Great Lakes Cities

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Toronto is larger in population than Chicago both at the City proper level, and the regional level, although in the latter case, only in the last 2-3 years.

No, Chicago is about 30% larger than Toronto, obviously. They aren't particularly close in size.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by deja vu

Not an expert either, but I'd say Grand Rapids is maybe 65/35, leaning toward Chicago for closest "Big City" in general. Home sports teams are definitely the Michigan ones though.

That's interesting.

I always assumed that with the heavy allegiance towards Detroit pro teams that GR aligned itself much more with the motor city than the windy city

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, Chicago is about 30% larger than Toronto, obviously. They aren't particularly close in size.

This is entirely incorrect to the point of absurdity.

Its why most posters tend to ignore you. But I can't let non-factual statements like that stand.

The City of Toronto's Population:

3,034,000

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/...ile-157423.pdf

The City of Chicago's Population

2,700,000

****

Ah, but Chicagoland you say.

Chicagoland Population:

9,458,539 (2019, per Wikipedia)

Greater Golden Horsehoe Population (equivalent area to Chicagoland)

9,977,000 in 2019

https://www.hemson.com/wp-content/up...rt-26Aug20.pdf

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, totally true... what I outlined is by no means any sort of conclusive take on the topic. I'm not sure I even know what the topic really is. It's more me rambling about something I'm not sure can be defined.

Though I do think people in Lansing most definitely look to Chicago as the alpha of the region... to them it's "the city". It's not just about nearest big city/regional big city to me... I'm more talking about the alpha of a the greater region. I would bet that people from Lansing are much more apt to look to Chicago for the "big city experience" than they would to Detroit.

I highly doubt that it's more common for people from Lansing to go to Chicago than Detroit. A lot will go to Chicago for Chicago-specific tourism reasons, yes, but they will almost certainly go to Detroit more often for sporting events, concerts, festivals, casinos, etc.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Greater Golden Horsehoe Population (equivalent area to Chicagoland)

The Chicago MSA is a RIDICULOUSLY over-bloated 15 county mash-up spread across 3 states, 3/4 of which is cornfields.

The Chicago Urban Area puts ~8.6M people 2,442 sq. miles of land.

That is the real "Chicagoland", not the 8,000 sq. mile MSA absurdity (roughly the size of Massachusetts!)

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Yes, I assume crawford was referring to urban areas.

That's the problem when talking about the size of a city. People may use the central city name to refer to several different things so unless one is very specific, it can cause confusion or disagreement.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The Chicago MSA is a RIDICULOUSLY over-bloated 15 county mash-up, 3/4 of which is cornfields.

The Chicago Urban Area puts ~8.6M people 2,500 sq. miles of land.

That is the real "Chicagoland", not the 8,000 sq. mile MSA absurdity.

One can use lots of different models other than City proper.......depending on which one you choose to use, the two populations are comparable in size.

Which is fine.

My issue w/Crawford is his suggestion that Chicago dwarfs Toronto in population which is ridiculous.

[Steely Dan]

There are different definitions, but when we start casting nets out to geographies the size of states to define the size of a given "city", my eyebrows start to go up. At a certain point, it just starts to get too damn silly, IMO. (FTR, I have a decades-long track record at SSP of railing against the US census bureau's stupid MSA/CSA county mash-up game, so I'm not making this argument out of convenience)

I find that the Chicago UA and the Toronto GTA are the most apples to apples definitions that we have.

Chicago UA: 8.6M people on 2,442 sq. miles. (2010)

Toronto GTA: 6.4M people on 2,750 sq. miles.(2016)


But yes, when you stretch the borders out to absurd dimensions, there are much more medium and small sized cities around Toronto (as opposed to Chicagoland which is primarily surrounded by cornfields) such that the bloated "regional" measure catches up.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Though I do think people in Lansing most definitely look to Chicago as the alpha of the region... to them it's "the city". It's not just about nearest big city/regional big city to me... I'm more talking about the alpha of a the greater region. I would bet that people from Lansing are much more apt to look to Chicago for the "big city experience" than they would to Detroit.

