News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 839     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.7K     0 

Toronto/Chicago comparisons

mdu said:
If you just go on Google Maps and measure the distances, you'll see that Chicago sprawl goes for 60-80km in all directions from the Loop, while Toronto's built up area ends at between 30-50km.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but, I fail to understand exactly what point is being made?

There is more green within the Greater Golden Horseshoe than Chicagoland.

I don't think anyone was disputing that.

I'd further hasten to add, long may it be so.

****

The idea that the extra greenspace means the region is somehow less cohesive, which is the only think I can take from this discussion, strikes me as a tad peculiar.
 
Just referring to Deadpool X's post on the previous page, and commenting about how population density is a very inaccurate way to measure how contiguous Chicago and Toronto are.
 
mdu said:
Just referring to Deadpool X's post on the previous page, and commenting about how population density is a very inaccurate way to measure how contiguous Chicago and Toronto are.
Click to expand...

Fair, to say that density ≠ continguousness

However, neither does the absence of contiguity in built-form establish an absence of material relationship.

I took @Deadpool X 's post to suggest given comparable population, over comparable land area (therefore comparable density) that it was reasonable to compare the 2 areas.

I think that's a reasonable statement absent the consideration of other evidence.

The obvious (further) evidence to consider {to me) would be commute patterns for workers, and students.

When looking at the GGH, it almost perfectly mirrors the GO rail network, with the exception of Ptbo and Brantford; both of which are served by the bus network.

I think that does, in conjunction w/the other comparables allow for arguing that Chicagoland to the GGH is an Apples to Apples comparison.
 
Chicago's contiguous urban area from a quick measure on Google Earth is about 7,300km2, while Toronto's, including Oshawa, Milton, and Hamilton, is about 2,500km2.

I agree that commuting patterns are the best sign of a continous urban area, and while I don't have evidence, I suspect that Chicagoland is pretty well tied together given that it's essentially one continuous urbanized area. It's just a really low density one.

Guelph, Brantford, and Kitchener are too far out to me to be part of the contiguous urban area. the gap in the urban fabric is simply too large, and commuting patterns don't overlap enough.
 
GGH does not feel contiguous because of the greenbelt. The urban area doesn't end at the greenbelt but it continues beyond. That is a natural feature and you can't build over there. You have to hop over and continue. Just like NJ and NYC have a river between them and they don't have contiguous development but that does not mean parts of NJ should not be considered NYC's metropolitan area.

Just look at Milton. On the map it does not feel contiguous to Mississauga but we are still getting a 12 lane express collector highway till there while we already have a GO train service. It's because this is a place from where people daily commute to Toronto and that commute is not an inter-city one by any means.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Chicago's contiguous urban area from a quick measure on Google Earth is about 7,300km2, while Toronto's, including Oshawa, Milton, and Hamilton, is about 2,500km2.

I agree that commuting patterns are the best sign of a continous urban area, and while I don't have evidence, I suspect that Chicagoland is pretty well tied together given that it's essentially one continuous urbanized area. It's just a really low density one.

Guelph, Brantford, and Kitchener are too far out to me to be part of the contiguous urban area. the gap in the urban fabric is simply too large, and commuting patterns don't overlap enough.
Click to expand...
How would you think about the Randstad?
 
Mercenary said:
Don't think GTA will ever surpass the Greater Los Angeles area in population or GDP.

It will probably pass Chicagoland in GDP and population by 2030 to become the 3rd most powerful city in North America excluding Mexico City.
Click to expand...


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


www.census.gov

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Totals: 2010-2019

This page features Vintage 2019 population estimates totals and components of change.
www.census.gov www.census.gov

Population estimates, July 1, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, 2016 boundaries

Annual population estimates as of July 1st, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, single year of age, five-year age group and sex, based on the Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) 2016.
www150.statcan.gc.ca www150.statcan.gc.ca
 

Attachments

  • 1604002179051.png
    1604002179051.png
    3.6 KB · Views: 326
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
Chicago's contiguous urban area from a quick measure on Google Earth is about 7,300km2, while Toronto's, including Oshawa, Milton, and Hamilton, is about 2,500km2.

I agree that commuting patterns are the best sign of a continous urban area, and while I don't have evidence, I suspect that Chicagoland is pretty well tied together given that it's essentially one continuous urbanized area. It's just a really low density one.

Guelph, Brantford, and Kitchener are too far out to me to be part of the contiguous urban area. the gap in the urban fabric is simply too large, and commuting patterns don't overlap enough.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

Ok, but you like commuting evidence.

So, what info can we gather?

This study of Kenosha commuting patterns suggests that Cook County and Milwaukee together grab 19.8% of those who commute beyond Kenosha's boundary daily.


But only 44% of Kenosha residents commute to work outside the City boundary.

So that would equate with ~9% of Kenoshans, and that number includes those commuting to Milwaukee and Cook County (not merely Chicago)

I couldn't find a break down of commutes to Milkwakee vs Cook County; but if we assume the latter had the larger share, say 2/3; then that would equal, at most, 6% of Kenosha residents commuting to Cook County; of which Chicago is the largest, but certainly not only part.

METRA only offers 2 inbound trains to Chicago before 8:30am.

K-W has 3 GO trains tomorrow in the same slot

I couldn't find a percent of K-W commuters bound for Toronto; but it strikes me the number would not be far different from that of Kenosha to Chicago.
 
mdu said:

Here's a Region of Waterloo study on commuting from the region. 12% work outside K-W (which tbf is more city-like than Kenosha). Something like 1% going to Toronto, with more heading to Missisauga, Milton, Hamilton, etc.
Click to expand...

On what basis do you conclude that 1% go to Toronto?

I'm happy to have an open mind, but I really would like to see evidence rather than supposition.

It also occurs to me that we ought to ask, does a suburb to suburb commute within a given region not suggest interconnection to the region as a whole?
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
On what basis do you conclude that 1% go to Toronto?

I'm happy to have an open mind, but I really would like to see evidence rather than supposition.
Click to expand...
The first page states that 263K residents are currently employed. Page 2 indicates that 2585 residents commute from K-W to the City of Toronto. This is just about 1%.
 
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:

1604012394167.png


Of note, their survey area is the GGH:

1604012500360.png


Lots and lots of data there to keep everyone amused.

Now, can we get something similar for Chicago??? Hmmmm
 
I don't see why it would be restricted to the City of Toronto itself (which is just an artificial border drawn through the city that is 'Toronto' (avoiding saying Greater Toronto Area as that does not include the full extend of the city).
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top