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

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Razor

I agree to all those that immigration will be the deciding factor..Birth rates just aren't like they used to be..

As far as Canada goes, yes to Calgary..It's already fast approaching a metro of 1.5 million, and that city is just going to keep going upwards by all accounts.There has always been a lot of positivity for the future for Albertan cities.

Another city for Canada which is under the radar, is Kitchener.
It's a conglomeration of about 4 cities which have blended into each other.The metro is currently at just over 500,000 and because of it's proximity to Toronto, and a rail planned that metro can hit a million within the coming few decades..It's becoming a bid of a high tech hub here in Ontario.

I want to think that Halifax and Quebec City are positioned to shoot up, but I'm just not too certain.

Seriously?! Calgary is already a "big city"!

Can we set terms that the unnamed "city of the future" has to have less than 100k now?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by tech12

Who exactly is advocating "destroying san francisco's charm" and who is doing that just for "data dick-measuring contests"?

I have memories of a certain thread, I'll find it for you later today if you want...

What I see on SSP are people who actually live in SF, who advocate for increased density in appropriate areas (underdeveloped locations in neighborhoods that are already dense and well served by transit...you know, empty lots, old auto body shops, warehouses, single story commercial buildings, etc)

Check this fresh SSP photothread of the city core (all pics are very recent), scroll down through all of it and tell me how many empty lots you see:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=226329

(or old body shops, etc. if you prefer)

edit: wait i think i remember one example of a guy who said it would be a good idea to completely bulldoze the sunset district and replace it with highrises. That's crazy, and most people don't agree with stuff like that. And it would never happen anyways, unless Generalissimo Trump orders it during his 25th term as grand emperor of the universe or something.

We might recall the same thread/conversations, then.

We both disagree with that guy whoever he is.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by BG918

How is this growth going to continue with dwindling water resources in the southwest desert? The same can be said for California cities, Denver and even the Texas cities. The desert will continue to expand eastward into Texas eventually threatening Austin, San Antonio and Dallas/Ft Worth.

rain catchment and desalinization plants to the rescue! its probably not at that point yet but it will be eventually.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

Check this fresh SSP photothread of the city core (all pics are very recent), scroll down through all of it and tell me how many empty lots you see:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=226329

(or old body shops, etc. if you prefer)

Don't want to belabour this topic, but there seem to be a relatively large number of parking lots and even more badly integrated 1960s/70s era developments in St-Roch, which was one of the areas ue mentioned. https://goo.gl/maps/oMMS2UKwrNS2

In this day and age it probably wouldn't be ideal to redevelop it as a commercial district due to access issues. But it's clearly the victim of urban renewal mishaps and it probably could have been planned as a new CBD in the inner city (but outside the Old City). Still looks to have plenty of opportunities for residential intensification, which looks to be happening to some degree: https://goo.gl/maps/3ZpYpawrpQH2

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Don't want to belabour this topic, but there seem to be a relatively large number of parking lots and even more badly integrated 1960s/70s era developments in St-Roch, which was one of the areas ue mentioned. https://goo.gl/maps/oMMS2UKwrNS2

In this day and age it probably wouldn't be ideal to redevelop it as a commercial district due to access issues. But it's clearly the victim of urban renewal mishaps and it probably could have been planned as a new CBD in the inner city (but outside the Old City). Still looks to have plenty of opportunities for residential intensification, which looks to be happening to some degree: https://goo.gl/maps/3ZpYpawrpQH2

Sure, we discussed it already... haven't changed my mind since this:

Originally Posted by lio45

St. Roch is a bad location for a CBD because when you're paying dearly for a tall flagship building, you want it to be high and visible and part of the skyline and have great views from it.

It's a good location for a neighborhood, though, and it's doing well. I was familiar with it in 2004-2005, and nowadays the difference is impressive.

As I pointed out, my ex (the kind of highly-educated people you want in a neighborhood) worked in St. Roch for a while - at the kind of building that could well have been in a suburban tech office park. So, it kinda _is_ the type of inner city mini-CBD you wish it'd be. (On that, I agree with you and ue.)

Just because it's not "the" CBD (the one where the tallest flagship corporate glass penises are and future ones will sprout) doesn't mean it's not doing well.

BTW, on the sat view, there's at least one hole (block between St-Joseph/Crown/King streets) that has been patched since - by a tallish glass building that was getting finished last time I was there. (edit - I hadn't clicked on your streetview link before posting, it's exactly that view!)

The 'hood though is not really a blank enough slate for a CBD with big towers, not by Ste-Foy standards, for sure. It's pretty dense already and somewhat vibrant.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

But it's clearly the victim of urban renewal mishaps

That elevated freeway delivering its traffic at the height of the Upper Town is hard to beat, in that category.