For instance, for a good chunk of Pennsylvania, the regional alpha city people identify as such is New York, not Philadelphia. Not only does Philly get overshadowed by NYC because of NYC's size and their close proximty to each other, but NYC is pretty much the same distance away as Philly is, and in some cases closer.

Though very often, when people in Philly talk about going to "the city", they are referring to NYC.

Nobody in Lansing is identifying with Chicago LMAO. Chicago would be at most seen as a tripping destination, nobody is rooting for Chicago teams or looking to it as their "alpha". Chicago has little to no direct influence over anything in Michigan other than being known as that big city on the other side of the lake.

IDK how the culture of big city identifying works in the Northeast but it's not like that here.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

There are different definitions, but when we start casting nets out to geographies the size of some states to define the size of a given "city", my eyebrows start to go up. At a certain point, it just starts to get too damn silly, IMO. (FTR, I have a decades-long track record at SSP of railing against the US census bureaus stupid MSA/CSA county mash-up game)

I find that the Chicago UA and the Toronto GTA are the most apples to apples definitions that we have.

Chicago UA: 8.6M people on 2,442 sq. miles. (2010)

Toronto GTA: 6.4M people on 2,750 sq. miles.(2016)


But yes, when you stretch the borders out to absurd dimensions, there are much more medium and small sized cities around Toronto (as opposed to Chicagoland which is primarily surrounded by cornfields) such that the bloated "regional" measure catches up.

The GTA in 2019, was 6,983,000

Per this link: (official projections/stats of the Ontario government)

: https://www.hemson.com/wp-content/up...rt-26Aug20.pdf

(note, the official measure is the GTAH, so to get GTA I subtracted Hamilton's population)

****

Its very difficult to argue for where to draw a line.

Invariably arbitrary in some respects.

That said, Ontario considers Hamilton to be part of the 'inner ring' now, in the form of the GTAH (Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area)

Certainly, if the standard is no farms between areas, Hamilton is contiguous to Toronto at this point, there are no farms left between them.

As per the official numbers linked above:

That area was 7,557,000 in 2019

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

The GTA in 2019, was 6,983,000

Per this link: (official projections/stats of the Ontario government)

: https://www.hemson.com/wp-content/up...rt-26Aug20.pdf

(note, the official measure is the GTAH, so to get GTA I subtracted Hamilton's population)

Official measure of what? The GTA and GTHA are informal concepts. The Golden Horseshoe is a formerly informal concept used by the provincial government for regional planning purposes. It's not an urban or metropolitan area by any definition.

Chicago's urban area is still significantly larger.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I'll echo edale's comment about Chicago being the big city relative to Cincinnati but I think it is based in the age-old argument of nature versus nurture?

My family visited Chicago when I was five years old in 1989. I remember visiting the Sears Tower and Wrigley Field. Coming from Cincinnati, and occasionally stopping in Indianapolis along the way, the sites we visited were more world-renowend than what we had in Cincinnati. Basically, being cognizant of things like "this is the site of a world-famous auto race", "this is [at the time] the world's tallest building" and "this is a historic ballpark." Essentially, provincialism at it's finest.

Also, for whatever reason (maybe the Bob Newhart Show?) before moving to Phoenix, my parents always talked about wanting to live in Chicago after my brother and moved out of the house, maybe buy a condo in a high rise along the lake. Nowadays, it'd take an act of god to get my mom to stop being a permanent snowbird. My dad worked in Madison WI for a year and there were talks about moving out there permanently but the majority of my mom's visits were in Winter and, coming from Phoenix, I guess that was a resounding "hell no" (my moms arthritis and asthma might've also played a role). My dad ended up moving back to Phoenix in September 2006.

Long story short, Cincinnati is a city, but it wasn't the city. Again, I think provincialism played a role in that thought process? One of the things I miss about living back east is easy access to other cities (we never flew anywhere, always drove). Most of our family vacations were to places like Washington DC ("this is the heart of our government"), Chicago, Indianapolis and Detroit (Tiger Stadium, Ford Museum, "this is the heart of the American automobile industry").

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Its very difficult to argue for where to draw a line.

Invariably arbitrary in some respects.

Correct.

We don't have a perfectly apples to apples comparison.

But I do feel that CHI-UA and GTA come closest.

