[Torontovibe]

About the vacant lots thing, those intersections you listed are all occupied with a structure of some kind. I saw plenty of places in Chicago with simply nothing on the land other than waste and grass. Go on Google Earth and look at Chicago's west and south sides: there are countless lots that are empty and unsightly. You don't see that so much in Toronto. Yes, there are vacant buildings, but most of our space is fully used to its capacity.

I think if I was an outsider, I would rather visit Chicago, but live in Toronto. Our quality of life just seems a whole lot better. Our subway system pales in comparison to Chicago's, but Chicago was once the fastest growing city in the world. Toronto is a young city that was overshadowed by Montreal for large periods of its life. We do need a better transit system, but at least I can take the bus to any corner of the city and feel safe while doing so.

Chicago's subway system may be bigger but would you rather wait for a train in a heated, underground station or Chicago's elevated platforms, that are exposed to the elements? Our subway stations look so much better and have much more amenities. Sure, if you want to build elevated subways, it will be a lot cheaper but not nearly as nice as our underground stations. I prefer my subways underground. Many of Chicago's subways run along the highways, which makes them easier and cheaper to build. Maybe the sheppard subway should have been build along the 401 to save all the money it took to dig the tunnels.

 

[adma]

Have you seen kkgg7's other posts? If it's in or near downtown and it's not a super tall, it's a waste of space and not worth having in existence.

I captured kkgg7 best in this post. (And a real "Toronto vs Chicago" metaphor, if we take Hugh Hefner into account.)

Oh, re sprawl: we have York, Peel, Halton, Durham, etc. They have DuPage, Lake, Kane, Will, McHenry, etc.

[edit: the post link doesn't seem to have functioned properly; just scroll down to the post with photos]

 

[steveve]

Chicago's subway system may be bigger but would you rather wait for a train in a heated, underground station or Chicago's elevated platforms, that are exposed to the elements? Our subway stations look so much better and have much more amenities.

this one is tough... It's a battle between efficiency (Chicago subway is huge and goes everywhere... including the airport), and easy-to-use (Toronto's subway doesn't have many lines, but it is easy to use and accessible)... there's no winner on this one, it all depends on what you prefer.

 

[kkgg7]

Chicago's subway system may be bigger but would you rather wait for a train in a heated, underground station or Chicago's elevated platforms, that are exposed to the elements? Our subway stations look so much better and have much more amenities. Sure, if you want to build elevated subways, it will be a lot cheaper but not nearly as nice as our underground stations. I prefer my subways underground. Many of Chicago's subways run along the highways, which makes them easier and cheaper to build. Maybe the sheppard subway should have been build along the 401 to save all the money it took to dig the tunnels.

A subway serves to bring people from point A to point B, and that's it. It doesn't need to be pretty or have "amenities" (why do you need them at all?). In the end, all you want is to get out of it to point B. So to answer your question, I would choose more extensive route with no amenities any second.

I always prefer subways underground as well, for sure. However, if we can't afford it, I'd rather have the above-ground subways than not having them at all, right? Plus, i am sure Chicago have much longer underground subway than TTC too, do you agree?

I know Torontonians are pretty protective when it comes to our city, but I didn't know someone would stretch as far as claiming our subway system is actually superior to Chicago's... honestly, how many of us would choose NYC's 26 subway lines anytime, despite its being a lot dirtier?

 

[kkgg7]

this one is tough... It's a battle between efficiency (Chicago subway is huge and goes everywhere... including the airport), and easy-to-use (Toronto's subway doesn't have many lines, but it is easy to use and accessible)... there's no winner on this one, it all depends on what you prefer.

out of curiosity, how difficult/inaccessible is it to use Chicago's L? I don't understand the trade off you are imagining here. For me, there is a clear winner here. We have 2 lines and they have 8 lines, and from so many TTC staff scandals, our service is really not that impressive. Plus, Chicagoans don't need to carry a bunch of tokens with them, and their monthly pass is like 30-40% lower. No winner? Really?

