Huh? Get real? The 10 million "Greater Chicago Area" you're referring to is 10,857 miles. The 6 million Toronto area you're referring to is only 2,751 miles. That's almost 4 times the size but only 1.6 times the population.

I think the sizes are in reality pretty close and figuring out which is bigger seems very nuanced depending on where you draw the lines. That being said I'll go along with you and say Chicago is probably bigger for the most part right now. Chicago definitely feels like a bigger city when you're downtown anyways.

The numbers you're using for comparison though? C'mon, who's being prideful?

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/so-is-toro...

You can include the entire "extended" golden horseshoe area (all the way to K/W and Peterborough) and you've still got only 8.7 million people in 12,185 square miles [1]. By the way, I was already using the golden horseshoe area already (Hamilton, etc.) since I used _seven_ million, not _six_.

There are simply more people in the Chicago area. By a decent margin. There's nothing wrong with that. I think this is a thing for Torontonians because of the perpetual inferiority complex we Canadians [2] have with respect to the U.S. :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe

[2] I am from Toronto, so it's weird to accuse me of being prideful? I'm guessing you think I'm somehow "defending" Chicago? My point is that having more city in your city is nothing to be proud (or ashamed) about.

Toronto downtown absorbed North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough in the late 90s. It is not until last year that our population edged out Chicago, so whatever the reason for the amalgamation it definitely wasn't because we wanted to beat Chicago out in a pissing contest. However, you want to interpret the data, the truth is that the article writer did not do their homework.

Yes, the author committed another pet peeve of mine: omitting Mexico City from the list of largest cities in North America. Particularly stupid, given that it is the largest!