Toronto as seen from 10000 Feet..

[10023]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Is Toronto denser than Chicago?

Originally Posted by Beedok

For the overall metro yes.

Toronto has denser suburbs because of Canadian planning and whatever else. The city is not quite as dense as it developed later.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by cruzin4u

This is a nice photo from JStokez on flickr.

Would have been an incredible photo if it weren't for the tilt shift/hazy effect.

[KODYBOOM]

Besides the cn tower, we have nothing over 300m. I would like to see something in the 375-450m range come to the city

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 10023

Toronto has denser suburbs because of Canadian planning and whatever else. The city is not quite as dense as it developed later.

At this point I think Toronto's inner city density is higher now too, as per the weighted density stats. More residential high-rises, smaller units, more overcrowding, etc. However, the built density of Chicago's downtown is definitely greater than that of Toronto (hence the more impressive skyline). It has a lot of office space.

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Would have been an incredible photo if it weren't for the tilt shift/hazy effect.

I think it might just be a fogged up window. Either way, this shot of his is probably better:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/stokez/12707457335/

[softee]

Still waiting for the rest of those pics!

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by 10023

Toronto has denser suburbs because of Canadian planning and whatever else. The city is not quite as dense as it developed later.

This is inaccurate from the standpoint that Toronto was actually settled before Chicago, it is a city with origination in the 1700's, whereas Chicago didn't come along until the mid 1800's.

What you're referencing is that Toronto didn't boom as quickly and therefore didn't have as much pre WWII development that Chicago has, which is entirely accurate. This doesn't measure density so much as it measures building and architectural style.

Density is hard to measure. Are we talking about population density, or building density for example. And where are we drawing these lines? Its a complicated topic. Toronto obviously has much more multi-family housing than most cities as its continued to build a great deal of it in the modern era. As to how that compares to Chicago? Who knows. I haven't cared to compare or looked at numbers in years between these two places. I've visited Chicago numerous times and even lived there for a while, Toronto is where my heart is. Chicago obviously has more 3-5 story brick flats and warehouses and old shops than Toronto. But Toronto has many more condo highrises and midrises than Chicago. The comparison is moot at best, its a discussion largely about style. Outside the central core, Toronto is by far more dense. Chicago doesn't even come close, because suburban Chicago follows the typical American paradigm of large lots for single family homes. Toronto is condos here, there, everywhere with single family housing that is by far restricted to smaller lots and lawns that are much more compact when the SFH developments are present. Again, these last statements are exclusive to outside the central cores of these respective cities.

Another thing that Toronto is remarkably different from Chicago in is that the city isn't bound to the lake in the same way. Virtually every single high rise structure in Chicago is within several blocks of the lakeshore, extending slightly more westward in the loop. By comparison, Toronto's skyline ends upon its waterfront and the city is primarily northward from the lake as much as the old villages along King or Queen going east/west. Toronto follows a much more inland approach to its urban development than Chicago's lakefront orientation. This concentration of building everything in Chicago within a short distance of the lakeshore - in terms of high rise development - has concentrated Chicago. Its downtown is much taller and has more buildings. But step west of the loop and there are no buildings of any measurable size thereafter.

Again, its a style difference. The cities are more different than alike, they only share commonality in being located on the Great Lakes. Even with that there are major differences. Chicago is situated on the southwestern edge where the flat plains are never-ending. Toronto has high cliffs, ravines, and the city rolls upward from the lakeshore. Did you know that Lake Ontario's shore is at roughly 250ft above elevation, but just 3 miles inland at the corner of Yonge & St Clair, a major urban intersection, its above 460ft? Chicago doesn't have nearly the relief change and rocky cliffs and ravines, these cities are very different.

East/West in Toronto there are areas a good distance from downtown Toronto, like Liberty Village, that are intensely population dense along the lakeshore as well. Its probably just as dense, if not more, than East Lakeview along Lake Michigan. The difference is that its newer and oriented toward modern mid and high rise condos and not the typical 3-5 story flat atmosphere in Lakeview.

If words haven't expressed the difference, here is a picture from within the city limits of Toronto - not its suburbs - to the east of downtown. Chicago doesn't have the same geographics or the same feel of Toronto. I've said it before, I'll say it again, these are two considerably different cities. I'm not sure why the two cities have traditionally been so relentlessly compared.


Source: Wikipedia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._bluffs_-d.jpg

[ue]

^ The guy said it developed later. Not sure what is inaccurate about that. It's true. Toronto developed later, thus causing it to have a smaller pre-war fabric.

[M II A II R II K]

Townhouse complexes are also built beyond the city limits as well.

