[thurmas]

I thought I would start a debate here on what you think the American equivilant of Canadian major cites are here are mine.

Winnipeg = St.Louis both are midwestern gateways to our respective west's and we grow at steady rates.

Montreal= Boston both are similar in size and history and rich in culture.

Calgary= Dallas both are sterotypical oil rich cocky boom towns.

Edmonton= Houston both are just as big as their rival city's but just don't seem to get as much attention.

Vancouver= San Fran both were home to hippie movements and counter culture and are very progressive cities

Toronto= Atlanta many will disagree here but Toronto never has the character or history of New York it's much more similar to Atlanta in size and in being rather bland corporate cities.

Hamilton = Pittsburgh too easy both are our steel cities and have yellow and black iconic football teams.

[ue]

American and Canadian cities are pretty different in general. Both fit under the North American (you could include Australia and New Zealand in this) style of cities, but they are still both different and distinct. Calgary is usually considered one of the more "Americanized" cities in Canada, but it looks very Canadian to me. No city in the U.S. could come up with the density of suburbs, commercial job density, LRT ridershop, or slab apartments with just 1.2 million people. I can see the small connection between Boston and Montreal (some similar architecture, university towns, historically significant, vibrant) but they're still obviously different. Vancouver and San Francisco? Nah, they somewhat comparable politically (both very left leaning) but they look nothing alike. Architecture is completely different, geography/climate, and the Bay Area sprawls out way more (for it's size, if Vancouver were San Francisco's size, I doubt it would sprawl as much). Edmonton to Houston? Minneapolis or Denver make more sense (even though they're still quite different). Houston is far, far sprawlier and far more conservative. And maybe it's just me, but I hear more about Houston than Dallas, making it get more attention, unlike Edmonton. Toronto to Atlanta? Are you kidding me? Toronto's skyline is far more massive, Toronto itself has much more historical architecture, played a bigger role in it's respective country's history, more liberal, different climate, etc. Toronto is Canada's top tier immigration, business, and media centre. Atlanta is not to the U.S.

[MonctonRad]

As far as the Maritimes are concerned:

Halifax - Boston
Saint John - Portland (Me)
Moncton - Bangor (Me)
Fredericton - Augusta (Me)

Regarding a couple of your other comparisons:

Montreal I have most commonly heard being compared to NYC
Toronto is Canada's Chicago ( this is a no brainer)

[ue]

^Toronto is Canada's answer to New York. Both are their country's respective top tier city. #1 for business, tourism, transit connections, entertainment/media, population, immigration, etc. In terms of actual size and look, it is more comparable to Chicago.

[caltrane74]

haha.... Toronto to Atlanta.

Altanta to Calgary if your being serious guy. for me Calgary is the Canadian version of Dallas.

And Edmonton is our Houston.

Hamilton is our philedelphia.

Vancouver is our Seattle.

Windsor is our detroit.

Niagara Falls is the Canadian Las Vegas.

Obviously we need more cities here....

[MonkeyRonin]

Toronto= Atlanta many will disagree here but Toronto never has the character or history of New York it's much more similar to Atlanta in size and in being rather bland corporate cities.

D'ohoho :jester:

[thurmas]

Toronto is not like New York, Toronto has had zero important historical moments,it doesn't have an urban character like New Yorkers do and it tries far to hard to be similar to American cities instead of just being itself which is a successful but bland economic major centre.Bland can be good Toronto is very stable and wealthy and realatively safe but what I am trying to say as a city Toronto doesn't have the history or character of a New York, Chicago or even Montreal.

[softee]

I don't get the whole "Toronto is bland" thing. Whenever I'm walking around the downtown area neighbourhoods, I'm too distracted by all the interesting sights, sounds and smells to notice the supposed blandness.

Toronto is obviously Canada's New York. It is more similar to Chicago in terms of size, layout and geography, but everything else about the city's role and status within Canada mirrors NYC .

[vid]

Thunder Bay is definitely the Santa Fe of Canada.

[dleung]

Yellowknife is the New York of the Northwest Territories...

[MonkeyRonin]

Toronto is not like New York, Toronto has had zero important historical moments,it doesn't have an urban character like New Yorkers do and it tries far to hard to be similar to American cities instead of just being itself which is a successful but bland economic major centre.Bland can be good Toronto is very stable and wealthy and realatively safe but what I am trying to say as a city Toronto doesn't have the history or character of a New York, Chicago or even Montreal.

Considering you draw upon such important characteristics of cities such as the colour of their football teams to compare them, surely the city's status as the country's biggest city and economic centre, cultural centre, most diverse, having the most skyscrapers, etc, etc. would be enough to make it the equivalent of "Canada's New York"? If you want to compare any country's collection of cities to America's, the biggest will pretty much always be the NYC-equivalent. Similarly, if you were to ever compare a country's cities to Canada's, their largest would be..."_____'s Toronto". Frankly the whole exercise is tiring and pointless (always seems to come up here every few months...), but that part at least should be pretty clear.

And Atlanta, really? Aside from neither being close to their countries equivalent, the built form, architecture, demographics, culture, history, topography, infrastructure, and climate are about as far from each other as possible.

I'll otherwise just ignore the "blah blah Toronto is bland" stuff. Seem too deep rooted a Canadianism to ever bother attempting to change (despite its inherent irony).

[PhilippeMtl]

Sorry Torontians, but you cannot compare any Canadian city to New York.

Architecture:
Toronto is a good mix between Chicago (old architecture) and Vancouver.
Culture:
I will compare Toronto to Boston or Washington
Economy:
I will give you this one, hub city.
Transport:
You cannot compare TTC to MTA. Toronto is somewhere between Philadephia and Chicago.

Overall, I will say Toronto is more similar to Chicago with a more vibrant downtown.

[caltrane74]

Why do the Americans make all those movies in Toronto, if it were not for the fact that at ground level Toronto looks like New York..?

[lawsond]

Yellowknife is the New York of the Northwest Territories...


Haha. Funny because it's true.

Halifax is Canada's Boston...it is culturally and physically similar. Even has the commons and public gardens and too many other similarities to mention.

Montreal?? may be Canada's New Orleans but certainly not Boston. The two cities are totally different.

Comparing Toronto to Atlanta is very close to "trolling". The two cities have almost nothing in common. Nada. Toronto is not at all bland. It is ethnically teeming and is the financial and cultural centre of the country. Where on earth is Thurmas coming from??

[MonkeyRonin]

Sorry Torontians, but you cannot compare any Canadian city to New York.

You can't really compare any Canadian city to Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, and so on either, in any actual realistic sense. I think the point of the exercise however, is to find the American equivalents of Canadian cities, rather than what is actually the most similar.

[PhilippeMtl]

Haha. Funny because it's true.

Halifax is Canada's Boston...it is culturally and physically similar. Even has the commons and public gardens and too many other similarities to mention.

Montreal?? may be Canada's New Orleans but certainly not Boston. The two cities are totally different.

