Is there ever going to be another "new, big city" in the US or Canada?

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by figaro

I am still trying to understanding why Phoenix is considered a big city.

The 1.5 million people within its municipal boundaries might have something to do with it.

Originally Posted by isaidso

Calgary may look like a big city in skyline shots but there's only 1.4 million in the metro area. That's half the size of Tampa and smaller than Providence, Jacksonville, and Virginia Beach.

1.5 million still qualifies as a midsize metro in the US. Kansas City, Cleveland, Nashville, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee all have metros of ~2 million people, which is not that far off. Other cities, like Oklahoma City, Louisville, and Memphis are even smaller than that. If you want to go by the pro-teams standard, then Calgary and Edmonton each have two. So yes, by Canadian standards, they have already made it as big cities.

If you're looking for a city a lot smaller than Calgary, I'd pick Kitchener-Waterloo (Ontario), Halifax (Nova Scotia), Winnipeg (Manitoba), and Quebec City (Quebec).

Of this list, Winnipeg in particular seems like it should be a lot more populated than it currently is.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

1.5 million still qualifies as a midsize metro in the US. Kansas City, Cleveland, Nashville, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee all have metros of ~2 million people, which is not that far off. Other cities, like Oklahoma City, Louisville, and Memphis are even smaller than that. If you want to go by the pro-teams standard, then Calgary and Edmonton each have two. So yes, by Canadian standards, they have already made it as big cities.

I was going by what the original poster deemed to be a big city: 3-4 million people in the metro. We all have differing benchmarks as to what is a big city. In Canada we would consider Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa as big cities but I personally do not. I don't consider Vancouver to be a big city either.

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Of this list, Winnipeg in particular seems like it should be a lot more populated than it currently is.

Winnipeg was Canada's 'Chicago' and was at one point the fastest growing city in the nation. The opening of the Panama Canal instantly ended the boom times. It's only due to recent provincial efforts to recruit immigrants that Winnipeg's population has shown significant annual growth.

Canada is a nation with regions still trying to hit their stride. We differ from the US in that way. Most places in the US were settled and populated rapidly. They were integrated into the US economy and didn't suffer from isolation or distance from markets. The only region in Canada that achieved this is central Canada. It's also, quite predictably, the only region where manufacturing took off.

You need a critical mass of population to attract talent and capital.

[GreaterMontréal]

Nova Scotia has the Annapolis Valley, an extremely productive agricultural area. So much so that only Ontario and BC produce more wine than Nova Scotia. The province (and Halifax) didn't prosper due to conditions imposed on it by Confederation.

But the Annapolis Valley is only 8,366.32 km2. which is about 5 times smaller than the St.Lawrence lowlands. there is no big city situated in the Annapolis Valley.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

But the Annapolis Valley is only 8,366.32 km2. which is about 5 times smaller than the St.Lawrence lowlands. there is no big city situated in the Annapolis Valley.

It takes 45 minutes to drive there from Halifax. I'm not sure how the size of the agricultural area is relevant any way. The reason Nova Scotia and Halifax didn't become big population centres has little to do with a lack of agricultural land and everything to do with Confederation.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I was going by what the original poster deemed to be a big city: 3-4 million people in the metro. We all have differing benchmarks as to what is a big city. In Canada we would consider Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa as big cities but I personally do not. I don't consider Vancouver to be a big city either.

I was just going to comment along these lines.

Canada's still a fairly small young country, so what makes a big metro here, may not for a larger country like the U.S.

Winnipeg is very much on the radar here as a major city, whereas it's really in line with Boise's or Syracuse's metro. +/-

Saskatoon is also on the radar here, but I'm guessing it would be like a college town In the U.S.


Then countries like China take their city rankings up a whole new level.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It takes 45 minutes to drive there from Halifax. I'm not sure how the size of the agricultural area is relevant any way. The reason Nova Scotia and Halifax didn't become big population centres has little to do with a lack of agricultural land and everything to do with Confederation.

At the time of Confederation, Quebec City was ~50% bigger than Halifax, and Montreal was ~3x bigger than Halifax.

Halifax was never on track to be Canada's New York City, Confederation or not. The main reason seems obvious, unlike the U.S. eastern seaboard, in Canada you have cities further west that are Atlantic seaports, so the "New York" doesn't have to be in Nova Scotia right on the open Atlantic.

[Nouvellecosse]

Although most of the other seaports aren't year-round due to freezing (especially before the advent of powerful icebreakers), so I wouldn't exactly round everything up to equal. In fact, Montreal's inability to function for long periods is one thing that contributed to Portland's prosperity.

But regardless of the relative sizes, it wasn't until confederation that there was a big shift in Maritime population and economic development trends which can be directly traded to federal economic policies. Whether or not Halifax would have stayed one of the largest is impossible to say, but given different policies, the ratios would likely have remained much closer.

[bobcat]

Not exactly what you're looking for but the Inland Empire MSA seems to fit many of your criteria. It has no major league sports teams and few well known businesses or cultural institutions, and while it already has a population of 4+ million its GDP is more akin to that of a much smaller MSA. If a major wealth generating industry could ever develop there it could emerge from under LA's shadow in the way that Orange County has.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Razor

Winnipeg is very much on the radar here as a major city, whereas it's really in line with Boise's or Syracuse's metro. +/-

Yes, but Winnipeg looks and feels like a much bigger city than Boise or Syracuse.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Not exactly what you're looking for but the Inland Empire MSA seems to fit many of your criteria. It has no major league sports teams and few well known businesses or cultural institutions, and while it already has a population of 4+ million its GDP is more akin to that of a much smaller MSA. If a major wealth generating industry could ever develop there it could emerge from under LA's shadow in the way that Orange County has.

