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.
Basically all of the rich neighborhoods in Sacramento (I lived in Greater Sacramento) are in the suburbs. Roseville, Rocklin, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Davis...
Yes, there are some cities that are more gentrified in the inner cores than others, but by and large, most American cities feature small pockets of gentrification in Downtown surrounded by vast swathes of inner city ghetto surrounded by even more vast swathes of sprawling, master planned suburbia. The outer suburbs are growing far, far faster than any inner city neighborhood. So Americans continue to associate the inner city with crime and filth, unlike Canadians and Europeans.
Honestly, your posts are symptomatic of insecurity.
First of all, stop trying to associate Canadians with Europeans. In terms of urban/suburban development, culture, and distinction, there are many more similarities between America and European countries than Canada.
Not that they’re the same, because they’re not. America is more culturally distinct in it’s urban areas than Canada is, and when you were defeated in that argument, you evidently tried to derail the thread to turn it into a complaint about how “ghetto” American cities looked.
Which is a dumb complaint. Canadian cities aren’t fun. They’re boring and sterile in comparison.
Last edited by magicinterest; 02-22-2021 at 10:08 PM..
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.
Your last sentence is kind of speaking to other points I’ve made vis a vis the benefits of US metropolitan areas vs Canadian ones
Disregarding official densities, the inner cores of a lot of the cities you named still feel dense enough, and the development of suburbia earlier, with streetcar suburbs, and then outer suburban development that grew to encompass older small towns and main streets often means that the US maintains more walkability, aestheticism, and a more consistent level of density across larger areas - all the way to the outer suburbs of many metro areas.
Some of that is by virtue of the population differential between the two countries - Canada simply never developed fast enough to a large enough extent to build more towns and suburbs and cities before a certain time period. The downside to that is that a lot of Canada’s built environment just doesn’t seem as robust, rich, and “historic”, on average, as a large chunk of the US’s urban, suburban, and small town development does, Quebec City and parts of Montreal aside.
I’d also point out that “old Detroit”, whatever you’re defining that as, isn’t that small, and wasn’t demolished or abandoned”.
Last edited by magicinterest; 02-22-2021 at 10:12 PM..
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
Um...unless you’re talking about high-rise density, Toronto doesn’t feel more urban in ambiance than SF at all.
SF is physically smaller - it doesn’t small as much at the core, and it’s limited by geography
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.
Cultural vibrancy isn't necessarily related to urbanity. Plenty of rural areas and small towns are very culturally vibrant.
I am not much of a Toronto booster and actually don't find it that culturally special and unique, but to deny its dynamic urbanity and vibrancy doesn't make any sense at all.
Cultural vibrancy isn't necessarily related to urbanity. Plenty of rural areas and small towns are very culturally vibrant.
I am not much of a Toronto booster and actually don't find it that culturally special and unique, but to deny its dynamic urbanity and vibrancy doesn't make any sense at all.
I didn't deny it's vibrancy, but outside of multiculturalism, it doesn't feel very culturally dynamic or distinct.
The numbers don't support this however. S.F receives 17 million visitors per year (total International/domestic) while Toronto gets 25 million.. These figures for both cities include daytime and O/N visitors. Take into account the 25 million for Toronto was from 2012 while the 17 for S.F is from 2013. Even with decent natural growth since 12/13 Toronto would still get significantly more visitors overall.
I also don't agree with you about the frenetic pace of S.F vs Toronto - I just don't see it being more in S.F.. Population and population density not including visitors also wouldn't show this and combined with visitors I just don't think the observation that the pace, ped traffic or overall busy feel of S.F is greater than that of Toronto. Not to mention, Toronto's DT core alone is growing at more than 12K per year vs the entire city of S.F which is growing at 10K per year. If DT Toronto is growing by more than 12K per year the S.F city equiv would be Old Toronto which would be growing quite a bit more than 12K (just DT core).
Isn’t Toronto right on the border? Don’t tons of Americans work day jobs there/ wouldn’t this make it an easier day visit? I don’t imagine Toronto compares to SF when it comes to a diversity of international tourism. Also, “ In 2015, San Francisco hosted 24.6 million visitors, contributing an estimated $9.3 billion to the local economy.”
And “ in 2015 as Canada’s largest city welcomed a record 14.03 million overnight visitors.
According to Tourism Toronto, a further 26 million people travelled to Toronto for day trips. Visitors to Toronto spent $7.2 billion during their trips, Toronto surpassed four million international visitors for the first time in 2015.” So Toronto’s visitors were mostly day visitors, meaning they could be school trips from a neighboring town for all we know. tourism grossed 2 BILLION less than it did for SF.
Let’s take the last year people were able to freely travel, 2019, as an even more recent data point. “ The city's marketing organization estimates 28 million people visited Toronto in 2019, spending $6.7 billion” compared to sf “ San Francisco Travel is forecasting a total of 26.5 million visitors to the city, an increase of 2.5 percent. Total spending by visitors in 2019 is projected to reach $10.3 billion” so 1.5 million less “visitors”, but sf grossed 3.5 BILLION more dollars. I think that points to the type of tourism taking place, aka Toronto’s stats are bolstered by people popping over from Buffalo for example to visit friends and family.
Isn’t Toronto right on the border? Don’t tons of Americans work day jobs there/ wouldn’t this make it an easier day visit? I don’t imagine Toronto compares to SF when it comes to a diversity of international tourism. Also, “ In 2015, San Francisco hosted 24.6 million visitors, contributing an estimated $9.3 billion to the local economy.”
And “ in 2015 as Canada’s largest city welcomed a record 14.03 million overnight visitors.
According to Tourism Toronto, a further 26 million people travelled to Toronto for day trips. Visitors to Toronto spent $7.2 billion during their trips, Toronto surpassed four million international visitors for the first time in 2015.” So Toronto’s visitors were mostly day visitors, meaning they could be school trips from a neighboring town for all we know. tourism grossed 2 BILLION less than it did for SF.
Let’s take the last year people were able to freely travel, 2019, as an even more recent data point. “ The city's marketing organization estimates 28 million people visited Toronto in 2019, spending $6.7 billion” compared to sf “ San Francisco Travel is forecasting a total of 26.5 million visitors to the city, an increase of 2.5 percent. Total spending by visitors in 2019 is projected to reach $10.3 billion” so 1.5 million less “visitors”, but sf grossed 3.5 BILLION more dollars. I think that points to the type of tourism taking place, aka Toronto’s stats are bolstered by people popping over from Buffalo for example to visit friends and family.
No, Toronto is about an hour and a half from the border.
No, Toronto is about an hour and a half from the border.
An hour and a half is nothing. That’s less time than it is to get from Sacramento to San Francisco, and people do that drive twice a day every day of the work week.
An hour and a half is nothing. That’s less time than it is to get from Sacramento to San Francisco, and people do that drive twice a day every day of the work week.
Sure, but it’s still not right on the border.
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.
