News   Jul 25, 2024
 120     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 678     1 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 1.3K     1 

Toronto/Chicago comparisons

These cities are clearly brothers. Chicago is getting dragged by its manufacturing losses. It's surprising that the GTA was not hurt as bad as as chicagoland, even though most of the cars made in NA are from here or Metro Detroit.
 
Toronto overtook Chicago as North America's fourth largest city
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/03/05/torontos_population_overtakes_chicago.html

Finally happened. Not sure how significant it is. City proper population is almost meaningless otherwise Brampton is almost as large as Vancouver and Boston. Chicago metro is still much larger. And our transit infrastructure definitely lags by about 20 years.

It is because it shows Toronto is growing. That's all.
 
Chicago metro is still much larger.
We discussed this a few pages ago. Larger, but not still much larger. Chicagoland is 28,120 km² with 9.7 million people in 2010 (9.3 million in 2000). Greater Golden Horseshore is similar but a bit less area with 21,464 km². with 8.8 million people in 2011 (8.1 million in 2006).

And Toronto is growing significantly faster. Using a very simplistic straight-line approach using just that data, Chicagoland is growing by 40,000 a year while the Greater Golden Horseshoe is growing by 140,000 a year. If those rates hold, Greater Golden Horeseshoe overtakes Chicagoland in 2021 and 1 million more people in 2031.

And our transit infrastructure definitely lags by about 20 years.
Most of Chicago's rapid transit infrastructure has been there for decades. We don't have their "advantage" of significant depopulation of the city proper.

The current boundaries of the city of Chicago had a population of 2.7 million in 2010, but 3.6 million in 1950, and about 2.7 million in 1920.

The current boundaries of the city of Toronto had a population of 2.6 million in 2011, but 1.2 million in 1951, and about 0.6 million in 1921.

I'm sure we had the same advantage of having the same population today, as we had 90 years ago, then our transit infrastructure wouldn't have lagged by 20 years!

It is because it shows Toronto is growing. That's all.
That would be it in a nutshell!
 
I'm sure we had the same advantage of having the same population today, as we had 90 years ago, then our transit infrastructure wouldn't have lagged by 20 years!

Well, No need to go back to 1950 to show how small we were in order to justify the lack of transit. Toronto already had over 2.3M in 1991, a pretty big city by NA standard. Yet nothing happened, except those 4 sad stops on Sheppard Ave. That's 20 years of time.
 
This may be a news item in Toronto, but I'm sure this isn't a news item in Chicago, and I know it has nothing to do with cliches of American ignorance.

We might be 'bigger' than Chicago in a population sense, but the fact this is newsworthy suggests that maybe they're still bigger than us in a more meaningful way.
 
This may be a news item in Toronto, but I'm sure this isn't a news item in Chicago, and I know it has nothing to do with cliches of American ignorance.

We might be 'bigger' than Chicago in a population sense, but the fact this is newsworthy suggests that maybe they're still bigger than us in a more meaningful way.

Bull. Chi-town has had a 'second city' complex longer than Toronto has had a 'World class city' complex.
 
Bull. Chi-town has had a 'second city' complex longer than Toronto has had a 'World class city' complex.

there is really no shame to be a second city to NYC. There is nothing on this continent that is worth half of NYC.
 
This may be a news item in Toronto, but I'm sure this isn't a news item in Chicago, and I know it has nothing to do with cliches of American ignorance.

We might be 'bigger' than Chicago in a population sense, but the fact this is newsworthy suggests that maybe they're still bigger than us in a more meaningful way.

I disagree. It's newsworthy because it feels like a milestone. Any city would make a note of it.
 
This may be a news item in Toronto, but I'm sure this isn't a news item in Chicago, and I know it has nothing to do with cliches of American ignorance.

We might be 'bigger' than Chicago in a population sense, but the fact this is newsworthy suggests that maybe they're still bigger than us in a more meaningful way.

Bull. Chi-town has had a 'second city' complex longer than Toronto has had a 'World class city' complex.

Because they were the second city for near 60 years. I agree with hipster. This shows Toronto is growing. I consider Toronto hitting 3 million soon to be of more importance than this.
 
Well, No need to go back to 1950 to show how small we were in order to justify the lack of transit. Toronto already had over 2.3M in 1991, a pretty big city by NA standard. Yet nothing happened, except those 4 sad stops on Sheppard Ave. That's 20 years of time.

Metro was huge. The thing is while Nfitz is right so are you because of the bums that run this city.
 
What is so big deal about that "news" anyways? It wasn't referring to the population of the metropolitan area/commutershed or what have you, but merely on the basis of some relatively meaningless political boundary.

AoD
 

Back
Top