Major North American city which has the "newest" feel/identity?

[Capsicum]

Newest, overall, in terms of buildings, urban structure, demographics, culture and identity, so that for instance a large percentage of the city is defined by its most recent generation or two of growth and has a relatively short "history".

I think some contenders are Las Vegas, Houston, Miami, and other new Sunbelt cities in the US, as well as maybe some western Canadian cities like Calgary. These places all have very new growth and a large percentage of its growth easily within a person's lifetime, if not a generation.

[The North One]

Austin and Calgary would definitely be the top two.

[AviationGuy]

I know little about Calgary, but yes Austin, for sure. It's not at all the same city it was, as it comes close to hitting the one million mark in the city proper. I've been here since the 70s, and it's always been a busy, fun place to live, but the highrise boom, more rushed pace, and hopeless traffic congestion have completely changed the atmosphere. Some of the good things are still around, but don't define the city any more.

[AviationGuy]

There must be others, though. Portland and Seattle come to mind. I know for sure that Seattle hardly resembles the city I first visited in 1990 (physically and otherwise).

[isaidso]

Calgary, Mississauga, Vancouver

Mississauga

Courtesy of Jasonzed

[osmo]

Mississauga has zero identity. It is a bedroom suburban city with very little identity of its own.

Calgary is the best Canadian example. It still holds on to its mountain and ranch roots but it is very much a fresh and new place that is very much unique.

Miami in the USA is the best example. Miami does have a heavy Latin influence but it's very much a America Latin hybrid with its own flavour.

Houston and Austin are others as well.

Atlanta, even with its many transplants the city has created it's own unique identity and vibe. From the lemon pepper wings, music, it's architecture etc. There is a "Atlanta way" of how things are done and that is very much fresh and new for a city that started booming quite late versus others in the north.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by osmo

Mississauga has zero identity. It is a bedroom suburban city with very little identity of its own.

Calgary is the best Canadian example. It still holds on to its mountain and ranch roots but it is very much a fresh and new place that is very much unique.

Miami in the USA is the best example. Miami does have a heavy Latin influence but it's very much a America Latin hybrid with its own flavour.

Houston and Austin are others as well.

Atlanta, even with its many transplants the city has created it's own unique identity and vibe. From the lemon pepper wings, music, it's architecture etc. There is a "Atlanta way" of how things are done and that is very much fresh and new for a city that started booming quite late versus others in the north.

Miami and Vancouver with their glassy skylines and new growth have some similarities. I wonder if Miami and Vancouver too are the two large North American cities most dominated by descendants of people who were not in North America until two or three generations ago (from Latin America and the Caribbean for Miami and in Vancouver, from Asia and even up to a couple of generations ago, Britain).

Cities like Calgary, Houston, Austin, Atlanta etc. seem to be newly grown by way of transplants from other states/provinces by either the rise of the Sunbelt or resource boom.

However, having lots of newcomers or transplants by demographics doesn't always mean the city has a "new" feel. They could be moving into an established city, as New York City is a great example -- heavily dominated by transplants and immigrants but nonetheless epitomizing an "old city", not "new" city.

[Centropolis]

old nashville is rapidly becoming swamped by torrent of new nashville. in 10 years it will be hugely defined by 2005-2027 or whatever.

[Capsicum]

Las Vegas is very much a new city in terms of late 20th century growth -- it's supposedly the largest American city founded within the 20th century.

But I'm not sure if its growth rate currently or in the 21st century would be considered especially fast.

[Doady]

Toronto mostly grew in post-war era. Even City of Toronto proper is mostly post-war suburbia. If you compare Toronto CMA's population 1951 to now, more of Toronto's growth was in the post-war era compared to Vancouver. Overall, Toronto is actually newer than Vancouver.

For most of Canada's history, Montreal was #1. Toronto only became the largest in the late 70s. That's why Toronto has so many huge suburbs like Mississauga and Scarborough and Brampton.