I would consider that already part of the LA metro area.

[dc_denizen]

How does Winnipeg look like a bigger city than Syracuse?

Syracuse:







link

Winnipeg:





Winnipeg and Syracuse look similar. Boise is a much smaller city though..

[Razor]

Originally Posted by softee

Yes, but Winnipeg looks and feels like a much bigger city than Boise or Syracuse.

Well, I guess feels and acts like a larger more important centre would be correct.

Having said that, I've never been to Winnipeg so I shouldn't 100% comment on the feel though....I think the skyline is similar in size no?
Makes me wonder how Americans would view Syracuse as a ranking?..I imagine the same way we would view Thunder bay or Kingston.

[softee]

Winnipeg has taller, larger office buildings than Syracuse and many more tall buildings in general. http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=75468791

Syracuse's downtown is more in line with Hamilton, but even Hamilton has taller buildings.
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=75468797

[dc_denizen]

ah, but that is not what makes a city "feel" bigger.

Boston feels a lot larger than Atlanta, which has more and taller buildings.

[softee]

^ It's not just the tall buildings, Winnipeg just has a more built-up, brawnier, substantial looking downtown than Syracuse (or Hamilton for that matter).

[dc_denizen]

well, that's subjective. Syracuse has a more appealing, east coast style built environment (like Hamilton).

cool panorama of downtown syracuse.

another cool panorama

Winnipeg has more of a western type urbanity.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Not exactly what you're looking for but the Inland Empire MSA seems to fit many of your criteria. It has no major league sports teams and few well known businesses or cultural institutions, and while it already has a population of 4+ million its GDP is more akin to that of a much smaller MSA. If a major wealth generating industry could ever develop there it could emerge from under LA's shadow in the way that Orange County has.

Most of the Inland Empire might as well be part of LA and Orange County. San Bernadino and Riverside could emerge as legit cities instead of overgrown suburbs at some point but it will take decades, though regional planning has been discussed.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Although most of the other seaports aren't year-round due to freezing (especially before the advent of powerful icebreakers), so I wouldn't exactly round everything up to equal. In fact, Montreal's inability to function for long periods is one thing that contributed to Portland's prosperity.

But regardless of the relative sizes, it wasn't until confederation that there was a big shift in Maritime population and economic development trends which can be directly traded to federal economic policies. Whether or not Halifax would have stayed one of the largest is impossible to say, but given different policies, the ratios would likely have remained much closer.

I don't disagree that Confederation has hurt NS, but the answer to the interrogation by that Texan who wonders how come Canada does not have a "New York" on its east coast is not "Confederation stunted Halifax's growth", but rather, "Montreal was the New York of Canada, and its major point of entry/exit for goods and people crossing the Atlantic, for most of its history".

(And yes, that role has mostly moved to Toronto now.)

[Razor]

For Canada, I think that Ottawa also has the potential to become more then it's role as the capital.Like Kitchener, Ottawa has a solid high Tech infrastructure, and at one point Ottawa had the moniker of Silicon Valley North.
I think high tech companies like the idea of having the federal government close by.The Federal government also serves as a built in client base for high tech companies.
If high tech has another large boom like it did in the mid nineties, both Ottawa and Kitchener can really take off. If this were to happen, Ottawa has the potential of joining the 2.0 million club in just a few decades. Just because of the spin offs and the critical mass. Also, I think that as a country grows, the capital city grows just because of it's administrative role. Bigger country= bigger government. This is if the country remains centralized of course.

I'm also curious about Rochester New York?..Didn't they re-invent themselves in the past decade or so..They may be a sleeper city as well.

[ue]

Originally Posted by isaidso

As no one has rhymed in on Canada yet, I'll put my 2 cents in.

Canada really only has 3 big cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) so looking beyond those the obvious choice is Calgary. Both Alberta cities (Edmonton, Calgary) have been growing rapidly for most of the last 80 years. Only recently have they grown large enough to attract big city amenities.

They're already home to pro hockey and pro football. They're building LRT, new museums, 2nd universities, and have urban planning policies that encourage increased density.

A lot of these amenities aren't new. Like you've mentioned, we've had pro sports teams for eons now. Edmonton's LRT was the first in North America, and Calgary's followed shortly thereafter. "Big city" amenities such as Canada Olympic Park and West Edmonton Mall have existed since the '80s, and they've only grown in number since.

That said, I'd put my money on Calgary over Edmonton. It may not be the provincial capital but it's long been politically influential. Calgary and Vancouver are the big airport hubs in western Canada and seem early on in their growth trajectory. 3 million in metro Calgary within 25 years? Possibly.

Sure, Calgary is politically influential and has the bigger airport. Yet in spite of that, Edmonton continues to keep pace with Calgary's growth. I don't get why people automatically assume great things for Calgary and then discount Edmonton, who is kind of forgotten, despite being equally as prosperous and booming, while being more diversified economically. I think it's just in what people think of Calgary and Edmonton, due to image and branding, which Calgary excels at, which makes people think Edmonton is far smaller and more insignificant. But the City is really starting to promote itself after years of languishing so perceptions are changing. If you think Calgary can reach 3 million in 25 years, then so will Edmonton, barring major changes.