Comparing Toronto to Atlanta is very close to "trolling". The two cities have almost nothing in common. Nada. Toronto is not at all bland. It is ethnically teeming and is the financial and cultural centre of the country. Where on earth is Thurmas coming from??

Comparing Montreal to New Orleans and Halifax to Boston IS trolling...

[caltrane74]

I think he meant Montreal and New Orleans have a french culture.

Not trolling by a longshot.

Halifax seems a logical choice to compare to Boston, seeing that they are both atlantic seaboard cities. And Halifax is our only reasonable representation in this respect.

[PhilippeMtl]

I think he meant Montreal and New Orleans have a french culture.

Not trolling by a longshot.


A french culture? big deal. Toronto and Phoenix are similar cause they both speak english...

And Halifax to Boston? Seriously, Halifax to Portland,Me seems a more logical comparaison.

[ue]

Sorry Torontians, but you cannot compare any Canadian city to New York.

Architecture:
Toronto is a good mix between Chicago (old architecture) and Vancouver.
Culture:
I will compare Toronto to Boston or Washington
Economy:
I will give you this one, hub city.
Transport:
You cannot compare TTC to MTA. Toronto is somewhere between Philadephia and Chicago.

Overall, I will say Toronto is more similar to Chicago with a more vibrant downtown.

I should clarify...when I said transit connections and Toronto a few posts back I was meaning the connections to other cities (Pearson and JFK are their country's respective largest airports, Toronto has great rail access to other cities via VIA, Amtrak, GO) which other cities in Canada don't have to the same extent.

[PoscStudent]

I saw Portland, Maine mentioned for St. John's before.

San Fransisco's geography is very similar to St. John's and I've seen comparisons made about both cities. Both are foggy, hilly, on the ocean and have many historic buildings. I believe SF use to have a lot of problems with constructing high-rises as well.

[caltrane74]

A french culture? big deal.

oooooohhhh. The Irony.

[PoscStudent]

Comparing Montreal to New Orleans and Halifax to Boston IS trolling...

If Montreal don't want New Orleans it may not be a bad one for St. John's. Both are offshore oil cities, people from both places talk funny, both have rich histories and unique cultures.

[yyzer]

no offence to the OP, but this is a real stupid & pointless thread...there are no direct correlations between any U.S. and Canadian cities - all are unique..

[Ramako]

If Montreal don't want New Orleans it may not be a bad one for St. John's. Both are offshore oil cities, people from both places talk funny, both have rich histories and unique cultures.


Both are also big party towns.

I like the comparison of Boston to Halifax. Besides being old New England-style college towns on the sea, both cities had a historically high level of travel and commerce between them. Lots of Red Sox fans in Halifax.

[dleung]

Toronto is not like New York, Toronto has had zero important historical moments,it doesn't have an urban character like New Yorkers do and it tries far to hard to be similar to American cities instead of just being itself which is a successful but bland economic major centre.Bland can be good Toronto is very stable and wealthy and realatively safe but what I am trying to say as a city Toronto doesn't have the history or character of a New York, Chicago or even Montreal.

Considering you draw upon such important characteristics of cities such as the colour of their football teams to compare them, surely the city's status as the country's biggest city and economic centre, cultural centre, most diverse, having the most skyscrapers, etc, etc. would be enough to make it the equivalent of "Canada's New York"? If you want to compare any country's collection of cities to America's, the biggest will pretty much always be the NYC-equivalent. Similarly, if you were to ever compare a country's cities to Canada's, their largest would be..."_____'s Toronto". Frankly the whole exercise is tiring and pointless (always seems to come up here every few months...), but that part at least should be pretty clear.

And Atlanta, really? Aside from neither being close to their countries equivalent, the built form, architecture, demographics, culture, history, topography, infrastructure, and climate are about as far from each other as possible.

I'll otherwise just ignore the "blah blah Toronto is bland" stuff. Seem too deep rooted a Canadianism to ever bother attempting to change (despite its inherent irony).

New Yorkers would never spend this much time responding :rolleyes:

[caltrane74]

Yes, this thread is pure crap, but its fun crap. And I am all for fun.

Toronto is the New York of Canada.
Toronto is the Sydney of Canada.
Toronto is the Paris of Canada.
Toronto is the Milan of Canada.
Toronto is the Frankfurt of Canada.
Toronto is the Moscow of Canada.
Toronto is the Stockholm oF Canada.
Toronto is the Sao Paulo of Canada.
Toronto is the Johannesburg of Canada.
Toronto is the Shanghai of Canada.
Toronto is the Tokyo of Canada.

[yyzer]

Yes, this thread is pure crap, but its fun crap. And I am all for fun.

Toronto is the New York of Canada.
Toronto is the Sydney of Canada.
Toronto is the Paris of Canada.
Toronto is the Milan of Canada.
Toronto is the Frankfurt of Canada.
Toronto is the Moscow of Canada.
Toronto is the Stockholm oF Canada.
Toronto is the Sao Paulo of Canada.
Toronto is the Johannesburg of Canada.
Toronto is the Shanghai of Canada.
Toronto is the Tokyo of Canada.

LOL....:notacrook:

[Gerrard]

Hrmph. I don't know why we play this game.

I understand the OP was trolling but seriously, the cities really don't need to be compared at all.

[MonkeyRonin]

New Yorkers would never spend this much time responding


Oh please. I knew someone would make a comment along these lines, that responding to some ignorant claims and intellectual dishonesty would "prove" that Torontonians are insecure, and as such, occupy some bland/small/unimportant burg, unlike the Worldly People of New York who of course, who don't care what anyone says. :rolleyes: Oldest trolling technique/cheap response in the book.

Though if you would like to test that theory, here you go: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=105

Make a thread calling NYC a bland corporate city and call it America's Thunder Bay, wait for the responses. ;)

[caltrane74]

dleung, admitted that he is a troll. You can't use logic with him. You have to play his troll games, to get the most use outta him.

[dleung]

I wouldn't hv picked on you if you didn't substitute someone else's idiocy with your own:
Similarly, if you were to ever compare a country's cities to Canada's, their largest would be..."_____'s Toronto".

lol, who does this... is Sydney Australia's Toronto? Is Yellowknife the New York of the Northwest Territories? :haha:

[caltrane74]

Yes, Sydney is the Toronto or New York of Austraila. Although, Melborne is a pretty big city too.

[Winnipegger]

Guys want to know something cool? Toronto is Canada's Toronto. Neat hey?:banana:

[floobie]

I can think of exactly ONE semi-ok comparison, and that's Vancouver and Seattle. It sort of helps that they're basically right next to each other on the West coast. The rest... no point, really. All one can really do is compare a few factors between two cities, and then proclaim them to be similar, even though loads of other factors don't line up at all.

There are similarities, but really, Canadian cities are distinctly Canadian... they have their own identity, they don't need to be compared to US cities to be relevant.