(Several of these '60s/'70s mistakes have been fixed since, though.)


edit: adding link

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.81397...7i13312!8i6656

[ue]

Originally Posted by lio45

More or less. It's true that I (and likely others, here) tend to consider it "suburban" in character and location (for this city) so that's how this conversation got started in the first place, but at some point we should have recalibrated this conversation for the broader inclusion of strangers in faraway cities (i.e. adopting standards that are more "universal" across this continent); I am not so sure anymore that it's accurate to say the old Oilers' Coliseum is "in the suburbs"?

That's an interesting one and would depend on the person. Nobody considers the Coliseum to be "downtown" in earnest, though, especially now that Rogers Place is literally right downtown.

However, seeing as it is on the edge of Parkdale, its site is sort of the borderlands between the pre-war gridiron neighbourhoods of Alberta Ave, Parkdale, the Highlands, and Beverly, and the wartime and early postwar auto suburbs like Montrose, Delton, and Balwood. Many of the homes in even the pre-war neighbourhoods standing today were built post-WWII due to the neighbourhood never being built out after the real estate bubble burst in 1914 or simply because a lot of these neighbourhoods were built to house coal miners in and around Beverly, and the houses were very cheaply built and didn't last very long.

I think it's safe to say in older, Eastern cities like Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, and I assume Quebec City (maybe not!) an area like the Coliseum and Northlands Park wouldn't be considered central, old, inner-city because those cities have an abundance of even older neighbourhoods that extend further from the core. But Edmonton is a fairly new city by comparison, so most associate the area with "inner city" and in truth it isn't extremely far from the core, though still somewhat disparate. That being said, I think most with some general urban planning knowledge would concur that the Coliseum and area immediately adjacent to it is auto-suburban in design, compared to streetcar suburb design further west and east down 118 Ave.

[ue]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Seriously?! Calgary is already a "big city"!

Can we set terms that the unnamed "city of the future" has to have less than 100k now?

I don't really consider Calgary a "big city" on the macro scale, but on the micro (ie Canadian) scale, I can see it. It's obviously a tier below Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, but it, along with Edmonton and Ottawa form the "big six" major metropolitan areas of Canada. We simply don't have the abundance of 2-3 million metros like the USA does which means cities like Calgary have little competition, massive hinterlands, and greater stature than most US cities of equivalent size.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Seriously?! Calgary is already a "big city"!

Can we set terms that the unnamed "city of the future" has to have less than 100k now?

I wasn't even looking at populations.I was highlighting cities that have potential and that weren't "finished" yet. It could of been Austin for all I cared.
And, like UE pointed out above, an entire metro the size of Calgary is only large in the Canadian context..

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by BG918

How is this growth going to continue with dwindling water resources in the southwest desert? The same can be said for California cities, Denver and even the Texas cities. The desert will continue to expand eastward into Texas eventually threatening Austin, San Antonio and Dallas/Ft Worth.

The desert won't expand to south and east TX because of that huge body of really warm water called the Gulf of Mexico. Generally, deserts do thrive in and around the 30 degree north/south latitude, (due to the Hadley Cell, rising air at the equator migrates away and falls back to the ground around 30 N/S, falling air is High Pressure) however the reason the South is not a desert is because of the Gulf. If the Gulf was a giant landmass (or were to suddenly cool and freeze over, eliminating the source of warm/moist super saturated air) then we would have Sahara 2.0

[ue]

Originally Posted by niwell

Don't want to belabour this topic, but there seem to be a relatively large number of parking lots and even more badly integrated 1960s/70s era developments in St-Roch, which was one of the areas ue mentioned. https://goo.gl/maps/oMMS2UKwrNS2

In this day and age it probably wouldn't be ideal to redevelop it as a commercial district due to access issues. But it's clearly the victim of urban renewal mishaps and it probably could have been planned as a new CBD in the inner city (but outside the Old City). Still looks to have plenty of opportunities for residential intensification, which looks to be happening to some degree: https://goo.gl/maps/3ZpYpawrpQH2

Yeah, St-Roch does have more underutilized spaces that could be redeveloped. You're right, the idea is probably fargone now for it to be a new CBD, but the potential was there 40-60 years ago. It's probably best to focus on trying to make St-Foy less of a suburban downtown and more of a traditional, walkable downtown to balance the Old City.

To lio's credit, there isn't much room in Haute-Ville anymore unless one wants to tear down older buildings so perhaps that area is more limited for development now. Though the brutalist office towers that do exist could be reconfigured so as to add to the pedestrian scape.