You can compare to US metro areas too. Toronto metropolitan area population was 1.26 million in 1951. Chicago had 5.49 million in 1950. Philadelphia 3.67 million. Detroit 3.02 million. Cleveland 1.47 million. Baltimore 1.34 million. Buffalo 1.09 million. So Toronto's pre-war inner city is roughly the same size as Baltimore's or Buffalo's.

[Crawford]

Raleigh-Durham has over 2 million in its CSA. Does it count?

I go there for work, occasionally, and it appears to be like 98% newer suburban sprawl, with downtown Raleigh basically not worth mentioning.

[CaliNative]

Older cities can redefine themselves too. London & New York for example have vastly expanded & revitalized. Go to Brooklyn & see the growth. Go to downtown L.A. east of Hill or south of 7th and the rebirth of these areas is stunning. Massive change.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Las Vegas is very much a new city in terms of late 20th century growth -- it's supposedly the largest American city founded within the 20th century.

But I'm not sure if its growth rate currently or in the 21st century would be considered especially fast.

I think we have a winner. There are no old bones in Vegas. It was a minor resort town in the lifetime of many people still alive.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Older cities can redefine themselves too. London & New York for example have vastly expanded & revitalized. Go to Brooklyn & see the growth. Go to downtown L.A. east of Hill or south of 7th and the rebirth of these areas is stunning. Massive change.

Perhaps, but Brooklyn doesn't feel new. Not even close. Even London. Can't speak for east LA

[IrishIllini]

This is really about income, which doesn't mean a whole lot. Incomes are higher in SF, but if a tech worker in Chicago starts and ends the month with more money than than the tech worker in SF who makes quite a bit more, the Chicago tech worker is still wealthier. COL is a huge hit to coastal salaries.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Raleigh-Durham has over 2 million in its CSA. Does it count?

I go there for work, occasionally, and it appears to be like 98% newer suburban sprawl, with downtown Raleigh basically not worth mentioning.

Compared to Charlotte, downtown Raleigh might as well be Savannah. At least there's a fair amount of historic preservation in downtown Raleigh, plus a lot of noteworthy Victorian architecture in the immediate residential neighborhoods around it. Charlotte, on the other hand, has been on an aggressive seek-and-destroy mission to rid itself of historic architecture since the 1960's, and Charlotte's Victorian "district" -- of which they are burstingly proud -- consists of about four houses.

Raleigh, to me at least, feels like a city with some character. Charlotte, meanwhile, looks and feels like SimCity.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Doady

Toronto mostly grew in post-war era. Even City of Toronto proper is mostly post-war suburbia. If you compare Toronto CMA's population 1951 to now, more of Toronto's growth was in the post-war era compared to Vancouver. Overall, Toronto is actually newer than Vancouver.

For most of Canada's history, Montreal was #1. Toronto only became the largest in the late 70s. That's why Toronto has so many huge suburbs like Mississauga and Scarborough and Brampton.

You can compare to US metro areas too. Toronto metropolitan area population was 1.26 million in 1951. Chicago had 5.49 million in 1950. Philadelphia 3.67 million. Detroit 3.02 million. Cleveland 1.47 million. Baltimore 1.34 million. Buffalo 1.09 million. So Toronto's pre-war inner city is roughly the same size as Baltimore's or Buffalo's.

The fact that Toronto had over million people by the end of WW2 kind of disqualifies it from being a contender in this thread, regardless of how large and fast growing the post war development surrounding the old city is.

Toronto and Buffalo may have had similar sized pre-war inner cities 65 years ago, but since then much of Buffalo's urban fabric has been lost and the city is now much less dense, while Toronto's is still mostly intact and the old city has further densified.

[tdawg]

I vote for Vegas as well.

[RC14]

Three cities that come to mind in the United States would be:
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Bellevue, WA

[Docere]

Toronto's growth pattern more closely resembles that of Washington DC not Phoenix.