[MonkeyRonin]

I wouldn't hv picked on you if you didn't substitute someone else's idiocy with your own:

lol, who does this... is Sydney Australia's Toronto?

Absolutely. The analogy easily holds in that example. Problem?


Is Yellowknife the New York of the Northwest Territories?

You could make the claim if you really wanted to, though, being a mere 0.1% the size of New York and the centre of a territory rather than country, its rather silly. This is what we call intellectual dishonesty.

[dleung]

Absolutely. The analogy easily holds in that example. Problem?

It's misleading because it implies Sydney is anything like Toronto, when it's simply Australia's largest city... especially considering that Melbourne is more like Toronto than Sydney

And Sydneysiders would be offended :rolleyes:

[caltrane74]

but they are both the largest cities in their respective countrys.

[MonkeyRonin]

It's misleading because it implies Sydney is anything like Toronto, when it's simply Australia's largest city... especially considering that Melbourne is more like Toronto than Sydney

Yes, in actuality, Melbourne is probably the more similar city, but Sydney is the equivalent of Toronto in Australia - the biggest city, economic centre, immigration centre (?), skyscraper centre, etc. Seems to take a backseat to Melbourne as the Australian cultural centre though.

Of course, all the cities are different, and their relationships within their countries are different (Sydney and Melbourne seem to have a lot more in common than Toronto and Montreal do, for example), hence the comparisons are rather vain and serve absolutely no purpose, but, when raised as a topic of discussion, these comparisons would seem the most accurate.


And Sydneysiders would be offended :rolleyes:

Nice one.

[caltrane74]

You see, I told you he admitted that he was one a while back.

He takes pride in it.

Dont fall into his game.

[MolsonExport]

North Bottlefart is the Milwaukee of North Western Saskatchewan.

[Andy6]

A french culture? big deal. Toronto and Phoenix are similar cause they both speak english...

And Halifax to Boston? Seriously, Halifax to Portland,Me seems a more logical comparaison.

I'd say Boston is a lot like Halifax in many ways. Just more of it. Both have a lot of colleges, both are maritime cities with long histories. There are bits of them that look fairly similar. There are many historical connections between the two. People are just harrumphing because there's such a fixation on the forum about population figures, and cities that happen to have fewer people in them (no matter how interesting and full of history and other significance) are supposed to know their place and not claim any impressive characteristics (such as comparability to a prestigious U.S. city like Boston).

There are definitely some similarities between Toronto and Atlanta, notably the odd ahistoricality of both of them -- they are both cities where 'now' is everything and where relatively few people have any deep roots. They're both rather plain-jane aesthetically, although Toronto seems to me to be much more interesting (having only been to Atlanta once). But in North American terms, if Canada were to be thought of as just a region comparable to the U.S. South, it would not be hard to see Toronto and Atlanta as occupying rather similar places in their very distinctive regions. Both are latecomers in their regions and, perhaps for that very reason, able to escape the parochialness and inwardness of those regions better than other cities (and therefore to grow very large and prosperous).

[haligonia]

I agree that Halifax is Canada's Boston. Both have similar Colonial architecture, both have large connections to the sea and the military, both have gorgeous public spaces, both have several universities, both are quite culturally diverse, and both are the largest cities in their respective regions. (Atlantic Canada/New England).

Yes, Boston is several times larger than Halifax, and as a result is more vibrant and has more of a big city feel. However, this thread is not about comparing one city to another. It is finding the American equivalent of a Canadian city. On many fronts, Halifax does not compare to Boston. Regardless, it is still Canada's Boston. I have met several Haligonians and Bostonians that agree with me.

[ue]

I can think of exactly ONE semi-ok comparison, and that's Vancouver and Seattle. It sort of helps that they're basically right next to each other on the West coast. The rest... no point, really. All one can really do is compare a few factors between two cities, and then proclaim them to be similar, even though loads of other factors don't line up at all.

There are similarities, but really, Canadian cities are distinctly Canadian... they have their own identity, they don't need to be compared to US cities to be relevant.

Even that one doesn't make sense. Yes they're geographically similar and therefore share some things in common, like climate and some architecture (though Belltown and Yaletown look nothing alike). But they're quite different. Seattle has freeways everywhere, even one ripping through it's downtown. Vancouver has very few freeways and none that come even close to Downtown Vancouver. Seattle is a big corporate city, while Vancouver lacks the corporate vibe for it's size (making Calgary the hub for business in the West). Seattle has more culture and museums compared to Vancouver. Vancouver is much denser and is better at producing a mixed-use environment than Seattle. Vancouver has a hugely successful urban rail network which was completed in the '80s (even Portland which is smaller and similar in size to Vancouver got LRT in the '80s), whereas Seattle only opened an LRT line in 2009. Seattle has a big Asian population, but it's not like Vancouver's (keep in mind, Vancouver is pretty much the only destination on the West Coast in Canada for Asian immigrants, whereas Seattle has to compete with Los Angeles, San Fran, Portland, San Diego, etc.). Both city's operate differently, think differently, and look differently.

[dleung]

I think Vancouver has a lot more in common with San Francisco than Seattle... hippie culture, yet most expensive metros in their respective countries, anti-freeway, high density, quality of life, large mid-rise districts, losing relevance to suburbs not because of lack of desirability but due to restrictive development policies, massive Asian demographic, etc etc. Anywhere in Vancouver proper north of 16 Ave looks identical to inner city SF, especially with the steep streets.

Of course I would never say "Canada's San Fran", unless I wanna be a 40 year old virgin :rolleyes:

[SpikePhanta]

I would say the major thing Vancouver and Seattle share in common is that the two cities have similar % of homelessness and geography/climat.

Also Vancouver is the financial capital of Western canada, Calgary is HQ capital.

[zoomer]

Perhaps a better way to look at it is to say which cities share a common history or bond and influenced one another.

In this regard, Victoria was heavily influenced by San Francisco in its early years, especially starting with the gold rush in the late 1850s. Many influential historical figures in Victoria's history came from SF. SF has North America's oldest Chinatown, followed by Victoria and both were major cities and trading partners on the west coast until Vancouver eclipsed Victoria in the early 1900s.

[agrant]

Enough with the US comparisons. What about China?

[UrbanGreen]

Vancouver is definitely most comparable to Seattle.... housing wise anyway. Both cities sit between mountains and water, leaving them not a lot of space to build out. Drive around Seattle's suburbs and compare them to Vancouver's, you'll see both of them implement the same style of neighborhoods with similar looking houses and similar sized yards.

[Winnipegger]

Enough with the US comparisons. What about China?

Toronto is Canada's Shanghai.
Montreal is Canada's Beijing.
Vancouver is Canada's Guangzhou.
Ottawa is Canada's Shenzhen.
Calgary is Canada's Tianjin.
Edmonton is Canada's Chongqing.
Quebec City is Canada's Hong Kong.
Winnipeg is Canada's Dongguan.
Hamilton is Canada's Nanjing.
London is Canada's Wuhan.

