Canada is one sprawly country

[RC8]

LA fine but miami? Miami is small, it is easy to get around.

If you know Miami you'll know that Brickell, Downtown, and Miami Beach are part of a central high density area. I lived in Brickell, and getting to Miami Beach using public transit was ridiculously difficult. Getting from Brickell to Coconut Grove, Coral Gables, etc. was also very difficult without a car. Had to drive or take a cab every time.

Now, those are the ones that were still doable with public transit if you had all the time in the world. If instead, for instance, you had to get yourself to Ft. Lauderdale or Boca Raton it's downright impossible to use public transit, and there's NOTHING but suburban sprawl in between Miami's central area and the rest. The sprawl is relatively manageable only by the fact that everything is so low-density and car-centric that there's rarely any congestion on highways outside rush hour.

I find the likes of Markham and Milton to be more eventful than their Miami equivalents, personally. And better connected, too (a sign of greater density).

For the record, I do think the GTA is immensely sprawly. I just find that putting Toronto (specially the old city) in the same category of sprawl as the other cities is very unfair. I doubt people would refer to NY as sprawly, even though it generates even more sprawl than Toronto does. It's understood that when someone says NY it's meant 'Manhattan and it's immediate surroundings'. I think it's only fair to apply the same treatment to Toronto and refer specifically to the Old City for comparisons unless otherwise stated.

 

[RC8]

yes, Miami is 20% of the size of Toronto with fewer people than Brampton. I don't see the point of comparing about "sprawling" with Toronto.

Metro Miami is home to 5 million people. Miami is home to 2.5 million.

You were probably looking at data for the 'city' of Miami, which doesn't include for example Miami Beach or Coral Gables. It's like looking at Toronto and leaving out anything North of Bloor and East of Yonge.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Fine, that's a fair assessment.
I am just sick people saying "LA is vast blindly sprawling land that is totally unlivable with the world's biggest traffic jams" while "Toronto is so walkable and livable with so many charming neighbourhoods". I have lived in both cities for a considerable perid of time, and like your said, the density is similar. LA has a less busy downtown core but it has many vibrant non-mall like urban centers outside downtown. Toronto has a sizable downtown, but outside it (and Yonge St), it is pretty much all suburbs (what I hate most about this city). Does Toronto have something similar to West Hollywood in the north, Santa Monica in the west, Korean Town in the central, Pasadena in the east, where people congregate on weekends to shop, dine, and entertain? I can't think of any. Woodbine beach is OK but the commerical activity can't compare to Santa Monica.

In terms of sprawl and traffic jam, Toronto is no better than Los Angeles.

That was supposed to be North York Centre. It didn't happen for a myriad of reasons (taxes, poor planning, etc.)

 

[Hipster Duck]

no, your average calculation is misleading. People tend to think density as people per square mile, but it is hardly the real picture.
Do me a favour and take a look at Los Angeles' map, a sizable portion in the northwest is forest and mountains. Vew few people live there. simply take the mathamatical average of people/land is far from the whole story.

Well, if Greater Los Angeles has a density that's less than half that of Greater Toronto, then just to have the same net residential density as Toronto:

a) the mountains would have to take up more than half of Greater LA's land area,
AND
b) Greater Toronto would have to have no open space.

The different between LA and Toronto/NYC/San Fran is that the latter have a very dense core, and then very sparsely populated suburbs.

Toronto's suburbs are actually remarkably dense and have something very few NA city regions have: a hard edge. See?

On the other hand, there aren't many parts of the Toronto region that have densities like this.

 

[SunriseChampion]

On the other hand, there aren't many parts of the Toronto region that have densities like this.

That was scary.

What are people 200 years from now going to think of these messes, i wonder?

 

[Memph]

I wonder how many of those ranches are primary homes. What's LA's equivalent of cottage country?

 

[kkgg7]

Toronto's suburbs are actually remarkably dense and have something very few NA city regions have: a hard edge. See?

