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.
Detroit was already quite suburban in the 1950s. It was a much bigger and more prosperous city than Toronto, with a bustling downtown, but beyond that downtown, it was pretty suburban. Much of Detroit was built in the 1930s-1950s and shaped by the automobile boom that was driving that economic and population growth. The older parts of Detroit were a relatively small part of the city and most of those areas are abandoned or demolished now.
I agree about Chicago, but it's basically the exception to the rule for that part of the USA.
Here's the census weighted density of each urban area in 1950, so this is basically the density of the average neighbourhood, in people per square mile.
The inner cores of cities like Pittsburgh (ex Hill District), Cincinnati (ex Over-the-Rhine) and Detroit (ex Black Bottom) were dense, just as dense as Toronto's if not more so. However, American cities experienced an early phase of suburbanization with the development of streetcar suburbs, and with early auto ownership, between WWI and the Great Depression, before going all out with suburbia in the 1950s and 1960s. The income difference between Canada and the US was a bit bigger back then, and Toronto streetcar companies also operated differently. Toronto streetcar companies were more likely to turn an operating profit while American ones were more likely to make money off of speculative development.
In the history of cities, SF has had its day but since this thread began nearly 10 years ago, I'd say Toronto has been winning consistently across the board. Political policies have ruined SF, what with the filth, the homelessness and crime that is destroying its quality of life.
If stepping over human excrement, used needles and used condoms adds to "urban flavor," congrats SF, you win! Nearly all agree, what has been allowed to happen to SF is a disgrace. The infrastructure isn't keeping up. Sad. It's still urban (congrats, I guess) but losing it's soul, but the OP didn't ask about that.
As for Toronto, yes, it's spread out. The CBD, urban core may seem smaller (don't know if that's a fact) but in nearly every way (except for the scenic views) I agree that in 2020, Toronto beats SF in every "quality of life" measure. As I recall, the OECD consistently ranks it among the top three or maybe top 5 cities of the world, right up there is Melborne, Sydney, Singapore and Zurich.
Both draw a large international or cosmopolitan populace. Toronto has a more solid middle class and probably a better place to raise a family. The SF population seems to have more skells and drug addicts mucking up the streets, (my opinion alone.) It is puzzling how Toronto has been able to pull it off. On Lake Ontario? Someone called it the Canadian Riviera. It's nearest big-city and one time rival is Buffalo!? And Detroit!? But Toronto has made so many right moves as it grows.
So, for better or worse, being constrained to a narrow peninsula is the best thing SF has going for it and still, political policies have largely ruined it. That's my take on this.
Last edited by ReadyForWhatsNext; 07-18-2020 at 03:27 PM..
In the history of cities, SF has had its day but since this thread began nearly 10 years ago, I'd say Toronto has been winning consistently across the board. Political policies have ruined SF, what with the filth, the homelessness and crime that is destroying its quality of life.
If stepping over human excrement, used needles and used condoms adds to "urban flavor," congrats SF, you win!
Actually there has been a migration to Los Angeles because of the astronomical COL. The sunshine and relative warmth (compared to the cold and foggy city-county) is another attraction adding to the QOL, along with the lower COL.
But there was an incident involving used needles, condoms, and tampon applicators (?) washing up on the beach behind LAX airport 5 years ago. California beaches are pretty to look at, but you don't see people swimming in the water vs. "modeling" their swimsuits.
Swimming in Toronto's beaches is very similar to Chicago. But it rarely gets warm enough to swim up there (grew up swimming in the Gulf of Mexico off of Galveston). Last time I was in Toronto, it was chilly in mid-August. On my way up there, Chicago was also cold but it warmed up the day I left Canada.
It's interesting, considering that Toronto has a much larger population, that downtown San Francisco and its inner neighborhoods feel more urban and vibrant than Toronto's city center and its inner neighborhoods. I wonder what the reason behind this is?
If you are comparing city vs city (not including metro areas) then you not even close. Toronto has a way bigger feel and urban ambience (not always a good thing with crime) than San Francisco and I have lived in both surrounding areas. I actually prefer San Francisco because it FEELS a lot smaller even when you are circling around Bay area and surrounding counties. Plus SFO is a better looking city. As for metro feel, Again Toronto feels so much bigger and dense as a region. That's not a good thing either as TO's population continues to push further west and north. People are driving 2 hours + just to commute into work it's disgusting. I like SFO better as I could get from Sonoma to downtown San Francisco in morning rush hour in about one hour and change on the 101. Good luck doing that from Milton into Dundas Square in TO lol
SF was around 30,000 ppsm (weighted density) from what I remember, although if you include Oakland and various suburbs like Daly City, Berkley, etc I think it was not much denser than Toronto. SF's core was significantly denser than Toronto's at the time, but the suburban areas were much less dense. Toronto's core and suburbs were pretty similar density-wise.
Detroit was already quite suburban in the 1950s. It was a much bigger and more prosperous city than Toronto, with a bustling downtown, but beyond that downtown, it was pretty suburban. Much of Detroit was built in the 1930s-1950s and shaped by the automobile boom that was driving that economic and population growth. The older parts of Detroit were a relatively small part of the city and most of those areas are abandoned or demolished now.
I agree about Chicago, but it's basically the exception to the rule for that part of the USA.