There, you happy? :jester:

[BretttheRiderFan]

no offence to the OP, but this is a real stupid & pointless thread...there are no direct correlations between any U.S. and Canadian cities - all are unique..

times 2

Well here's a list of the largest in America I'll try to find a similar-ish counterpart

New York....well I'll just say Toronto, the biggest, best skylines, centre of media, financial offices, etc

Los Angeles...the easiest is Vancouver, both centres of film making, west coast, with mountains, lots of homeless people lots of great food

Chicago- Winnipeg, the gateways to the West, long histories, the historical powerhouses of the regions, great culture, railways, crime

Houston- Calgary..known for cowboy culture, oil offices, more conservative cities

Phoenix- Kelowna...most desert-like Canadian city, home of many retirees

Philadelphia-Montreal...both very important in their nations histories, distinct cultures, cuisines, formerly the largest cities in the nations

San Diego...Maybe Victoria

Dallas-Edmonton fewer offices than their southern counterparts/interstateprovincial rivals, historically better sports teams

[dsim249]

^ So Regina, Saskatoon and Quebec City could all be New Orleans? :sly: Somethin' ain't right about that.

[c@taract_soulj@h]

Vancouver - Seattle
Victoria - Spokane/Bellingham?
Edm - Houston
Cal - Denver but could easily be a Texas city, duh!
Regina - Omaha?
Saskatoon - Des Moines?
Winnipeg - Minneapolis
Windsor - Detroit
Hamilton - Pittsburgh
Toronto - Philadelphia
Niagara Falls - Las Vegas yeah but funny...the strip in Virginia/Myrtle beach reminds me more of the Falls
Montreal - Boston
Halifax - Portland (Boston could work of course too)
St. Johns - Place reminded me of Ireland hands down...just sayin'

New York is incomparable...even to Toronto...sorry guys, just doesn't work (Yonge/Dundas Square-Times Sq. at best!)

[Tom Servo]

care for an american perspective?

to me, toronto is canada's chicago. i realize it's your nyc as in #1 city, but the two cities are just WORLDS apart. also philadelphia doesn't feel as big and metropolitan as toronto. as for the other cities, idk. i just wanted to through in my opinion about toronto... :tup:

[Boreal]

Just based on my own general feel, with different criteria adjoining each pair of cities my list is as follows:

Toronto and Chicago

Winnipeg and Milwaukee

Vancouver and Portland

Edmonton and Minneapolis

Calgary and Houston

Halifax and Boston

I think those are the closest comparisons of some of the largest Canadian cities. I can't think of good comparisons for Hamilton, Montreal or Quebec City. I think Winnipeg - Milwaukee, Edmonton - Minneapolis and Toronto - Chicago are the three most accurate comparisons. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[PPAR]

I find it difficult to figure out what the American counterparts to Montreal and Toronto would be. I suppose that speaks to a unique "sense of self" that those cities seem to have achieved.
Calgary and Denver definitely have a similar vibe. I know everyone likes to think of Calgary as Canada's Dallas- but this only really relates to the presence of oil companies, and is not reflective of the feel of the place. For one thing, Dallas is in a completely different league for population. Denver on the other hand does not seem massively bigger, has a very similar setting and both places have lifestyles that tend to look to the mountains for recreation.
Vancouver and Seattle are definitely similar. Although to my mind Seattle has a more business oriented vibe in comparison to Vancouver's resort town vibe. I think this is partially because the weather in Cascadia is considered crappy in an American context, but great in a Canadian one.

[MonkeyRonin]

If we're talking just what is most similar (not the equivalent in the other country, which has already been discussed to death), I'd say it'd go something like this:

Toronto - Chicago
Montreal - Philadelphia
Vancouver - Seattle
Calgary - Denver
Ottawa - New Haven maybe?
Edmonton - Minneapolis
Quebec City - Nothing
Winnipeg - Milwaukee
Hamilton - Pittsburgh
Halifax - Portland, ME

[Alexcaban]

Yes, this thread is pure crap, but its fun crap. And I am all for fun.

Toronto is the New York of Canada.
Toronto is the Sydney of Canada.
Toronto is the Paris of Canada.
Toronto is the Milan of Canada.
Toronto is the Frankfurt of Canada.
Toronto is the Moscow of Canada.
Toronto is the Stockholm oF Canada.
Toronto is the Sao Paulo of Canada.
Toronto is the Johannesburg of Canada.
Toronto is the Shanghai of Canada.
Toronto is the Tokyo of Canada.

HAAA if anything Montreal is the Paris of Canada and in the great words of Jean Drapeau "Let Toronto become Milan, Montreal will always be Rome."

[caltrane74]

Milan is the largest and most populous centre of Italy. So this makes more sense to compare Toronto than Rome, which is yesterdays city. Yeah, big deal, it was the capital of the western world, now it plays second fiddle to Milan in all respex. The Italians are more down with their Lombardo-Germanic roots than their great Latin past.

Frankfurt is the business capital of Germany, even if the Rhine Valley and Berlin are bigger.

Funny enough, Frankfurt, is actually named after the French.. Fort of the Franks. Yes, the French were Germans before they were French. If the French didnt pick up latin, they would be speaking low Frankish like their brothers in Holland, today.

[Cambridgite]

I've sometimes heard Waterloo Region dubbed as 'Silicon Valley North', so perhaps I could go with San Jose. Both are sprawling agglomerations with high tech making up a significant chunk of the corporate base. However, I don't think the scale is comparable, and there is little else we have in common with them. But if I were to pick San Jose, I think it would only be right to consider Toronto San Fran, Guelph would be Berkeley (university with lots of hippies!), and Hamilton would be Oakland. :P

But really, Toronto is Chicago in my mind. It's Canada's equivalent to NYC I suppose, but other than being the biggest city, it shares too many parallels with Chicago (comparable populations, location on the lake, etc).

As for Waterloo Region, I think more a realistic comparison would be to some conurbation of smaller cities that aren't known for much, such as Raleigh-Durham or Winston-Salem. More comparable in size as well.

Vancouver = Seattle
Calgary and Edmonton = Houston

[CorbeauNoir]

I'd say Halifax-Boston is pretty accurate. Halifax is obviously much smaller but that's not the real criteria here. Both are particularly characterized by their colonial origins, both are important port cities and have a highly prominent university and military presence. A link between the two already exists on account of the Explosion.

In fact Norfolk, VA is another strong candidate for comparison - and the two are sister cities at that.

[MolsonExport]

Toronto is Canada's Shanghai.
Montreal is Canada's Beijing.
Vancouver is Canada's Guangzhou.
Ottawa is Canada's Shenzhen.
Calgary is Canada's Tianjin.
Edmonton is Canada's Chongqing.
Quebec City is Canada's Hong Kong.
Winnipeg is Canada's Dongguan.
Hamilton is Canada's Nanjing.
London is Canada's Wuhan.