On that score Chicago is ahead for the moment, but the gap is rapidly closing, to the point of not mattering a great deal. They're more or less at a similar general "level". We're not comparing Grand Rapids to Detroit here.

[iheartthed]

I think another thing that might affect big city identity is migratory patterns. Detroiters got to Detroit mostly through one of three ways: NYC/Ellis Island, migrating from the rural South (post Civil War/Industrial Era rush and Great Migration), or Detroit Metro Airport. You can see this is some of Detroit's local culture, like the infamous Coney Islands which got their name from immigrants who migrated to Detroit from Brooklyn. Or all of the ethnic restaurants that are named for places back in the home country.

Lansingites almost certainly have stronger roots to Detroit than any other place on Earth, hence why it sounds almost absurd that they would look more towards Chicago. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a substantial number of Grand Rapidians flowed through Chicago before reaching GR. Grand Rapids is roughly the same distance from Detroit as it is from Chicago, and I don't think Detroit to GR was ever a heavily commuted corridor.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

There are different definitions, but when we start casting nets out to geographies the size of states to define the size of a given "city", my eyebrows start to go up. At a certain point, it just starts to get too damn silly, IMO. (FTR, I have a decades-long track record at SSP of railing against the US census bureau's stupid MSA/CSA county mash-up game, so I'm not making this argument out of convenience)

I find that the Chicago UA and the Toronto GTA are the most apples to apples definitions that we have.

Chicago UA: 8.6M people on 2,442 sq. miles. (2010)

Toronto GTA: 6.4M people on 2,750 sq. miles.(2016)

But yes, when you stretch the borders out to absurd dimensions, there are much more medium and small sized cities around Toronto (as opposed to Chicagoland which is primarily surrounded by cornfields) such that the bloated "regional" measure catches up.

Those figures are more believable, especially for Toronto. Sorry, homers.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by edale

I grew up in Cincinnati. If someone asked me what the nearest big city was, I'd have said Chicago. Cincinnati has skyscrapers and major league sports. Growing up it had flights to like 10 cities in Europe.

Well, if you're already in Cincinnati, and someone asks you that, you kinda have to answer another (bigger) city; it's implicit in the question. If the person asking the question considered that Cincy met their definition of "a big city", then they wouldn't be asking that.

I consider Montreal a big city, but if I'm in downtown Mtl and someone who's there already says they want to "know where the nearest big city is", I'd direct them to NYC. It does not mean I don't consider Montreal a big city, just that obviously, if you're there and are looking for a big city, it's because you (arbitrarily) don't find this one big enough for you.

The "nearest big city" in southern Ohio is Cincy. If you're in Cincy and are STILL looking for a big city somewhere, then Chicago. And if you're squarely in the middle of the Loop and you're asking someone "hey, would you happen to know where the nearest decently-sized city is?", I would assume they'll send you to NYC. (Or Shanghai/Tokyo.)

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Lansingites almost certainly have stronger roots to Detroit than any other place on Earth, hence why it sounds almost absurd that they would look more towards Chicago. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a substantial number of Grand Rapidians flowed through Chicago before reaching GR. Grand Rapids is roughly the same distance from Detroit as it is from Chicago, and I don't think Detroit to GR was ever a heavily commuted corridor.

I'm curious how much of Western Michigan's familiarity/preference (?) for Chicago instead of Detroit comes from interacting with what Wisconsinites lovingly call "FIBs"? Sounds like a lot of Chicagoland vacations out that way.

[ssiguy]

Chicago is the biggest city in Illinois as are Milwaukee in Wisconsin, Detroit in Michigan, Cleveland in Ohio, and Toronto in Ontario.

What's the difference between the 4? Toronto is the only one that is a capitol city.

[Docere]

Golden Horseshoe is a stretch. Toronto-Hamilton, a more reasonable measure, comes in around 7 million.

[Razor]

A little OT, but I like how the U.S has a real strong mid west..I mean Chicago was America's second city, and probably still is for legacy reasons..Had Winnipeg grown into a Montreal sized beast, then we would have some of that going on up here.It would politically balance out the country better as well. I also agree with the Toronto- Hamilton model to measure Toronto..Heck you can even throw in Oshawa/Whitby. 7-8m sounds about right to me.