[xzmattzx]

In my opinion, we're seeing the birth of a new big city right now. Austin, with its tech industry, is making the leap to the national and maybe worldwide stage.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah, St-Roch does have more underutilized spaces that could be redeveloped. You're right, the idea is probably fargone now for it to be a new CBD, but the potential was there 40-60 years ago. It's probably best to focus on trying to make St-Foy less of a suburban downtown and more of a traditional, walkable downtown to balance the Old City.

To lio's credit, there isn't much room in Haute-Ville anymore unless one wants to tear down older buildings so perhaps that area is more limited for development now. Though the brutalist office towers that do exist could be reconfigured so as to add to the pedestrian scape.

Even at its worst, St. Roch was never enough of a blank slate to be suitable to function as the greater city's CBD. It would have destroyed its quirky character and caused more useless architectural/heritage losses. Plus, it's not a good location in terms of elevation and road network/transit.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Doady

With global warming and melting arctic ice, I think Canadian cities are poised for greatness. The US cities on the other hand will be under pressure from rising sea levels and desertification. The USA is the part. The future is Canada.

The thing is, Montreal is also at risk, maybe not as much as New York, Philly, Boston, D.C. and Miami, but the city still needs to worry about rising sea levels. Vancouver is definitely the most at-risk city in Canada for sea level rise, just a 6-meter rise and almost all of Richmond is under water.

And I doubt many Americans will come running to Canada, those on the American coasts will move inland to cities that will stay wet in the Great Lakes region. I think in a century from now you'll see small cities in the far north connected to the Great Lakes like Duluth and Marquette explode in population as they're already in beautiful environments, have shipping access to the sea and the weather will be warmer.

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

In my opinion, we're seeing the birth of a new big city right now. Austin, with its tech industry, is making the leap to the national and maybe worldwide stage.

I wonder if we'll ever see any of the big-time employers in Silicon Valley move their headquarters to Austin. Companies like Google or Facebook.

The top talent of those firms can easily afford living in the Bay Area. But for people just coming out of college it isn't fun having to spend half your income on your rent or mortgage.

As it grows in size, Austin will become an even more attractive location from the standpoint of offering world class dining, sports, and the arts. I bet many of the best young graduates in high tech fields will look for a job in cities like Austin rather than for a job in the San Jose/San Francisco area.

[ue]

Is Austin really that more ascendant than say, San Antonio? Last I recall, they're both fairly similarly sized. Is the distance between them growing and is Austin getting closer to Houston/Dallas? I'll admit one tends to hear a lot more about Austin these days, but that could very well just be branding. If San Antonio is growing at similar rates, then it will also be one to watch.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by ue

Is Austin really that more ascendant than say, San Antonio? Last I recall, they're both fairly similarly sized. Is the distance between them growing and is Austin getting closer to Houston/Dallas? I'll admit one tends to hear a lot more about Austin these days, but that could very well just be branding. If San Antonio is growing at similar rates, then it will also be one to watch.

^^^ it is in terms of gdp per capita. is almost 12,000 dollars more in Austin. that's pretty significant. but the average home price in Austin is also 100k more so maybe those salaries are proportionate to city costs. whatever man, texas is booming right now. that's cool.

[BG918]

So outside of Austin, which most realize is slowly growing into more of a major city, what other cities do you see breaking into the Top 30 metros? Here are 30-40 which ones make the leap? The ones I think have potential to are in bold.
30. Kansas City
31. Cleveland
32. Columbus
33. Austin
34. Indianapolis
35. San Jose
36. Nashville
37. Virginia Beach
38. Providence
39. Milwaukee
40. Jacksonville

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

I wonder if we'll ever see any of the big-time employers in Silicon Valley move their headquarters to Austin. Companies like Google or Facebook.

The top talent of those firms can easily afford living in the Bay Area. But for people just coming out of college it isn't fun having to spend half your income on your rent or mortgage.

As it grows in size, Austin will become an even more attractive location from the standpoint of offering world class dining, sports, and the arts. I bet many of the best young graduates in high tech fields will look for a job in cities like Austin rather than for a job in the San Jose/San Francisco area.

It's generally never worth it for large, established companies to move their headquarters, unless it's just a few executives. What's more likely is that Austin will create a new big tech company of their own that never decides to move to Silicon Valley early on. That's basically how Seattle became the # tech city in the US, by creating a couple biggies that never moved south.

[mhays]

Big tech companies locate their HQs and major offices where star employees and best young recruits want to live. These people earn six figures, and often like expensive coastal cities.