There, you happy? :jester:

Is Kitchener-Waterloo Canada's Kunming?

[Acajack]

From an economic and business perspective, Toronto is unquestionably the New York of Canada.

But quite honestly, from an entertainment/cultural/media perspective, the New York of Canada is... New York. And the Los Angeles of Canada is... Los Angeles.

People across the country complain about how Toronto-centric the “national” Canadian media is, but in all honesty if you compared the situation with how metropolis-centric the media is in most places in the world (Montreal in Quebec, Paris in France, London in the UK, Tokyo in Japan, Stockholm in Sweden, the NYC/LA two-headed beast in the U.S., etc.), Toronto doesn’t throw its weight around the country that much.

Seriously folks, Toronto is actually quite weak in its cross-Canada imprint as a media/cultural/entertainment metropolis. It may be the centre of the universe for*Canadian* (or English Canadian) culture, media and entertainment, but that doesn’t mean it is the centre of the universe for culture, media and entertainment for *Canadians*. For most Canadians, that latter function is mostly filled out by New York and Los Angeles.

Even on its own turf, Toronto is overshadowed by NYC and LA (and even some other American cities perhaps).

But this isn’t completely a bad thing, because the weakness of Toronto-centrism (again, some of you will scoff at this but if you looked abroad you would see what I mean) in Canada allows regional cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Halifax, etc. (skipping over Quebec deliberately here) to develop stronger local identities that you might otherwise expect to find. Precisely because Toronto doesn’t occupy most of the space like the largest city often does in most countries.

In most of the Canadian cities above, there is a fairly strong local media-driven culture, with a “national” layer on top of it that is very predominantly American (made in NYC/LA) with only a few “national Canadian” elements – usually Toronto-produced it is true.

Nobody in Canada travels to Toronto to hold up a sign that says “HI MOM IN SIOUX LOOKOUT, ONT.” outside the window of Canada AM. Young people in Brandon, Man. don’t make pilgrimages to Toronto to attend TV show tapings like Americans (and many Canadians) do for David Letterman, etc.

When I peruse Canadian magazines, it is always funny to see pictures from the Toronto social scene that is supposedly a reflection of Canada’s who’s-who. In reality, 95% of the people who are pictured there are total nobodies outside of the Golden Horseshoe. In fact, a majority are probably nobodies within the boundaries of the Golden Horseshoe as well. But when I look at similar pages in Quebec magazines about events in Montreal, 90% of the faces would be familiar to every Aunt Marie-Thérèse from Val-d’Or to Baie-Comeau...

All of which to say that people in the ROC who are fussy about their regional identities and specificity actually have good reason to be appreciative of Toronto. T.O. gives them a lot more space than they fully realize.

[yaletown_fella]

I'd say Toronto is Chicago and Vancouver with Atlanta's layout (without the freeway partitions) . Toronto and Chicago's layouts are very different.

[Gerrard]

"When I peruse Canadian magazines, it is always funny to see pictures from the Toronto social scene that is supposedly a reflection of Canada’s who’s-who. In reality, 95% of the people who are pictured there are total nobodies outside of the Golden Horseshoe. In fact, a majority are probably nobodies within the boundaries of the Golden Horseshoe as well. But when I look at similar pages in Quebec magazines about events in Montreal, 90% of the faces would be familiar to every Aunt Marie-Thérèse from Val-d’Or to Baie-Comeau..."

To be honest there's not much of a difference in what you're saying there. The Golden Horseshoe is about as populous as the entire province of Quebec. So if if you're trying to make the point that somehow being a celebrity is more meaningful in Quebec, you haven't, since most of the people in Toronto social scene pics would be recognizable to people in the GH.

If you're trying to make the point that Canada is culturally very regional, then yes, that's correct.

Now if you were also trying to make the point that English speaking Canada is somehow more culturally rich because it is far more open to and accepting of the cultural output of the continent versus a small region of it, then you'd be correct there as well.

Again these city comparisons are pretty much silly. Since each city in each province in each state in each country occupies a very different position and history in its country. You could visit any one and find similarities and they'd all be valid. Geez there are parts of Barcelona that remind me of Toronto but it doesn't make them similar at all. I've found L.A. is more similar to Toronto than New York is and would never mistake being in Chicago for being in Toronto at the same time thinking I was in Montreal walking down the streets of Boston or Pittsburgh. But again none of them are remotely alike.

[Acajack]

To be honest there's not much of a difference in what you're saying there. The Golden Horseshoe is about as populous as the entire province of Quebec. So if if you're trying to make the point that somehow being a celebrity is more meaningful in Quebec, you haven't, since most of the people in Toronto social scene pics would be recognizable to people in the GH.



Actually, I am not really sure that I agree that most of the people in the Toronto social scene pics would be that recognizable to the average person in the Golden Horseshoe, most of which would probably be more familiar with faces from the New York or Los Angeles social scene, to be quite honest.

As for people in Quebec, the celebrity recognition factors of the NYC/LA vs. Montreal social scenes probably balance out.

I don't really have an opinion on whether being a celebrity in Quebec, the GTA, English-speaking Canada, the U.S. or wherever, is more "meaningful" in one place versus another... Unless you equate face-and-name recognition with "meaningfulness", which I don't necessarily do.

[Acajack]

Since each city in each province in each state in each country occupies a very different position and history in its country. You could visit any one and find similarities and they'd all be valid. Geez there are parts of Barcelona that remind me of Toronto but it doesn't make them similar at all. I've found L.A. is more similar to Toronto than New York is and would never mistake being in Chicago for being in Toronto at the same time thinking I was in Montreal walking down the streets of Boston or Pittsburgh. But again none of them are remotely alike.

I was thinking about this on the weekend and on this I agree. Lower Manhattan and Harlem are part of the same city (even the same borough) and yet they don't look much alike at all.

Which means that discussions like these can only be "for fun". And they are fun. Just don't expect "victory" with your views - that's when you'll get into trouble.

[Gerrard]

Actually, I am not really sure that I agree that most of the people in the Toronto social scene pics would be that recognizable to the average person in the Golden Horseshoe, most of which would probably be more familiar with faces from the New York or Los Angeles social scene, to be quite honest.

As for people in Quebec, the celebrity recognition factors of the NYC/LA vs. Montreal social scenes probably balance out.

I don't really have an opinion on whether being a celebrity in Quebec, the GTA, English-speaking Canada, the U.S. or wherever, is more "meaningful" in one place versus another... Unless you equate face-and-name recognition with "meaningfulness", which I don't necessarily do.

Oh I'm pretty sure most people in the GH would be more likely to recognize a pic of Hilary and Gaelan Weston over a Muffie Potter Aston or Somers Farkas. If by social scene you mean celebrity, local celebrities would get just as much facial recognition as Hollywood or New York celebrities. If we're talking degrees of "stardom" then, yeah, probably meeting or viewing Angelina Jolie ranks higher on the bucket list list than say Rick Mercer but I'm pretty sure even in London it'd still be better to see snaps of Brangelina versus say Billie Piper.

