Toronto is bigger than Chicago.
Cite your sources because I see -
Toronto Metro Pop - 6,054,191
Chicago Metro Pop - 9,729,825
Toronto is bigger than Chicago.
Cite your sources because I see -
Toronto Metro Pop - 6,054,191
Chicago Metro Pop - 9,729,825
Cite your sources because I see -
Toronto Metro Pop - 6,054,191
Chicago Metro Pop - 9,729,825
Nicely put![]()
Very well put-together piece.
I'm no expert of this matter but US definitions of what constitutes a metro area for a city seem to be more lenient when it comes to geographic area covered, than their Canadian counterparts.
Chicagoland which that population belongs to is considered to cover 10,856 sq mi (28,120 km2). The GTA (Greater Toronto Area) which your other population refers to technically covers an area of only 2,750.65 sq mi (7,124.15 km2).
A more apt comparison would be to compare Chicagoland to the "Golden Horseshoe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe
Chicagoland:
Area:10,856 sq mi (28,120 km2)
Population: 9,729,825
Golden Horseshoe:
Area: 12,185.99 sq mi (31,561.57 km2)
Population: 8,759,312
Granted it is still larger population wise but Toronto and its metro area has been outpacing Chicago in population growth for years now. It just had a much later start to get booming than Chicago.
I'm not sure I agree with Devvy's comment that the CN Tower isn't an icon - it is considered to be one of the modern wonders of the world, after all - though I think it not having the status of the city, not the building, though the point is seen and taken.![]()
See? What did I say? You might as well claim all of Belgium as Brussels if we're using area equivalents. Urban areas are the only ones that really work. Chicago has ~9 million people in the urban area, only about half a million or so live in that vast outer Chicago-land. Meanwhile Toronto sits at 6.5 million officially, and even that is grabbing some land from Hamilton because the two cities just happen to be rather close.![]()
See? What did I say? You might as well claim all of Belgium as Brussels if we're using area equivalents. Urban areas are the only ones that really work. Chicago has ~9 million people in the urban area, only about half a million or so live in that vast outer Chicago-land. Meanwhile Toronto sits at 6.5 million officially, and even that is grabbing some land from Hamilton because the two cities just happen to be rather close.![]()
I'm not sure I'm seeing your point?
The entire Golden Horseshoe is heavily urbanized. The Canadian census definition however limits what actually constitutes the Greater Toronto Area to a much smaller land area definition. It's come to a point now where people who live in Hamilton are actually working in Toronto and there are plans currently in place to work on a joint public transit infrastructure.
Frankly I doubt Chicago's Urban area (which is referred to as Chicagoland) which includes a huge stretch of land is that totally urban in nature or much more so than the Golden Horshoe and likely less so than the smaller GTA definition. Also that urban area contains independent cities as well. All large metro regions contain multiple independent cities within them that happen to orbit one large principle city. Chicagoland is the CSA, Chicago's Urban Area is a much smaller area and a slightly smaller population.
I just stated it makes more sense to compare Chicagoland to the Golden Horseshoe.
No comparison is going to be apple to apple when going beyond specific city limits, but I think it makes more sense this way.
Because the Greater Golden Horseshoe is irrelevant to Toronto. Torontonians are convinced they're the centre of the universe sometimes, but in reality the rest of the Horseshoe would be there without Toronto. Hamilton has some people working in Toronto, yes, but that's less than 10% of the population, and apart from Barrie and Oshawa I believe Hamilton is the highest for commuting to Toronto as a percentage. The Horseshoe is densely urbanised, yes, but it's only by Canadian standards. In Europe or China that's normal. We don't call the whole North China or North Europe plain part of Beijing or Paris, just because a few people might have rather long commutes.
American MSA's are actually tighter than Canada's Metros, and while Chicago's bigger one (called a CSA in a bit of irony) is 9.9 million the MSA is 9.5 Million. If you refuse to compare Urban Areas (for which Canada and the US have rather similar definitions) then comparing MSA to CMA gives Canada the advantage and Toronto is still smaller than Chicago.
