[denfromoakvillemilton]

Funny. This is the best retort you could come up with?

That's what you provided.

Of course. If you include an area with only 5 million people in it. The economy of the Golden Horseshoe is slightly larger than Chicagoland, even though Chicagoland has about 500-750k more people.

The GDP for the entire GTA is around 240 billion. That's the same as Detroit which is only 4 million. Even Philly, which Toronto actually miles better than has almost 400 billion and that's without a decent airport and much of the jobs in the burbs, unlike here.

Too bad I *did* have to go there, and almost daily, too. I lived in Hyde Park. That isn't some dangerous slum, its where the U of C is located, and yet there would be a few murders there daily. I had a friend who lived right next to Montrose Park, which is one of the best in Chicago, and she eventually had to move north out of the city to Evanston (suburbs) due to the increasing crime rate, especially with the government allowing more and more Section 8 housing into these once "nice" areas. Incidentally, this same behaviour permanently damaged Boston and many other rust belt cities with the forced school quotas and bussing laws.

Boston is not rust belt, and in fact Boston lacks the crime problems of many cities let alone american ones. That's unfortunate you lived on the south side. At least you explained that the section 8 is a problem. I can't judge your experience since it is yours but I get why you would not like Chicago after that.

So you go on a mini rant about how the dangerous areas of Chicago aren't a big deal, and go on to say that you wouldn't live there? Great. As for transit systems, I'd gladly take the TTC over the pile of dump knowns as the CTA.

By the way, in saying all this, I am not trying to put down Chicago. In fact, it's my third favourite city in North America after Toronto, and Vancouver. Chicago is an amazing city, but compared to Toronto? I'm sorry, it just comes up short.

No I wouldn't live there, and I probably wouldn't live at Jane and Sheppard or Flemingdon Park or Hwy 27 or Markham and Lawrence or Crescent Town. There are parts of Toronto most people don't go either. The TTC is the worst and most underfunded of all the global cities on the continent. I just think Toronto and Chicago are much close then many make it out to be.

This article is such a joke. People are calling Toronto's reaction to this population thing "provincial"? Did you guys read this? It reeks of denial, ignorance, and outright lies. It almost seems to me like he knows Toronto is better, but just doesn't want the readers thinking it. Talk about inferiority complex...

It is because it's satire. Montrealers often say the same. It seems Toronto (other than Tewder) can't take a joke and is too uptight?

I think articles like that do strike a nerve, if only because in Canada, Torontonians are used to getting dumped on. When an American does (and frankly who have been better champions of our city than Americans), it tends to cut. The other thing is, and maybe because of our own self-absorption, Torontonians don't do a lot of dumping on other cities at all. I remember visiting an inn in New England, met some Montrealers when someone mentioned where I was from their reaction was "Oh Toronto is so boring!", my initial reaction wasn't to maybe hold the mirror up to them and let them know that their delusions about the excitement of their own city were for the most part exactly that, delusions but instead a shrug and then a "you're rude". Perhaps it's the decency thing that Torontonians are bred with but it didn't cross my mind to say, well ya know, Montreal isn't all that and frankly as far as excitement goes, it's a few notches down comparably. Another was a visit to the city last year where I was informed that Toronto was just a suburb of the U.S.A. It mad me think, was there ever a time when visitors here are given the same treatment. Do we say thinks like "oh you're from ....you're so quaint and provincial". Nope. We can't be bothered. But other Canadians can be bothered and we're used to that. So it rubs when Americans do it, if only because we tend to come to these knife fights like gentlemen and expect to fight knives with fists.

I think Chicago is a glorious looking city. It just doesn't do it for me at all. Culturally it has a lot going for it and it has a real mythology to it. But and I get the sense that this a pretty common feeling there, it's not New York City. L.A. isn't either but L.A. is a continent away and is so different than NYC that it doesn't suffer from second city complex. It's almost 2nd Alpha, really.

That's interesting. A lot of Chicago folks are always comparing to NYC, is borders on ridiculous. My question is as a Torontotonian why can't I be allowed to think both cities are even. Whenever I do the comparison in my mind both cities come out about even.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

@DtTO @Otto

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit..._maybe_torontos_heather_mallick_responds.html

Here we go, a response. Pretty pointed but good.

 

[OttoSchloss]

It's really easy to mitigate mean "spiritedness" with the satire umbrella because in the end one doesn't look like the actual insecure a-hole.

 

[DtTO]

The GDP for the entire GTA is around 240 billion. That's the same as Detroit which is only 4 million. Even Philly, which Toronto actually miles better than has almost 400 billion and that's without a decent airport and much of the jobs in the burbs, unlike here.