Now if someone in the GH were to see social scene pics from Quebec they'd be as unlikely to recognize any of the faces there as they would viewing social scene pics from Edmonton. Just as I'm sure someone in Boston would have as much difficulty recognizing the faces from a series of pics taken at a party in St. Louis.

[Acajack]

Now if you were also trying to make the point that English speaking Canada is somehow more culturally rich because it is far more open to and accepting of the cultural output of the continent versus a small region of it, then you'd be correct there as well.


The problem arises when what you are "open" to happens to be one of the most insular cultures in the entire world.

Way back when when I was going to university in Ontario I took some classes in Canadian studies from a cultural angle. One day the prof rolled out some statistics that showed that anglophone Canadians took in something like 97% of "foreign" films and TV programs, whereas francophone Canadians had much higher rates of domestic movie and TV consumption. Domestic TV consumption among francophones was particularly high and represented close to three quarters of viewing time.

So ensued a lot of self-congratulatory comments and back-patting from my classmates, about how English Canadians were so much more open to the world than French Canadians.

The professor then brought everyone back down to earth by saying that that "foreign" stuff was almost all U.S. stuff.

So if you think people are worldly because they are watching The A-Team, BJ and the Bear, Cosby Show and Die Hard (popular stuff at the time), then you go right ahead and think that buddy.

American popular culture is so all-encompassing that it more often than not leaves very little room for anything else. People may be watching technically *foreign* stuff but it's not Akiro Kurosawa, Lars von Trier or Wim Wenders...

In Quebec, if I may say without getting killed here, the cultural diet appears to be a tad more balanced, with homegrown Québécois jostling for position with American stuff (of course - I would never deny that it isn't ubiquitous here), and some stuff from other countries - especially France of course - coming up the middle between the two.

Consider that dubbed Swedish, German and Italian movies show up at mainstream cinemas in Quebec cities as small as 25,000 people every once in a while. Not sure this happens much in the rest of the country, where even large city dwellers complain they can't even get to see all of the *Canadian* films nominated for the Genie Award for Best Picture.

[Gerrard]

The problem arises when what you are "open" to happens to be one of the most insular cultures in the entire world.

Way back when when I was going to university in Ontario I took some classes in Canadian studies from a cultural angle. One day the prof rolled out some statistics that showed that anglophone Canadians took in something like 97% of "foreign" films and TV programs, whereas francophone Canadians had much higher rates of domestic movie and TV consumption. Domestic TV consumption among francophones was particularly high and represented close to three quarters of viewing time.

So ensued a lot of self-congratulatory comments and back-patting from my classmates, about how English Canadians were so much more open to the world than French Canadians.

The professor then brought everyone back down to earth by saying that that "foreign" stuff was almost all U.S. stuff.

So if you think people are worldly because they are watching The A-Team, BJ and the Bear, Cosby Show and Die Hard (popular stuff at the time), then you go right ahead and think that buddy.

American popular culture is so all-encompassing that it more often than not leaves very little room for anything else. People may be watching technically *foreign* stuff but it's not Akiro Kurosawa, Lars von Trier or Wim Wenders...

In Quebec, if I may say without getting killed here, the cultural diet appears to be a tad more balanced, with homegrown Québécois jostling for position with American stuff (of course - I would never deny that it isn't ubiquitous here), and some stuff from other countries - especially France of course - coming up the middle between the two.

Consider that dubbed Swedish, German and Italian movies show up at mainstream cinemas in Quebec cities as small as 25,000 people every once in a while. Not sure this happens much in the rest of the country, where even large city dwellers complain they can't even get to see all of the *Canadian* films nominated for the Genie Award for Best Picture.



American culture is probably the least insular in the world. Americans pull culture from many different sources but place it under the American flag. There is heavy Latin, African American, Asian and European influences/actor/directors/writers in their film and other cultural output. America is a whole continent unto itself with an equal level of diversity as Europe. There is as much difficulty with defining American culture as there is a Canadian culture but it seems easier because there are more common social markers.

[Acajack]

American culture is probably the least insular in the world. Americans pull culture from many different sources but place it under the American flag. .

Ah yes. By taking innovative ideas, purging them of their cultural origin and then carefully repackaging them as American so that their audience is not disturbed in its comfort zone.

Most places in the world take in outside influences and appreciate them for what they are without edulcorating them.

Why should all these singers from abroad have to sing in English in order for their talent to be appreciated? Should the Barber of Seville or Carmen be in English?

There is heavy Latin, African American, Asian and European influences/actor/directors/writers in their film and other cultural output. America is a whole continent unto itself with an equal level of diversity as Europe. There is as much difficulty with defining American culture as there is a Canadian culture but it seems easier because there are more common social markers.

But everybody (at least in the western world and even beyond) does this! The Americans haven't invented anything!

From Germany
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0HuEvYNJNk

From France
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhPz7h3UOHo&feature=related

From Quebec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3eg5vec5c

Best Québécois movie of 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDf-XuYid1A

[Gerrard]

Ah yes. By taking innovative ideas, purging them of their cultural origin and then carefully repackaging them as American so that their audience is not disturbed in its comfort zone.

Most places in the world take in outside influences and appreciate them for what they are without edulcorating them.

Why should all these singers from abroad have to sing in English in order for their talent to be appreciated? Should the Barber of Seville or Carmen be in English?

You are looking at the cultural life of the USA as monolithic, it's not. The repackage is for money and wider audience appeal. It doesn't mean 15 million Americans didn't see the original version of Let The Right One In with subtitles. It means that 30 more million are probably going to see Let Me In.

The U.S. is strange that way, it's huge and wealthy and has the means to remake and repackage. Sweden isn't going to remake "Die Hard" for a Swedish audience because it can't. It doesn't have the means. Would it if it could? Yes, more than likely. Would it recoup the budget? Definitely not. But because it can't I'm sure there are pockets of people that believe they are culturally superior because they can appreciate it in its original form.

Singers from abroad do not need to sing in English and even singers from the USA needn't sing in English either and often don't. The fact is, a measure of how popular you are has to do with how popular you are in America but it doesn't mean there isn't an audience in the U.S. for people who sing in German or especially Spanish.

You have a strange cultural bias about the U.S. without realizing that it's a huge country and more intellectually curious than you give it credit for.

[Acajack]

You are looking at the cultural life of the USA as monolithic, it's not. The repackage is for money and wider audience appeal. It doesn't mean 15 million Americans didn't see the original version of Let The Right One In with subtitles. It means that 30 more million are probably going to see Let Me In. .