Also comparing cities is not apples to apples. It's practically Apples to Aardvarks. Otherwise you can claim Ottawa is bigger than Vancouver.
I only brought it up in response to you proving it.Ahh yes the old "Torontonians think their the centre of the universe" slur...
The GTA isn't perfect because it includes a city it shouldn't (Burlington is more a Hamilton suburb than a Toronto one). And yes, the Hamilton and Toronto urban areas are merging, but it's not all that different from Kyoto and Osaka having their respective suburban areas starting to overlap. Now the least Toronto dependent part is probably Brantford which only has about 5% of the population commuting to Hamilton and a not even measured amount going to Toronto's CMA. Niagara is about the same though. KWC from what I saw had maybe 5% working in Toronto's metro, and nearly as many Torontonians making the reverse commute. The Horseshoe is a bunch of close together cities that Toronto got drunk and decided to claim.My point is again the Canadian census definition of what constitutes the GTA is arguably quite limited in scope. The way the city and region is growing/spreading anyways the Toronto and Hamilton urban areas are practically becoming merged into one. The only Golden Horseshoe region I'll concede is quite independent from Toronto is the Niagara region due to its proximity to Buffalo and western New York. However if you think the Niagara region would be the same if Toronto did not exist you're very off-base.
Have you actually reviewd the MSA? And yes, it includes a fair bit of farmland, just like Toronto's CMA or the city of Hamilton or city of Ottawa. That's an artifact of country shapes, and is completely irrelevant to any comparison in urban areas which are done at a much finer scale and very comparable between Canada and the US.I also do believe that the MSA definition for Chicago is quite broad and it's probably including a good deal of cities divided apart by rural areas/farmland that stretches the definition of what one would consider truly an "urban region".
The Horseshoe is a bunch of close together cities that Toronto got drunk and decided to claim.
also give it a set of skyscrapers built in the late 20's early 30's on par of the Chrysler building and Empire State building that with the CN Tower should add the needed skyline that A+ cities have.
To be fair, the Harbour City relied heavily on the stacked boxes style of architecture which has not aged well, but I can see that neighborhood in the 1980s becoming a highly desirable area, resulting in a great many of the older houses there being demolished and rebuilt or heavily refurbished, and it doesn't take much to see that with the Toronto Islands to the east, Ontario Place and Exhibition Place (and Exhibition Stadium) to the West and this close to downtown that this would be a very desirable neighborhood rather quickly.
Another question, as I've never been to Canada and therefore not familiar with the development of the urban areas: Is there any chance of Toronto expanding northwards to make a connection to Lake Simcoe in your scenario?
I'm not sure I agree with Devvy's comment that the CN Tower isn't an icon - it is considered to be one of the modern wonders of the world, after all - though I think it not having the status of the city, not the building, though the point is seen and taken.![]()
With a bad economic development in the area and dated architecture, it might also end up like Manchester's Crescents. But I guess that in the very interesting and detailed scenario you described earlier, it probably gets a major boost for the 1996 Olympics.
Talking of which: Wouldn't Harbour City make a good spot for the Olympic village? Otherwise, cities like Munich and Barcelona made good use of the Olympics areas, so that's probably also a good boost factor.
I think with your scenario, Toronto might also be attractive for post-colonial immigration from the former British colonies during the 1950s/1960s.
Another question, as I've never been to Canada and therefore not familiar with the development of the urban areas: Is there any chance of Toronto expanding northwards to make a connection to Lake Simcoe in your scenario?
As I mentioned, Barrie seems to be one of the cities Toronto actually has a claim to. New Market is definitely in Toronto's sphere. However the growth will be limited as the Oak Ridge Moraine is a key source of water for Toronto and an ecologically sensitive area.
Granted; having had a little mooch around, the CN Tower is a bigger "thing" then I gave it credit for. Still not quite in the top tier in my opinion, but more then I thought.