The ignorance here is laughable. Listen, Canada and the US count metro populations differently. I can split Chicago in 2 politically and say it has half the GDP, but that doesn't really change anything except for statistics. If you want a fair comparison, look at similar areas. The GTA is not the equivalent of Chicagoland, that would be the Golden Horseshoe. Now, here are some statistics for you, since you're so adamant on your ignorance:

Greater Golden Horseshoe (this is the provincially accepted area, and actually includes more remote areas instead of the urban areas to the south, such as Kitchener/Waterloo) stats:
Area: 31 561.57 km2
Population: 8 100 000 (2006 estimate. 2011 estimate is over 8.7m)
GDP: $436 374m (this is the lowest estimate I could find. Some go as high as $490 000m)
GDP/Capita: $53 873

Chicagoland:
Area: 28 160 km2
Population: 9 461 105
GDP: $496 400m (this is the average. Some "official" estimates list it as high as $530 000m, while the lower private sector/independent ones are just under $460 000m)
GDP/Capita: $52 467

Now, here's where it gets interesting. The figures I listed for the GTA are actually from 2006, while the Chicago ones are 2011. As of 2011, the Horseshoe's population has increased to 8 759 312. If we take that, and multiply it by the GDP (which, remember, is the lowest figure I could find), we get: $471 890m for the GDP of the horseshoe. Now, if we take into consideration that the official Golden Horseshoe area does not follow the urban landscape (like Chicagoland's boundaries do), and includes large areas of rural land to the north of the city, instead of the urban areas to the south, we can see that the Golden Horseshoe is at the very least on par with Chicago.

 

[DtTO]

Honestly, I think it's quite ridiculous that we need to have this argument. I wonder how much investment Toronto loses because our government doesn't make our metro area larger, and more inline with its american counterparts. Lets face it, plenty of investors/investment companies look at the metro GDP and decide where they want to invest. By keeping our number artificially low, we are driving that capital away from our city. It took us decades to get the city's political area increased to regular north american standards, but sadly, we didn't learned our lesson.

 

[RC8]

@DtTO @Otto

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit..._maybe_torontos_heather_mallick_responds.html

Here we go, a response. Pretty pointed but good.

From one of the worst journalists in the city, unfortunately. Mallick is an embarrassing emotional wreck that I wouldn't want anyone judging Toronto by. Then again, the guy who wrote the piece for Chicago probably fits the same description for them.

Mallick argued strongly that a judge should resign because her ex posted naked pictures of her online. You can tell she is a horribly bitter person struggling with severe self-esteem issues.

 

[RC8]

Honestly, I think it's quite ridiculous that we need to have this argument. I wonder how much investment Toronto loses because our government doesn't make our metro area larger, and more inline with its american counterparts. Lets face it, plenty of investors/investment companies look at the metro GDP and decide where they want to invest. By keeping our number artificially low, we are driving that capital away from our city. It took us decades to get the city's political area increased to regular north american standards, but sadly, we didn't learned our lesson.

I disgress. We learned our lesson. We should have never amalgamated Toronto.

It would be much easier now to increase the scope of our metro area if we hadn't amalgamated, too.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I disgress. We learned our lesson. We should have never amalgamated Toronto.

It would be much easier now to increase the scope of our metro area if we hadn't amalgamated, too.

The City of London is only 1.12 sq. mi. or 2.0 km2 with a population of only 7,000 people. Yet, most people in the world think of the London of 33 cities and boroughs within 1,570 km2 (607 sq mi) with a population of 8,173,194. They could have been amalgamated long ago, but haven't.

 

[RC8]

The City of London is only 1.12 sq. mi. or 2.0 km2 with a population of only 7,000 people. Yet, most people in the world think of the London of 33 cities and boroughs within 1,570 km2 (607 sq mi) with a population of 8,173,194. They could have been amalgamated long ago, but haven't.

Which is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, no?

 

[DtTO]

The City of London is only 1.12 sq. mi. or 2.0 km2 with a population of only 7,000 people. Yet, most people in the world think of the London of 33 cities and boroughs within 1,570 km2 (607 sq mi) with a population of 8,173,194. They could have been amalgamated long ago, but haven't.

Sorry, but that is a really bad example to use. Aside from the fact that we have nowhere near the amount of international recognition that London has, nobody really realizes that. In fact, even London's wikipedia page states: 8,173,194 and the ~1500km2 area for the city. Metro is around 12m with over 8000km2.

Besides that, my point wasn't really for the city, but for the region. GDP is usually calculated for entire metro areas, and when ours is cut so short, our GDP doesn't look competitive at all. Our metro area doesn't even cover 10000km2, while Chicago's covers over 28000km2. When looking at world rankings for city GDP's, you will see that Chicago is very high up on the list, while Toronto is not even close. In reality, when looking at the same area (ie if Toronto's area were also 28000sq km), we would have nearly the same population as Chicagoland, if the area actually follows urban development (ie including Kitchener/Waterloo area instead of the boonies to the North), we would actually surpass Chicagoland in terms of GDP. I'm not naive. I know for a fact that investors will see that list, and will take very careful note of the top 10 cities by GDP, and that's why most investment is done in those cities. Imagine how much of a boost Toronto's economy would get if we included the same amount of area in our metro as Chicago does.