If 15 million Americans went to see the original Swedish version, then they did so with deeply discounted tickets as the movie only barely grossed two million in the U.S.:
http://www.austin360.com/movies/hollywood-prefers-remakes-to-foreign-language-titles-539592.html


You have a strange cultural bias about the U.S. without realizing that it's a huge country and more intellectually curious than you give it credit for.

I don't have a bias against the U.S. and I do realize that in a country of 300 million people there are several million exceptions to what I have described.

To be quite honest, I am something of an Americanophile. But one thing I don't do is mistake the U.S. for something that it is not.

[freeweed]

This conversation is starting to remind me of pretty much every single conversation I've ever had about music.

Friend: all music sucks, just look at the pre-packaged crap on the radio today

Me: you know there's a whole lot more out there than just that, right?

Friend: ....

[Acajack]

You are looking at the cultural life of the USA as monolithic, it's not. The repackage is for money and wider audience appeal. (...)
The U.S. is strange that way, it's huge and wealthy and has the means to remake and repackage. Sweden isn't going to remake "Die Hard" for a Swedish audience because it can't. It doesn't have the means. Would it if it could? Yes, more than likely. Would it recoup the budget? Definitely not. But because it can't I'm sure there are pockets of people that believe they are culturally superior because they can appreciate it in its original form.


It's actually a bit of an inside joke in some parts of the world (mostly non-anglo countries) about how Americans take fine wine (read= a good movie in its original language) and then pour so much Coca-Cola into it so that it doesn't taste at all like wine anymore, yet still pretend it's fine wine they're drinking.

[Acajack]

This conversation is starting to remind me of pretty much every single conversation I've ever had about music.

Friend: all music sucks, just look at the pre-packaged crap on the radio today

Me: you know there's a whole lot more out there than just that, right?

Friend: ....

Phew! For a second there I thought Freeweed was gonna accuse me of bringing this into Quebec/Canada and French/English territory...

But I can do "USA vs. the world" or "Anglo-America vs. the world" just as well, you know... ;)

[The_Architect]

So.. about cities..

-I'd actually say that Toronto could only be compared to New York and Chicago's love child, where the child grows and becomes more relevant than the mother, and not yet reached the relevance of the father.
However, Toronto historically (and visually) has much more in common with Chicago (complete with them both almost completely burning to the ground at one point).

I saw that someone claimed nothing of historical significance had to do with Toronto? How about the War of 1812, specifically the Battle and sack of York that caused the British army to move into the US, take Washington, and burn and sack it? The entire reason the White House is white is because they were painting over the scorch marks.. So.. ya, historically significant events have occurred in Toronto.

[freeweed]

Phew! For a second there I thought Freeweed was gonna accuse me of bringing this into Quebec/Canada and French/English territory...

You already had, but I wasn't about to let you abort yet another thread with more smug talk about how Quebecers are more worldly while us dumb Anglos only know how to watch US television (or whatever the point about the university course was).

But I can do "USA vs. the world" or "Anglo-America vs. the world" just as well, you know... ;)

And it's equally as amusing in its overreaching stereotyping. ;)


As a fun anecdote, I actually know personally someone who travelled from a town very close to Sioux Lookout to Toronto, for the express purpose of standing outside the Muchmusic studios with a sign saying "Sioux Lookout Represent!" (well, the functional equivalent). Toronto is quite the pilgrimage for kids growing up in NW Ontario. Less so for folks in the west, but it's not unheard of.

[freeweed]

-I'd actually say that Toronto could only be compared to New York and Chicago's love child, where the child grows and becomes more relevant than the mother, and not yet reached the relevance of the father.
However, Toronto historically (and visually) has much more in common with Chicago (complete with them both almost completely burning to the ground at one point).

Bay Street/Wall Street. Massive neighbourhoods/boroughs that used to be their own towns and have been absorbed into the borg, yet still retain much of their original identity. Iconic skyline. Home of 2 of the 3 longest Stanley Cup droughts in league history (the fact that Chicago is #2 is not lost on me).

Toronto is so much like NYC it's not even funny.

[Acajack]

And it's equally as amusing in its overreaching stereotyping. ;)



And that's what I truly love about TV ratings and movie box office numbers that huge corporations use to base their multi-million-dollar decisions on - they don't lie!

[Acajack]

You already had, but I wasn't about to let you abort yet another thread with more smug talk about how Quebecers are more worldly while us dumb Anglos only know how to watch US television (or whatever the point about the university course was).



I never called anyone worldly or dumb, and I was only replying to this comment by Gerrard:

Now if you were also trying to make the point that English speaking Canada is somehow more culturally rich because it is far more open to and accepting of the cultural output of the continent versus a small region of it, then you'd be correct there as well.

And BTW, I don't necessarily think that one has to be dumb to watch US TV, or that watching US TV makes you dumb. If this were the case, this country (and continent) would be in really big trouble!

[Gerrard]

If 15 million Americans went to see the original Swedish version, then they did so with deeply discounted tickets as the movie only barely grossed two million in the U.S.:
http://www.austin360.com/movies/hollywood-prefers-remakes-to-foreign-language-titles-539592.html




I don't have a bias against the U.S. and I do realize that in a country of 300 million people there are several million exceptions to what I have described.

To be quite honest, I am something of an Americanophile. But one thing I don't do is mistake the U.S. for something that it is not.


I said saw, not went to the movies to see. Netflix counts.

[Gerrard]

It's actually a bit of an inside joke in some parts of the world (mostly non-anglo countries) about how Americans take fine wine (read= a good movie in its original language) and then pour so much Coca-Cola into it so that it doesn't taste at all like wine anymore, yet still pretend it's fine wine they're drinking.

Yes it is, of course. Because, Europeans never ever make the mistake of feeling culturally superior and having preconceived notions about what America is like.

It's a pretty good point though -becoz, so many European and Asian movies come across as bad copies of American movies. The influence is unmistakable and the hilarious thing is, American audiences (and I'll include Canadians in here too) for some reason find them more intellectually honest and different because they come packaged with subtitles and then turn around and remake bad copies of American films into worse American films.

The horror genre is probably the most pillaged of these sorts of movies. Martyrs, Frontieres would not exist without Hostel. The Horde wouldn't have been made without the Dawn of the Dead remake.

I remeber years ago everyone went nutz over La Femme Nikita. I saw it and thought it was a hilariously bad interpretation of any number of American films. But it caught on in N.A. precisely because it was an American film masquerading as a French one.

And what did they do? They made an even crappier remake and 2 stinky t.v. series.

[Gerrard]

I never called anyone worldly or dumb, and I was only replying to this comment by Gerrard:

Now if you were also trying to make the point that English speaking Canada is somehow more culturally rich because it is far more open to and accepting of the cultural output of the continent versus a small region of it, then you'd be correct there as well.

And BTW, I don't necessarily think that one has to be dumb to watch US TV, or that watching US TV makes you dumb. If this were the case, this country (and continent) would be in really big trouble!

For every NCIS, Law and Order and endless reality show crap (okay for every 20), there's a Mad Men, a Sopranos, The Walking Dead, Southland etc.

