Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light
Yes, It is. Its merely that the amalgamation occurred on Jan 1st 1898, a century ahead of Toronto's.
|
But then what's your point? Practically every city on earth is "amalgamated".
The only U.S. city I can think of that isn't "amalgamated" is SF. I don't believe SF city limits have grown since founding. But certainly Boston, Philly, Detroit, Chicago, LA, Seattle, Cleveland are all "amalgamated".
Toronto is very different from NYC in that Toronto annexed basically all the postwar inner suburbs. The majority of Toronto's population lives in postwar suburbia.
In contrast, NYC's inner suburbs are generally older than most of Toronto proper. The "Scarborough" type areas are usually nowhere close to NYC proper. If NYC had analogous city limits it would have annexed practically everything within 45 miles of Times Square, across three states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light
Quality public transportation, low levels of corruption, good parks systems, and local social supports (free recreation for children, discounted for seniors etc.).
The idea that immigrants are agnostic to all that is rubbish.
|
Give us examples, then. You're the one making the outlandish claim.
We know that, comparing Canada's largest metros, Toronto and Vancouver draw more immigrants than Montreal and Ottawa. So explain to us how immigrants end up in Toronto based on any of these criteria.
How do, say Pakistanis end up in Mississauga over Montreal based on parks quality or senior discounts or good govt., rather than the obvious draws common to immigrant gateways around the planet?