[Innsertnamehere]

That is almost certainly in suburban Toronto. (I.E. post war) most of the area around the bluffs developed in the 1960's. stuff actually in the city such as the Don Valley is certainly unique to Toronto however.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by ue

^ The guy said it developed later. Not sure what is inaccurate about that. It's true. Toronto developed later, thus causing it to have a smaller pre-war fabric.

This isn't a debate, Toronto was settled before Chicago. What you're referring to is Chicago's earlier boom period in the 1800's and early 1900's. It is inaccurate to say developed, I would say it "boomed" later.

This is just a fact, it isn't good or bad, its just the way the cities developed.

[M II A II R II K]

But cars have to be taken into consideration with developments since then, but then that's not an excuse to make places inefficient where the layout is to specifically accommodate cars.

Downtown parking lots which were prevalent in the 70's are now reversing because the land is too valuable, and can make more money for a city with built up properties and businesses that can pay taxes.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

This isn't a debate, Toronto was settled before Chicago. What you're referring to is Chicago's earlier boom period in the 1800's and early 1900's. It is inaccurate to say developed, I would say it "boomed" later.

This is just a fact, it isn't good or bad, its just the way the cities developed.

No one is arguing with you, I don't get why you need to be so short. Toronto was settled before Chicago, yes, we can all agree on that. Based on 10023's post, I don't think he necessarily meant that Chicago was the older city (though he could have). You're basically splitting hairs over terminology. It is perfectly fine to say that Chicago developed before Toronto because it developed and matured as a city decades before Toronto. Chicago was a far more substantial city than Toronto was in 1950, now the gap is pretty narrow.

Oh and the Scarborough Bluffs are in Scarborough, a suburban region of Toronto. If you're merely saying it isn't a suburb on the basis that it is apart of the city proper, then you could say Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg have hardly any suburbs too, but a walk through Tuscany, Tamarack, or Tuxedo would have you thinking otherwise. It isn't that far from Downtown Toronto, though, because it "boomed" later (there, happy?).

Chicago and Toronto are compared as often as they are because they're both Great Lakes Cities and they're of relatively similar importance and Chicago is seen as a place for Toronto to aspire to (as is New York).

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by 10023

Toronto has denser suburbs because of Canadian planning and whatever else. The city is not quite as dense as it developed later.

Toronto's suburbs are denser, but the inner city is likely denser as well these days. The data below is from 2 years ago.

City of Chicago
Population: 2,714,856
Area: 606 sq km
Density: 4,480 people/sq km

City of Toronto
Population: 2,791,140
Area: 630 sq km
Density: 4,430 people/sq km


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto

[fflint]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Toronto's suburbs are denser, but the inner city is likely denser as well these days. The data below is from 2 years ago.

City of Chicago
Population: 2,714,856
Area: 606 sq km
Density: 4,480 people/sq km

City of Toronto
Population: 2,791,140
Area: 630 sq km
Density: 4,430 people/sq km


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto

The US Census Bureau's website lists Chicago at 227.63 square miles (589.55 square km) and with a population density of 11,841.8 persons per square mile (4,604.96 persons per square km).

Which is to say, the US Census Bureau currently puts Chicago at a slightly higher population density than Toronto, at least going by the TO figures you are using here.

----------------
Edit: I just discovered the cause of the discrepancy between the Census Bureau's data on Chicago and the Toronto forumer's contrary figures above.

The Census Bureau calculates a city's population density by including only land area, and not open water, in its calculation. The forumer's source provides both land area and total area including open water, and the forumer above chose to include 7 square miles of open water on Lake Michigan in his calculation of Chicago's population density. That is not obviously the better choice--but it is the choice which, unsurprisingly, tortured the numbers just enough to produce the outcome he desired.

[Nouvellecosse]

The inner city of Toronto tends to be slightly denser than the inner city of Chicago, and the suburbs of Toronto tend to be denser than the suburbs of Chicago. Yet the city-proper municipality of Chicago is slightly denser than the counterpart in Toronto which may seem counter-intuitive, but it's because Chicago's old pre-war urban fabric covers a much larger area and proportion of the city than Toronto's. So even though Chicago's pre-war urban fabric is not quite as dense as the one in Toronto due to Toronto's intensive residential infill, It is still denser than Toronto's suburbs.

So the final result really depends on the actual parts of each city being measured and where one draws the boundaries. Which often is the case with such comparisons.

[softee]

Also, the Toronto Islands, Rouge Park, the extensive ravine system and Downsview all take up loads of space in the city detracting from the overall density figure. Chicago's O'Hare also takes up a lot of space, although I'm not sure how it compares in area to the three above mentioned Toronto locales.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by fflint

Edit: I just discovered the cause of the discrepancy between the Census Bureau's data on Chicago and the Toronto forumer's contrary figures above.

