Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
People often like to compare Toronto to much older, historic US cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, especially Canadians trying to hype up Toronto. But I've always argued that Toronto shouldn't be compared to those cities, because in reality Toronto is not historic, it is a much newer city built largely in the automobile era. Even the City of Toronto proper is mostly car-dependent, post-war sprawl - just cul-de-sacs and strip malls everywhere and little rail access. Even before considering the 100% sprawl of neighbhouring Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham, etc., just considering the city proper, the City of Toronto has more in common with the City of Naperville than it does with the City of Chicago. Considering the metropolitan area as a whole, Toronto is much more akin to Sunbelt cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix than it is to Chicago and any northeastern US metropolitan areas.
Here is what most of the City of Toronto looks like:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7585...7i16384!8i8192
Naperville:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7540...4!8i8192?hl=en
See also: TORONTO: LOS ANGELES OF THE NORTH
The pre war, inner city of Boston:
Philadelphia:
Chicago:
Toronto:
 |
I agree broadly, though the idea of Toronto not being historic is dependent on context. From Western Canada, Toronto does feel old -- not quite Montreal old -- but still fairly old. I'd imagine Toronto would also have this impression to someone from Arizona or Texas or Utah.
Interestingly, you omitted the one NE city that I think could compare to Toronto -- Washington. They're both around the same population (6 million+) and while they do have notable pre-WWII urban fabric, they overwhelmingly grew after WWII. But, their suburbs are more transit-oriented. Toronto's more so, but in US contexts, DC has strong transit into suburban areas with notable TODs. So while they're both newer, they retain some oldness, and that which is newer isn't exactly like Phoenix or Jacksonville.
Even Montreal, which feels older than Toronto by a considerable margin, really wasn't all that big until the early 20th century. American cities were considerably larger during the Victorian era. Canada's first big urbanization push was 1900-1930, as the country industrialized later, and never had the railway suburbs of the UK or US. They went from having everything in walking distance of work (thus smaller footprints) right into streetcar suburbia and then automobiles. But with car ownership being lower, Canadian cities remained more amenable to transit.
Los Angeles and Toronto also feel like they're of a similar age.
Threaded Mode