We would be the 8th or 9th largest city by GDP, instead of where we are currently:

This just looks really bad. Even Houston includes more than 26000km2 in its "metro." Sadly, our politicians would rather make useless federal level "laws" instead of looking at things that could actually benefit the city.

 

[adma]

Big deal. And just because the writer's from Big Bad Chicago doesn't make his "satire" "cosmopolitan"--in a way, he's no different from Torontonians who still think Nathan Phillips Square should plant some trees and get rid of its walkways, etc...

 

[DtTO]

Come on, Adma. Surely you can recognize the difference between satire and ridicule.

“Toronto still has a long way to go to catch up with Chicago.â€

Well, umm, yeah, it would have a long way, were that possible, but it isn’t . . .

I don't think he understands the difference in metro area measurement between Canada and the US. Nor does the Canadian paper he's quoting.

To be honest, even to parse the Chicago/Toronto comparison is an insult to our city. The two don’t compare, except in numbers of people, now, apparently, and that doesn’t mean anything.

Great. Why write an article about it?

I’ve spent some time there, so don’t want to give the impression that people who live there are anonymous ciphers grinding through joyless lives devoid of charm or significance. They have . . . ah . . . Tim Horton’s doughnuts shops, which I’ve eaten at, and which offers perfectly adequate doughnuts — not the excellent, artisanal doughnuts you’ll find on every block nowadays in Chicago. But they will do, in a pinch, if you’re hungry.

Yes, Toronto has no donut shops besides Tim Horton's. This guy's a clown.

So I won’t start waxing on the generic, anodyne nature of life in Toronto. Its nondescript skyline whose only noteworthy element is a TV antenna.

Not like we have Mies Van Der Rohe's biggest complex or anything. The CN Tower is just a TV antenna? This is coming from the city with a suburban mall circus on their waterfront.

I’m not doing that, because, thanks to the Internet, it would only jab at some nice people who, as it is, already sit crouched in slush with their hands locked around their knees, gazing poutingly over the border to the south, paralyzed with envy, disdain and longing — they just wish we cared about them enough so they could have the chance to scorn us.

But we don’t and never will.

Now, normally, I would consider this to be satire, but the following proves that it is intended to be taken at face value:

I once told a friend considering leaving Chicago to take a job in Toronto: “Why? I’d rather be the 500th most important person in Chicago than the King of Canada.â€

So congratulations, Toronto, on the extra people.

Can he have any more of an inferiority complex? I bet he wishes Chicago could have the growth that Toronto is experiencing, but is too arrogant to admit it. Instead, he writes this ignorant crap for other ignorant people to see.

The following is even more ignorant, especially for someone who has supposedly spent some time here:

Let us know when you can make a decent pizza, or build a building that bears a second glance. Or when somebody writes a song about Toronto. Or shoots a movie in Toronto that actually takes place in Toronto. We’ll be here, waiting, humming “Chicago.â€

Incidentally, there is a song called "5am in Toronto" playing on the radio now. Then again, I wouldn't expect someone that ignorant to listen to any voice beside his own.

 

[nfitz]

Oh, now the Globe is playing the game too:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/chicago-v-toronto-by-the-numbers/article9564290/

Looks like they cocked up the GDP numbers, comparing a much larger Chicagoland number to the GTA, rather than the smaller Metro Chicago area, or the larger Golden Horseshoe area.

But here's the shocking one, if correct.

Low-end neighbourhood average

Chicago: West Engelwood: $10,456

Toronto: Central Scarborough: $420,000

Good grief. $10,000 for a house? For a lot? The small piece of land next to my house that is only big enough to park a car on, but is landlocked, and you couldn't actually go anywhere ... is worth $20,000.

And that's a neighbourhood average?

Wow ...

 

[someMidTowner]

Pretty hard to fathom when measly parking spots are going for upwards of 80k in T.O

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

This has been highly entertaining! Amazing how different folks view the city they live in vs. others. FWIW, the Chi-guy was pretty much bitter & wrong, but Mallick wasn't any better. This forum had better insights than both.

Chicago leaves me cold. I just find it boring. And I think that's because it's very similar to Toronto, whereas other cities give different pleasures. Not worth visiting when SF or Montreal or NYC or Paris or London beckon.

And to truly paint myself as old, one of my favourite Bruce Cockburn songs is about Toronto: "Coldest Night of the Year"