 

[kkgg7]

So basically we should destroy historic buildings and build a bunch of Auras with 5 story mall podiums? I don't think this kind of reasoning belongs in any Canadian city.

no, we should keep real historic buildings, just not those ugly ones which hold no architectural value whatsoever. Just because a house is old and crappy looking doesn't make it "historic". (it was so funny the city thought the Yonge/Gould building was "historic" and didn't want to see it gone until a fire make the eyesore vanish)
I am not arguing for high rises everywhere, but the low rises need to be well-kept and classy looking. Walk about central Paris, and you would know those ugly old houses on Queen West are not "historic" and should be either demolished or restored to something more presentable.

 

[kkgg7]

kkgg7, sounds like you're being " held " in Toronto against your will.

No, I am being objective here. I am being negative about Toronto here because we are comparing it to Chicago, one of the greatest cities in the world. I will be more negative if it is done against Paris. However, if it is a Toronto vs Houston thread, I will be mostly positive.

It is all relative. I am saying Toronto doesn't match Chicago because it is a fact, not because I hate to live here. Living in a city should play no part in judging it against other cities, something most of your guys seem to find it hard to do. I would never defend a city's drawbacks just because I happen to be raised up in it or live in it.

 

[steveve]

out of curiosity, how difficult/inaccessible is it to use Chicago's L? I don't understand the trade off you are imagining here. For me, there is a clear winner here. We have 2 lines and they have 8 lines, and from so many TTC staff scandals, our service is really not that impressive. Plus, Chicagoans don't need to carry a bunch of tokens with them, and their monthly pass is like 30-40% lower. No winner? Really?

notice how i said "depends on which on you prefer". Personally, I prefer the efficiency of Chicago. But to some people, having a clean and "dumbed down" transportation system outweighs the other.. something more accessible to lets say, elderly people/handicapped,

 

[freshcutgrass]

A subway serves to bring people from point A to point B, and that's it.

But simply having more heavy rail track does not mean you have better access from point A to point B. Toronto subways may not have as much track/stations as Chicago, but where Toronto beats Chicago (and probably every other transit system on the planet), is how well integrated its subway system is with the rest of the surface routes. Even in NYC, depending on where you are traveling on the subway, you can experience longer wait times and have a more complicated time getting from point A to B than in Toronto.

Not that Toronto doesn't desperately need more subway lines, but what we do have is used quite efficiently. Good TOD construction makes better uses of less track length. It also explains why TTC subways carry significantly more passengers.

Plus, i am sure Chicago have much longer underground subway than TTC too, do you agree?

Well no, actually. If I'm not mistaken, only 18kms/21 stations are actually underground in Chicago. The majority of their rapid transit is actually neither elevated or underground...they run at grade in the middle of expressways...ala the part of the Spadina line that runs along the Alan. And as we well know, it may be cheaper and easier to do this, but this is not the most brilliant place to locate them.

 

[adma]

no, we should keep real historic buildings, just not those ugly ones which hold no architectural value whatsoever. Just because a house is old and crappy looking doesn't make it "historic". (it was so funny the city thought the Yonge/Gould building was "historic" and didn't want to see it gone until a fire make the eyesore vanish)

Honestly, even the preservation-minded in Chicago would be shocked that you'd deem said Yonge/Gould building not-historic. IOW you'd be deemed an insensitive jerk by *any* quotient, *anywhere*. You're not even worthy of Chicago...

 

[kkgg7]

Not that Toronto doesn't desperately need more subway lines, but what we do have is used quite efficiently. Good TOD construction makes better uses of less track length. It also explains why TTC subways carry significantly more passengers.

TTC carried more passengers partly because it is too expensive to own and insure a car in Toronto. For example, one may need to pay $80 a month for insurance in chicago and $250 in Toronto. That's why many choose to take public transit. At least that's why I don't have a car. I used to pay $600 a year in LA for auto insurance but was quoted $250-300 a MONTH in Toronto. Keep in mind many choose to take the subway not because they like it, but because they have to.

