Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's true that Downtown, Chicago does win, but that changes when you talk metro area.
It goes beyond "downtown"; virtually the entire city of Chicago is built denser than Toronto. I am not all that familiar with Toronto Suburbs, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are denser.
It goes beyond "downtown"; virtually the entire city of Chicago is built denser than Toronto. I am not all that familiar with Toronto Suburbs, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are denser.
Toronto suburbs are denser, probably denser than anything in the US.
Toronto and Chicago have similar size city limits and similar populations; both are around 12,000 per square mile. Toronto's city limits contain a higher % of the metro, so even if the suburbs were the same Toronto's metro would be denser.
The biggest difference might be Chicago has more variation, Chicago has mostly has a larger contigously dense area. The North Side is probably denser than a similar size area of Toronto (Old Toronto?). But Chicago also has decayed area which lost a lot of population. Toronto lacks anything similar.
Toronto suburbs are denser, probably denser than anything in the US.
Toronto and Chicago have similar size city limits and similar populations; both are around 12,000 per square mile. Toronto's city limits contain a higher % of the metro, so even if the suburbs were the same Toronto's metro would be denser.
The biggest difference might be Chicago has more variation, Chicago has mostly has a larger contigously dense area. The North Side is probably denser than a similar size area of Toronto (Old Toronto?). But Chicago also has decayed area which lost a lot of population. Toronto lacks anything similar.
Any city thats is old has lost population at one point due to larger homes, jobs and other stuff that goes into living in a city, throughout time it has happened mostly in the 70s.
Any city thats is old has lost population at one point due to larger homes, jobs and other stuff that goes into living in a city, throughout time it has happened mostly in the 70s.
You mean Chicago or Toronto?
I don't think anything happened differently in the 70's. Toronto (city proper) has shown consistent population gains and Chicago (city proper) has shown consistent population losses. This has pretty much been true since WWII.
The difference is that Chicago has a denser core, while Toronto has denser neigborhoods, so the overall density is about the same.
Any city thats is old has lost population at one point due to larger homes, jobs and other stuff that goes into living in a city, throughout time it has happened mostly in the 70s.
No, depends on the city. Toronto in it's present city limits has never lost population:
Did stagnant in the 70s and 80s, but no decline. Toronto isn't really that old anyway; it's much newer than Chicago. Parts of the south and west sides of Chicago have seen abandonment, I don't think that has happened at all in Toronto.
what are you defining as "core" and "neighborhoods"?
For Chicago, I would say South Loop, Loop, Near North Side, and all the North Side lakefront neighborhoods. The density usually drops off a few blocks inland, so it would be a very long, narrow corridor, kinda like the Toronto corridor along Yonge.
For Chicago, I would say South Loop, Loop, Near North Side, and all the North Side lakefront neighborhoods. The density usually drops off a few blocks inland, so it would be a very long, narrow corridor, kinda like the Toronto corridor along Yonge.
That seems fair, just through me off you are not calling those "neighborhoods" as those are THE neighborhoods in chicago, though that leaves out areas like Albany Park (which is one of the densest in the city), Wicker Park/Bucktown/Logan Square, Northcenter, and West Loop.
It depends of course what you mean by 'chicago' and by 'toronto'. The BIG measure, Chicagoland vs Greater Golden Horseshoe (closest comparables), goes approximately like this:
Chicago CSA area is ~ 10.9K square miles, with a population of 9.8 million, for a 'density' of ~900 per square mile. Golden Horseshoe area is ~12.2K square miles with a population of 8.8 million, for a density ~720 per square mile.
The formal 'cities' themselves are quite comparable .. chicago population 2.7 million, area 228 square miles, or 11,840 per square mile. Toronto population 2.6 million, area 243 square miles, or 10,700 per square miles.
'Downtowns' it depends on your definition. The Toronto 'downtown' and 'southern core' area has a residential population ~ 180K over ~ 5 square miles, or about 36,000 per square mile. I don't know what the Chicago comparative would be.
BIG Toronto is currently growing faster than BIG Chicago. Golden Horseshoe population is projected to be 11.5 million in 2031. If BIG Chicago growth continues at the same pace as it has for the past 10 years, CSA population will project to about 10.8 million, overtaken by Toronto in about 2023.
Toronto city is projected at 3 million by 2020, and 3.5 million by 2030. All those condos and more, will be filled. I don't know what is forecast for Chicago city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
