Bloomberg was extremely pro development which put some of the NIMBYism at bay. Still, it's very hard to build in most established areas of the island. The 1000 foot residential towers are also incomparabe to a potential thousand footer in Toronto. The towers are extremely thin largely through zoning with a tenth or less the number of residents than an 80 storey tower would here.

I'll never understand the comparison between the two cities. 80% of Manhattan's building stock is 80 years old. It's the difference between pre war and post war, modernist steel, concrete and, glass to traditionalist masonry, stone and, brick.
buildup said:
I've brought up NY is because its touted as a place where its impossible to build. For example if I say something to the effect, lets approve M&G, someone will say 'look at NY they dont allow anything heritage-ish to get knocked down without endless consultations, and they are a sophisticated model that knows how to manage density etc, etc.'

But in fact there are five 1,000 footers planned for 57th street alone.

No-one is saying Toronto should be NY, and no-one is saying Toronto shouldn't be Toronto.
Click to expand...
 
The NYC comparisons are definitely stretched, but i understand the impulse. NYC is sort of the gold standard in North America after all (low rise or high rise). Most Americans who come to Toronto view it as comparable to Chicago though, in more ways than one.

Personally I'd rather see vast improvements to our public realm and a boom in quality mid rise infill than super-talls... or all of this in a perfect world!
 
vatche said:
Just got back from 3 days in New York. They're building a lot. It's more buzzy than ever. I'd say toronto will never catch up with NYC. Lets stop that.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Toronto has more more highrises under construction than NYC.
 
agoraflaneur said:
I don't want to derail the thread, but I always want to comment that, while Toronto is the fourth largest city in North America given the legal city-limits, I think that metro regions are a better point of comparison.
Click to expand...

Very much disagree. US CMAs are enormous. You can't compare them when one country uses one system and the other uses a different one.
 
Based on data posted on September 19, 2011? And collected when exactly?

So that's pertinent to the discussion in what way now?

42
 
Very much disagree. US CMAs are enormous. You can't compare them when one country uses one system and the other uses a different one.
Click to expand...

I understand that the CMA's are huge, and absolutely get the basis of your rejection of the comparison since they can encompass such large areas. However, ignoring contiguous areas that are completely built up is just as wrong. CMA's are much larger than metro regions, which are usually based on actually connected cities, and include small towns that are satellites of larger centres. The reason I think that they should be taken into account is because they are often quite important - Silicon Valley for San Fran, Connecticut for NYC, Waterloo for Toronto, etc. Without these areas, the central cities would not take their form or their place in the world. In any event I just think it is ridiculous to say that Toronto only has 2.7 million people or that NYC has 8.5. These numbers simply don't make sense, as the cities would be nothing like what they are without the satellites that surround them. People living outside the central city work in the centre and buy real estate in the centre and are very important for the development of the centre.

In any event, for my thinking, if we used the GTHA + Waterloo and some other smaller towns, that gives me the best idea of how the mega-region (CMA) of Toronto functions as a whole, and its population is quite comparable to many US CMAs (Houston,Dallas, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta). In this context Toronto doesn't appear to be 4th in population, and to say that it is to me is relatively meaningless. On the other hand, it does give an idea of how the central city is performing vis-a-vis its satellites and area -i.e. Toronto is prospering and growing while Detroit withers, even though Detroit's metro is still growing and it is still a rich and important CMA (Ann Arbor, for instance, would then be included with its research clout part of the discussion - as would Flint with its iconic rust belt status, both of which give a much richer understanding of Detroit than its current borders).
 
Last edited:
If we're talking continuously urbanized areas, where the built-up portion of a metropolitan area (or several contiguous metropolitan areas) stays above a certain threshold that can be classified as urban, then Toronto is number 4 after Chicago within the U.S. and Canada. It's also the densest urban area in the U.S. and Canada.

http://demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
 
Last edited:
Softee said:
If we're talking continuously urbanized areas, where the built-up portion of a metropolitan area (or several contiguous metropolitan areas) stays above a certain threshold that can be classified as urban, then Toronto is number 4 after Chicago within the U.S. and Canada. It's also the densest urban area in the U.S. and Canada.

http://demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
Click to expand...

Toronto surpassed Chigago in the latest census. In North America(excluding Mexico city) we are # 3 now.
 
Fascinating Softee! Thanks for the link. You are correct that Toronto is 4th in this ranking, with a population of 6.34 million. However, there are a lot of cities that have similar areas - Toronto isn't running away with 4th the way that NYC, LA, and Chicago stand out:

Dallas: 6.07M
SanFran: 5.99M
Miami: 5.81M
Houston: 5.56M
Philadelphia: 5.53M

These cities are all very similar in size. In addition, as I have argued, the fact that the US has a lot of populated centres that are not contiguous within the CMA I believe is important to the cultural, economic and political functioning of the larger cities. This makes US cities larger than their contiguous area indicates. Just because a bit of farmland separates a city from the larger urbanized area doesn't mean that the largest city within driving distance isn't the greatest draw for those people - at least in my view. Besides, many of the suburbs in the US - see Dallas, Houston and Atlanta - are hanging onto the definition "urbanized" by the thinnest of threads.

Anyway, thanks again for that link - and I will watch with interest if Toronto can beat Dallas for the 4th spot in the future, for it is by no means guaranteed.
 
Huh? I don't see in what way we are lagging behind Dallas. According to the linked (nicely up-to-date) file:

Toronto
Pop: 6,345,000
km2: 2,287
Density: 2,800 (rounded)

Dallas:
Pop: 6,077,000
km2: 5,175
Density: 1,200 (rounded)

Like with Chicago, Toronto's expanded area (including the Oshawa and Hamilton CMAs) is still far smaller and much denser than Dallas.

But maybe you meant beat Chicago for fourth.

Chicago:
Pop: 9,238,000
km2: 6,856
Density: 1,300

If we looked at the Greater Golden Horseshoe area in comparison, or essentially expanded Greater Toronto's measured area to the same 6,856 sq km, we would be a lot closer than 2,900,000 apart. Maybe only 1,000,000 apart?

42
 
Last edited:
42, all of what you say is true.

Toronto takes up a much smaller footprint than US cities and is indeed 4th of the US and Canada. What I meant is that Dallas is growing very fast and could overtake Toronto in the future if (as is probable) Ontario's economy continues to perform poorly relative to Texas. Dallas will never be as much of a "city" in the Chicago/NYC density many often think of, however, so you are quite right.

I suppose what I am saying is that, while US cities are among the world's least dense and most sprawling, many can still be considered as similar to Toronto even though we are denser and take up a smaller footprint. Many might disagree, as you do. But I think that the way the US works - through a highway system that allows quick travel over these areas - makes these urbanized zones (and as I have argued, CMA's) comparable to Toronto even they are much larger geographically.

Nonetheless I take the point, and am quite happy to have Toronto in its 4th position (5th in North America).
 
I'm on an IPad and can't do links easily, but check "Global City" in Wikipedia. The page gives several different surveys, using several different sets of criteria, measuring the influence, wealth and stature of a large number of world cities. Some may be surprised to see where Toronto rates on these surveys. It certainly isn't as a medium North American city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top