The Census Bureau calculates a city's population density by including only land area, and not open water, in its calculation. The forumer's source provides both land area and total area including open water, and the forumer above chose to include 7 square miles of open water on Lake Michigan in his calculation of Chicago's population density. That is not obviously the better choice--but it is the choice which, unsurprisingly, tortured the numbers just enough to produce the outcome he desired.

Did you know Toronto has water too?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Did you know Toronto has water too?

What do you know about that?

I spent half an hour on various websites--Wikipedia, the City of Toronto website, and Google among them--and was unable to find any authoritative answer as to how much (if any) of Toronto's total area is out on the open waters of Lake Ontario.

Meanwhile, isaidso's own source prominently displays both Chicago's land area (which is the Census Bureau metric) and its total area including 7 square miles of Lake Michigan. The choice to include all of that open water in calculating Chicago's population density was clearly the wrong choice, but unsurprisingly it did produce the outcome he wanted. I call bullshit.

If we get the opportunity to exclude Lake Ontario from Toronto's area then we should take it as well.

[jdcamb]

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by ue

No one is arguing with you, I don't get why you need to be so short. Toronto was settled before Chicago, yes, we can all agree on that. Based on 10023's post, I don't think he necessarily meant that Chicago was the older city (though he could have). You're basically splitting hairs over terminology. It is perfectly fine to say that Chicago developed before Toronto because it developed and matured as a city decades before Toronto. Chicago was a far more substantial city than Toronto was in 1950, now the gap is pretty narrow.

Oh and the Scarborough Bluffs are in Scarborough, a suburban region of Toronto. If you're merely saying it isn't a suburb on the basis that it is apart of the city proper, then you could say Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg have hardly any suburbs too, but a walk through Tuscany, Tamarack, or Tuxedo would have you thinking otherwise. It isn't that far from Downtown Toronto, though, because it "boomed" later (there, happy?).

Chicago and Toronto are compared as often as they are because they're both Great Lakes Cities and they're of relatively similar importance and Chicago is seen as a place for Toronto to aspire to (as is New York).

Honestly, I wasn't being short with that comment. You commonly hear that Chicago is an "older" city quite often when it isn't. Old Toronto, or York, was settled as the capital of Upper Canada in 1793. I don't see that they are that similar, nor does Toronto aspire to be Chicago. /end comparisons to Chicago

BTW, historically, Toronto's "CMA" had nearly 200,000 people, city proper 65,000, in the year 1861, which means it was among the largest regions in North America before the turn of the last century.
Source: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/co...ltt#population

Toronto's a different animal relative to most North American cities - and its the primary reason I love it - because a significant amount of its new housing construction metro-wide is multi-family housing. It makes it an entirely different city when such a huge stock of multi-family housing is modern as opposed to only older, dated construction. Its the modern multi-family metropolis. I compare Toronto with Berlin quite often, not because they're identical or anything, but in suburbia they have some similar architecture, similar focus on multi-family homes. When I fly into Berlin, I almost get the feeling that I'm in the "Toronto of Europe" since its smaller than Paris or London, the suburbs have a lot of similar architecture, and the tower in Berlin reminds me of Toronto. Maybe a Berliner would disagree, maybe Toronto is the Berlin of North America: quirky, hip, alternative.

Toronto didn't stop building multi-family housing after WWII, it boomed with multi-family housing primarily after WWII (although by 1940 its immediate urban area had a million people). Its rare to find a city of this type in this geographic part of the world. Where you find SFH construction, it isn't on American sized lots. The typical SFH lot in Toronto is similar to most New Urbanist communities in the USA. Its tight, its compact, its square footage is usually optimized to incorporate accessibility to transit services as best a SFH can get.

That's why you can look at satellite imagery, and Toronto is so much larger yet takes less land than greater Detroit. Its remarkable to see a visual difference with regard to the built form from space. When you can tell a difference from space you really know its different, I'll re-link that previous link since its not working in my browser:

http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/119535

And yes, forgive me for my passion. As you know, I'm passionate about metropolitan regions that don't base lifestyles around single family homes (one of the primary reasons I want to leave the US actually). I personally think the SFH is what makes cities unfunctional and make them suburban in nature.

BTW, its worth mentioning I'm a big, huge fan of Berlin. Totally fell in love with it. If I knew German, I'd consider immigration to Germany in a nanosecond. A matter of fact, I'd rather enjoy snapping up one of those very cheap eastern bloc flats since they are still relatively cheap. Transit in Berlin is absolutely unreal with how functional it is. Maybe I'm biased since I'm half ethnically German.