Here's the census weighted density of each urban area in 1950, so this is basically the density of the average neighbourhood, in people per square mile.
The inner cores of cities like Pittsburgh (ex Hill District), Cincinnati (ex Over-the-Rhine) and Detroit (ex Black Bottom) were dense, just as dense as Toronto's if not more so. However, American cities experienced an early phase of suburbanization with the development of streetcar suburbs, and with early auto ownership, between WWI and the Great Depression, before going all out with suburbia in the 1950s and 1960s. The income difference between Canada and the US was a bit bigger back then, and Toronto streetcar companies also operated differently. Toronto streetcar companies were more likely to turn an operating profit while American ones were more likely to make money off of speculative development.
Most cities weren't at all urban beyond downtown because that kind of suburbanization and sprawl didn't exist as widely in the 50s, so what even is your point?
I wanted to find out the density of pre-amalgamation Toronto, since North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke were designed as suburbs and are completely different in character to what many people think of as the “city” of Toronto. I learned that the Old City has a population density of 8,210 people per square kilometer. This is about double the density of the largest and densest amalgamated suburb, North York.
I think amalgamation was a huge mistake because it made three suburbs (I’m excluding York because it is more like the sold City in density and layout) with very different character, population, and needs into part of a dense older city with vastly different needs, history, development, and population. Since the three suburbs have a larger combined population than Toronto, they have an outsized voice on city council. Hence, projects like the Sheppard Stubway, the YUS line extension into Vaughan, and now the Scarborough subway “expansion,” which will actually serve fewer areas than the RT and not penetrate as deep into Scarborough.
Meanwhile, Old Toronto continues to see serious population growth and some of the heaviest residential development in North America, while much-needed projects like the downtown relief line are put on the back burner and infrastructure to help the growing population of the Old City doesn’t seem to be happening in order to improve livability. Just look at Lower Spadina where all those high rise condos have gone up - the area has such severe traffic gridlock that one can no longer exit on Spadina during most hours of the day unless they want to experience major travel delays. Extensions of the subway or light/elevated rail into Mississauga from the Bloor Line have also failed to materialize, so the Gardiner is jammed all day in both directions.
Sure, the Old City has seen the Eglinton light rail line, but that hasn’t opened yet and doesn’t address the most critical transit issues that something like the DRL could help solve.
In other words, Toronto is a tale of two cities - it is the Old City and the Inner Suburbs. They operate as one, but they are so different in every way. I started this post to contrast the high density of the Old City with the amalgamated inner suburbs and how that drives down Toronto’s overall density. Compare the number to North York, Toronto’s largest amalgamated inner suburb. The density is 4,915 people per square km. That’s half the density of the Old City and North York is arguably the most urban of the the amalgamated inner suburbs and the densest (excluding York, which is quite small and much more like the Old City in layout and density.)
I don’t know how Toronto is going to fix these issues and ensure that the denser Old City gets the funding it needs to meet its unique challenges while the three inner suburbs that were tacked onto it have greater numbers in City Council and have seen the majority of infrastructure spending to improve transit.
Personally, I think Toronto should de-amalgamate so that competing needs are not constantly clashing in City Hall, where reps from the inner suburbs outnumber reps from the Old City. The all have their own issues and shouldn’t have to pretend otherwise.
The reason I’m posting this in a thread comparing SF to Toronto is because I don’t think SF has three massive suburbs tacked onto it to reduce its population density and fight with the densest part of the city for infrastructure and transit funding. Toronto’s population would be much smaller without amalgamation, but I think it would have developed differently and still maintained its connection with the inner suburbs without having to constantly compete for funding or balance needs that are so divergent.
Sure, but Toronto is quite clean and urban compared to many US cities. A lot of very urban cities are quite clean. Toronto just happens to be more urban and cleaner than San Francisco overall, especially if you compare the apples to apples 47 square miles that makes up San Francisco's area (you get about the same area if you combine Old Toronto and York, but with a substantially larger population). Toronto also has better mass transit than SF does. What it doesn't have are jobs that pay at the same kind of top level that SF does.
Toronto isn’t urban in the sense of cultural vibrancy. Compared to many US cities, it doesn’t fare well at all.
To say that Toronto is more urban than San Francisco is sheer delusion.
No, it sort of depends on where you're coming from. US cities can be pretty disappointing, but certainly Chicago's River North and Lincoln Park living nor is Manhattan's Upper East Side or Upper West Side associated with high crime and filth. Meanwhile, suburbs like Compton, or more recently, Ferguson, have been associated with high crime. In effect, the US is simply a more violent place than Canada is overall regardless of urban, suburban, or rural.
I think you're associating urban with filth in a way distinct to you. It is not something that is a natural association for many a people. The OP made an assertion and plenty of people disagreed with it. What's more, the topic was made almost a decade ago and in that period of time, Toronto built up even more densely.
If there was an honest answer to this, it's probably because Toronto is associated with a far larger area that's more than just Old Toronto and so a lot more suburban areas are associated with Toronto than they are with San Francisco simply because Toronto takes in a much larger physical area. If you were to be honest about trying to do an apples to apples comparison over the same area, Toronto is overall about as urban as San Francisco is.
American cities are not disappointing - try harder at being an insecure anti-American
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.
