News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

Is MCA a defined term for US Census? I don't see it defined. I see Chicago MSA having a definition, but nothing larger than that.
 
Sorry. I hadn't visited U.S. census for a while. In fact I meant CSA (combined census area of adjacent and connected metropolitan areas). NYC and LA areas around 20 millionish. The ones around 10 millionish are Chicago, DC-Baltimore, San Francisco, and then between 7-8 million are Boston, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia and Miami. Again all but NYC and LA could be surpassed by GGH by mid-century (7-8 million)
 
If you go to US census MCAs (adjacent metropolitan areas), Toronto is still well below not only NYC and LA (20 millionish), but also Chicago (13 millionish), DC-Baltimore, Dallas, Houston and San Francisco (all at or above 10 millionish). Even so, at current growth and prospects for growth, Toronto with its 8 millionish could well catch up to even Chicago by mid-century. As it does, it will be denser than all but NYC area.

Uhhh, 13 million is more than the entire State of Illinois, at 12.67 million; that's some serious adjacency.
 
Toronto closing the gap with Los Angeles by population is quite plausible. If 2018-2019 population growth numbers stayed constant Greater Toronto-Hamilton would pass Los Angeles MSA in population by 2050. I'll use Greater Toronto-Hamilton (Toronto CMA + Hamilton CMA + Oshawa CMA) as it's the best catchment area to approximate a US MSA imo. Extrapolating out to 2050 is, of course, problematic as things rarely stay constant but it indicates what's possible and when.

Below is the population of each with the absolute change over the previous year in brackets. The statistical analysis shows that Los Angeles is very catchable and by mid-century. Los Angeles MSA is bordered by another 4,650,631 (2019) in Riverside MSA while Greater Toronto-Hamilton is bordered by roughly 2 million in the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Nonetheless, I suspect in 20 years people will be comparing Toronto to Los Angeles rather than Chicago. Greater Toronto-Hamilton could reel in New York MSA too although that would take a few decades longer.


Los Angeles MSA in 2019: 13,214,799 (-35,080)
Greater Toronto-Hamilton in 2019: 7,680,502 (+144,566)

-35,080 X 31 years = -1,087,480
+144,566 X 31 years = +4,481,546

Los Angeles MSA in 2050: 13,214,799 - 1,087,480 = 12,127,319
Greater Toronto-Hamilton in 2050: 7,680,502 + 4,481,546 = 12,162,048



1 year is too short a span to see a trend. Lot of ups and downs occur in some years. Seeing a trend over a longer period, such as a decade will be a better indicator.
 
1 year is too short a span to see a trend. Lot of ups and downs occur in some years. Seeing a trend over a longer period, such as a decade will be a better indicator.

Overtaking L.A. is a long way away.

Moreover, important to say, I don't think that should be a goal per se.

However, in the same breath, I will add that southern California is likely to see very serious water shortages in the decades ahead (even w/o climate change, never mind with).

It seems that material growth is unlikely, and some shrink entirely plausible.
 
Greater Golden Horseshoe is similar population and area as Chicago CSA (within 10% on both counts). There is no equivalent of CSA defined in Canada, so it's a bit hard to say for certain, but it seems likely that Toronto is a lot closer to Chicago in population than you are suggesting.
 
1 year is too short a span to see a trend. Lot of ups and downs occur in some years. Seeing a trend over a longer period, such as a decade will be a better indicator.
You can see the change over the last decade here. Chicago actually shrank over that time and NYC was fairly stagnant.

In 2041, the GGH is projected to have 14.5M people, if we extrapolate the growth rates of US CSAs, GGH would be clear third (and NYC and LA both 20M+), and Chicago will be eclipsed by a few other US cities as well.
 
Overtaking L.A. is a long way away.

Moreover, important to say, I don't think that should be a goal per se.

However, in the same breath, I will add that southern California is likely to see very serious water shortages in the decades ahead (even w/o climate change, never mind with).

It seems that material growth is unlikely, and some shrink entirely plausible.
And Manhattan will be underwater in a few decades due to climate change —> New Yorkers will move to Toronto as refugees —> Voila we’re number one!
[/s]
 
Reading over the recent posts in this thread it struck me that regardless of your position on the subject now, with each passing month it becomes just that little bit harder to argue Toronto and neighbours (whatever you want to call it) isn’t a continuous urban conglomerate.
 
And Manhattan will be underwater in a few decades due to climate change —> New Yorkers will move to Toronto as refugees —> Voila we’re number one!
[/s]

Manhattan has a credible, if very expensive and disruptive plan to combat rising sea levels.


I don't think L.A. can address declining water supplies in the same fashion.

Though both will find that the solutions (which will be delivered, at least in part) will drive up the cost-of-living.
 
Some of the nodes in GTA such as Hamilton and KW are quite old and they existed independent of Toronto and they are quite populous and quite far as well. That's why sometimes it feels hard to imagine that these are part of one larger metropolitan area. But once you start thinking that there are many commuters that travel daily to Toronto or other parts of GTA for work, then you start realizing that they are indeed part of one larger metropolitan area. Same can't be argued for London, for instance.

I am not sure about Chicagoland's satellite cities, if they too have similar large and old cities and far from the city centre.
 
Some of the nodes in GTA such as Hamilton and KW are quite old and they existed independent of Toronto and they are quite populous and quite far as well. That's why sometimes it feels hard to imagine that these are part of one larger metropolitan area. But once you start thinking that there are many commuters that travel daily to Toronto or other parts of GTA for work, then you start realizing that they are indeed part of one larger metropolitan area. Same can't be argued for London, for instance.

I am not sure about Chicagoland's satellite cities, if they too have similar large and old cities and far from the city centre.
Looking through the area there are a lot of cities founded in the early 1900s. The problem is that they're no longer "satellite" cities, because they are part of the continuous built-up area now, jobs are very much fluid over the boundaries, and the individual cities are really not independent economies anymore. Aurora and Naperville would be good examples.

Gary probably used to be the best candidate. Economy based on the steel plants, until they shut down like half a decade ago. They're basically the Hamilton of Chicago except much much worse.
 
Last edited:
At any rate, I found us some hard data.

@mdu 's 1% seems in the ballpark.

I found the Transportation Toronto Survey (2016 data) which is used to show all movements, all-modes, across the region.

Survey here http://dmg.utoronto.ca/pdf/tts/2016/2016TTS_ODmatrices.pdf

From said survey:

View attachment 279679

Of note, their survey area is the GGH:

View attachment 279680

Lots and lots of data there to keep everyone amused.
Now, can we get something similar for Chicago??? Hmmmm
I'm not sure why Orangeville is pulled out of its county on this map. The others make sense as they are single-tier.
 
Looking over Chicago and Toronto on google maps at the same macro scale you can see that Chicago is an urban centre at the core of a massive geographic catchment. It must have one of the largest urban and exurban and satellite catchment areas in the world extending out to cities like Kansas City, Indianapolis etc. Forget everything is big in Texas, everything is big in the Mid-West! That says nothing about densities etc. but I'm just talking about raw geography

I've been (a pandemic thing?) geeking out lately on reading about space but I think there's an interesting analogy between celestial systems and urban areas in the way that they form and exert forces on each other. Think solar systems with planetary systems and even binary stars (like binary city regions). In space the forces are gravitational in cities the forces that bind the areas together are physical, economic, and social.
 

Back
Top