On the other hand, there aren't many parts of the Toronto region that have densities like this.

are you insane? the second place is more than 80 miles/140km away from Los Angeles, you would have to cross a whole mountain and a giant national park the same size as LA itself to reach there, and you use that as an example of LA suburbs? how convincing!

The same distance will bring you from Toronto to Peterborough, or Stratford, or Own Sound, or Buffalo, NY. Do you consider those are part of GTA??

As to Mississauga to Toronto, Long Beach is probably the closest thing. Long beach has a density of about 10,000/sq mile, while Mississauga is 6600. And Long beach is 1.5 times farther away. West Covina, a LA suburb on the east, has almost the same density as Mississauga. Anaheim to the south east, similar as well. Burbank, another suburb to the north, is at 6000. LA has pretty much suburbs the similar density as Missisauga in all directions, believe it or not. Santa Ana, 34 miles/55km from LA, has a density of 12,000! higher than North York, a relatively dense part within the city of Toronto.

On the other hand, Brampton, 5000, Oakville, 3400, Vaughan, 2300, Markham, 2500, Pickering, 990.

Trust me, LA is at least as dense as Toronto, no matter how you look at it.

 

[kkgg7]

That was scary.

What are people 200 years from now going to think of these messes, i wonder?

if you look closely, that place and LA is separated by a giant Angeles National Forest, and 140km from LA. Do you really consider that as LA? To put in in context, Peterborough is about the same distance to Toronto that that to LA.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Phelan is in the middle of a forest is it not?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I wonder how many of those ranches are primary homes. What's LA's equivalent of cottage country?

Big Bear, Palm Springs, Running Springs.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

if you look closely, that place and LA is separated by a giant Angeles National Forest, and 140km from LA. Do you really consider that as LA? To put in in context, Peterborough is about the same distance to Toronto that that to LA.

For cultural reasons I do but I understand your point.

 

[kkgg7]

For cultural reasons I do but I understand your point.

thanks, it may be consider as a remote LA suburb, but it is nowhere near being representative of LA's density.
What do represent LA's suburbs: Gendale, Burbank, Pasadena, West Covina, Pomona, Whittier, Long Beach, Torrace, Fullerton, Santa Ana, Anaheim. They are all quite dense, denser than Oakville, Burlington, Ajax, Pickering, Vaughan, Markham.
It is a mathematical fact yet people refuse to admit it somehow yet use a town 140 km away as an example.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Sure, whatever. Go look at that image again and zoom out.

 

[Hipster Duck]

It is a mathematical fact yet people refuse to admit it somehow yet use a town 140 km away as an example

First Memph posted some census figures - aka 'the facts' - showing that Greater LA was less dense than Greater Toronto. You refuted this based on your presumption that that density figure for LA unfairly included large mountain ranges that divide up the built area of the region.

Then I posted a picture of a very sprawly LA suburb beyond said mountain range, and you complained that this was not part of the LA region because it was on the other side of a mountain range.

You also claimed that this wasn't a suburb of LA, although I don't see any other reason for Anbuilding thousands of homes in the Mojave desert other than to provide cheap housing for commuters to Greater LA's labour market. If you know the environment and the income levels there, those sure aren't cottages...

So what is this mathematical formula that you use to calculate Greater LA's density? Why would you first say that cities on the other side of mountain ranges are legit (because it lowers the density of the region) and then claim that this particular built up area is not?

Anyway, I'm not going to get into a flame war over density statistics. Suffice it to say that density is not the be-all and end-all of good city design and that there are cities with even lower densities than Toronto or LA that have more sustainable land use and travel patterns, such as Stockholm.

 

[abcde]

Canada's per-capita consumption of resources is one of the highest in the world, a statistic that is partly a by-product of this sprawl. Higher even than the US.

Yes, it is only partly influenced by sprawl - you might even want to say slightly. The real culprits are 1) our weather patterns (compared to the milder climate in the US) and 2) our resource-based industry.

Toronto is a very dense city, and is getting denser day by day. It is ludicrous to compare it to LA or Miami.