presidios and architecture modeled off of Spanish colonial styles. Unique, and not at all found in Canada.

And that cultural vibe is something that a lot of Canadian cities (and Australian cities) lack. Say what you will about even the most derided of American cities on City-Data (Atlanta, Houston or Dallas), or the most derelict of them, like Detroit or Memphis, these places are still more culturally significant on a global scale, and have undeniably more vibrant cultural fixtures (historic music scenes, particular historical intrigue, interesting art and architectural scenes, literary significance, centers for fashion of all sorts, counterculture scenes...) that the vast majority of Canadian and Australian cities simply cannot match...only Montreal and Melbourne come close, and both still don't touch them.

Sure, those places might be nicer places to live than some of them, but that doesn't really matter - New Orleans, Charleston, Detroit, St. Louis, even Kansas City all have a certain amount of globally-renowned culinary, architectural, and/or musical histories and associations that surpass almost anything any Canadian or Australian city has to offer. This isn't just confined to American cities - Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester are sort of ugly, industrial, gray, sprawling cities in the UK, much worse in appearance, IMO, than most major American cities, and yet all of these cities soundly trounce most any Canadian or Australian cities in such elements as musical and literary exports, architectural histories, and subculture/counterculture scenes.

San Fran was, and, to a significant degree, still is, the center for bohemianism in NA and one of the world centers for bohemianism period. The birthplace of hippie counter-culture, a thriving psychedelic music scene, a noted history of Spanish colonialism, a long history of Asian habitation, greater architectural diversity, unique WW2 history, the technological innovation center of the world, a center for the Beatnik movement, epicenter for LGBT culture...I have no idea how you can claim San Fran isn't as unique as Toronto. Toronto is extremely sterile and boring in comparison.

That makes sense, given the country of Canada (in the modern sense) has only existed for 150 years
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2020, 06:33 PM
 
49 posts, read 15,735 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
Yes, in fact Toronto has the densest urban area in all of North America, then it's Montreal, then Vancouver, then Los Angeles.

On a side note, Los Angeles' outer suburbs are very dense. Irvine, for instance, is basically as dense as Markham. Irvine and Markham are very similar in composition.
This is abjectly false. Toronto is statistically less dense than New York City, Mexico City, San Francisco, and Vancouver.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada > Toronto

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top