I agree with you the TTC subway integrates with the surface traffic pretty well in many stations, which is particularly useful in the winter. However, such a convenience can by no means outweigh the weakness of owning such a smaller network, and it is not obvious in downtown area, where you still have to stand on the street waiting for a bus on those January mornings.

I don't know how many cities with mature public transportation you have been to. Among the cities I have been to, Toronto definitely is not one the good ones. And No, when I say cities, I don't mean "cities in North America". Exactly how many cities still use the tokens, day passes to be scratched by humans, have human ticket collectors at each stations, charge $121 a month for 2 subway lines? It is only Toronto I am afraid. That's pretty bad in my standard.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Honestly, even the preservation-minded in Chicago would be shocked that you'd deem said Yonge/Gould building historic. IOW you'd be deemed an insensitive jerk by *any* quotient, *anywhere*. You're not even worthy of Chicago...

Do you mean that the Yonge/Gould building wasn't historic, or simply that people from Chicago wouldn't care about it?

For the record I am a great admirer of Wright, Sullivan, Mies, SOM, etc., etc., etc., but I find Chicago cumulatively to be a rather dreary and sinister place. The CBD has undeniable grandeur and scores, even hundreds, of individual buildings are exquisite, but the collective aesthetic seems overbearing--looking down the Magnificent Mile is like being stuck locked in the Prado with Ravel's "Bolero" on continual repeat.

I believe one needs contact with the imperfect, the temporal and the makeshift as much as the great and good. Otherwise it all gets a little Look Upon My Works Ye Mighty And Despair.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

No, I am being objective here. I am being negative about Toronto here because we are comparing it to Chicago, one of the greatest cities in the world.

Now, I've never lived in Chicago, but I've been there a number of times (mostly to the core on biz) and I'd say Chicago, IMHO, doesn't even compare to Toronto well, much less 'the greatest cities in the world.' Chicago wouldn't even make my top ten best cities in the US. (Hmmm... check that... wouldn't make my top 5, anyway.) For someone from Toronto, Chicago's big highlights (skyscrapers and arts programming and sporting events) are basically the same as Toronto. They're fine, but not anything worth going all touristy ga-ga over.

Which is just another way for me to say that, kkgg7, you're not even close to being objective. Chicago is not even on the front page of the 'greatest cities of the world' list. In my opinion.

 

[Thanos]

I used to pay $600 a year in LA for auto insurance but was quoted $250-300 a MONTH in Toronto.

I don't know what your driving record or car is but i was paying $89/month for a 3yr old Ford Fusion.

IMHO, doesn't even compare to Toronto well, much less 'the greatest cities in the world.' Chicago wouldn't even make my top ten best cities in the US. (Hmmm... check that... wouldn't make my top 5, anyway.) For someone from Toronto, Chicago's big highlights (skyscrapers and arts programming and sporting events) are basically the same as Toronto. They're fine, but not anything worth going all touristy ga-ga over.

Which is just another way for me to say that, kkgg7, you're not even close to being objective. Chicago is not even on the front page of the 'greatest cities of the world' list. In my opinion.

Chicago might not be among the top 10 worldwide, but there are others that would easily put it in the top 5 in North America.
On my list it would rank 3rd behind NYC & Vancouver just ahead of Seattle & San Fran.
And are you implying Chicago has nothing on Toronto? I'm a huge fan of Toronto and I'll defend it anytime anywhere but Toronto has nothing on Chicago when it comes to the downtown core. Where Toronto puts Chicago to shame is outside the core.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Chicago might not be among the top 10 worldwide, but there are others that would easily put it in the top 5 in North America.
On my list it would rank 3rd behind NYC & Vancouver just ahead of Seattle & San Fran.
And are you implying Chicago has nothing on Toronto? I'm a huge fan of Toronto and I'll defend it anytime anywhere but Toronto has nothing on Chicago when it comes to the downtown core. Where Toronto puts Chicago to shame is outside the core.

There are plenty of architecturally distinguished and spotless neighborhoods outside of the core of Chicago, unless by "core" you mean "all the way to Oak Park."

Much of the city's greatest architecture is in its historic suburbs immediately to the north.