However, what do the Europeans eat up with a spoon? The Littlest Hobo, Dallas, Friends. The only other country that seems capable of making compelling television drama is Britain.

Frankly, European television is enough to make any expat invest in a satellite.

[freeweed]

Jerry Lewis.

That is all.

[Acajack]

Jerry Lewis.

That is all.

Thanks Freeweed. You just won me 20 bucks!

I was discussing this thread with someone at the office and about the turn it was taking, and I said... I betcha someone will bring up the fact that French like Jerry Lewis! Bingo! Ding-ding-ding!

BTW, I must admit my mom likes Jerry Lewis and she is francophone...

[freeweed]

It just adds to the previous comment. I found it the peak of hilarity to see the European contempt towards American pop culture - only to discover that most of the most popular imports are some of the worst things the US has ever produced. It's kinda like how Americans knock the Canadian music scene, and then the biggest Canadian band down there is Nickelback.

America has plenty of good eats, yet I had a Royale With Cheese in Paris. Whether that says more about myself, the US, or Europeans is an exercise left for the reader. :haha:

[kw5150]

Calgary = Denver......not Dallas. Denver even has a free fare zone for the LRT in the Downtown area just like Calgary!

Yes, I know Denver's LRT is much smaller but they are expanding rapidly.

[jigglysquishy]

On the topic of Canadian art(film)

Quebec puts out more quality product than the rest of Canada combined. For 2010 they had Incendies, 10 1/2 and Heartbeats. English Canada had Barney's Version and the Trotsky. All are fantastic films and I absolutely love to see Canadian film, but the fact that Los Angelas and New York are right on our door step really hampers the Canadian film industry.

For French films the only options are France and Quebec. English films have the biggest names in film (New York and Los Angelas) as well as the arguable third biggest name, London.

[craner]

I've often wondered if Dallas and Houston have a rivalry similar to Edmonton and Calgary ?
What about Saskatoon and Regina ?

anyone, anyone . . . ?

[Big Sky]

I don't see a problem comparing Toronto to NYC. Sure Toronto itself isn't like NYC, but it's Canada's version of NYC. It's the largest city, it's the banking, financial and media capital of Canada. In that regard it is very much the New York of Canada.

[vid]

If I have learned anything from this thread, it is that Canadians from cities of all sizes are very insecure.

[goldeneyed]

Bay Street/Wall Street. Massive neighbourhoods/boroughs that used to be their own towns and have been absorbed into the borg, yet still retain much of their original identity. Iconic skyline. Home of 2 of the 3 longest Stanley Cup droughts in league history (the fact that Chicago is #2 is not lost on me).

Toronto is so much like NYC it's not even funny.


I'm pretty surprised nobody said Montreal is like NYC. Toronto's similarities to NYC are (financial, media, theatre centres) and Dundas Square/Time Square and the fact that they're both the biggest cities in their respective countries. Both cities and their suburbs look very different from one another. Montreal is more more NYC than Toronto is.

They are the two biggest food capitals (quality, restos/capita, cuisine). Apart for being known for regular things like pizza, hot dogs and poutine, Montreal is known for its bagels and smoked meat, two items NYC is known for as well. They have very similar architecture and cityscapes. Portions of Old Montreal and the financial district look like lower Manhattan. Both are very transit oriented cities with the highest transit riderships. Both have their countries biggest mafias based in them.

Other cool similarities:

- Both are islands and have many bridges
- Staten Island = Laval
- Montreal and NYC are the only two places in NA where you can't make a right on red.
- Central Park and Mount Royal park were both desgined by Olmsted
- 2 languages play an important role in the city (French in Montreal and and Spanish in NYC) apart from english.
- Both are huge party towns with the best nightlife
- Both have the biggest populations of Hassidic Jews
- The two WINNINGEST sports teams in NA, Yankees and Canadiens
- Big cosmopolitan centres with somewhat similar demographics (Jewish, Greek, Italian, Irish, Haitian, Indian, Chinese, Arabic)

[MonkeyRonin]

I'm pretty surprised nobody said Montreal is like NYC...They have very similar architecture and cityscapes

Nobody has said that...because they're nothing alike. Montreal doesn't look or feel anything like New York, sorry.

[BretttheRiderFan]

I've often wondered if Dallas and Houston have a rivalry similar to Edmonton and Calgary ?
What about Saskatoon and Regina ?

anyone, anyone . . . ?

People in Saskatoon hate Regina for some reason, not much the other way though :haha:

They (Regina) got the Legislature and the Riders

In Saskatchewan that's about all the bragging rights you can have as a city

[dsim249]

People in Saskatoon hate Regina for some reason, not much the other way though :haha:

They (Regina) got the Legislature and the Riders

In Saskatchewan that's about all the bragging rights you can have as a city

The Riders, sure. But Legislature? Nobody cares about that.

Besides, we have the RiVeR! :D

[manny_santos]

Having been to both Toronto and New York, I can honestly say Toronto is not Canada's New York. While Toronto is an important financial centre to Canada, New York has a lot more global importance than Toronto. Toronto is a drop in the bucket in comparison.

I would actually say Montreal is Canada's Mexico City. On a trip when I arrived in Mexico City, the first thing that came to mind for me was Montreal - both cities when approaching on the highway at night appear to be an endless expanse of lights, both cities are cosmopolitan, both have a similar Catholic heritage, and both played a major role in the early history of their respective countries. Both are also major cultural forces in their respective countries.

I have never been to Paris so I can't comment on its similarities to Montreal.

[Ramako]

Having been to both Toronto and New York, I can honestly say Toronto is not Canada's New York. While Toronto is an important financial centre to Canada, New York has a lot more global importance than Toronto. Toronto is a drop in the bucket in comparison.


I don't think you understand what "Canada's New York" means. It doesn't mean that Toronto is equivalent to New York in terms of global importance. It means that Toronto is to Canada what New York is to the United States.

[BretttheRiderFan]

I don't think you understand what "Canada's New York" means. It doesn't mean that Toronto is equivalent to New York in terms of global importance. It means that Toronto is to Canada what New York is to the United States.

No shit

I hate how so many people relate these things on literal scales

[goldeneyed]

Nobody has said that...because they're nothing alike. Montreal doesn't look or feel anything like New York, sorry.

Oh oh...I'm convinced. Great counter argument...

Montreal feels and looks like New York on and its own, but much more so than any other Canadian city. Instead of simply saying the opposite of what I said, please explain your reasoning like I did.

[manny_santos]

As a point of comparison between Toronto and New York, the Toronto CMA has 17% of Canada's population - about 1 in 6 Canadians. In contrast, New York only has 6% of the U.S. population, or about 1 in 16 Americans. Toronto is very powerful on a national scale.

Toronto's importance on a national scale in Canada might be comparable to Mexico City, whose metro area contains 19% of Mexico's population (1 in 5).