HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 4:20 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal View Post
MSA 6,684 sq mi
2,389,228

Vancouver
1,111.40 sq mi
2.4M
Are you suggesting that an MSA, which can include vast areas of complete wilderness, is the same counting method?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 4:28 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 16,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
You're assuming office buildings need to be bland, when that's simply not the case. Some of the buildings in St-Foy aren't that bad, for example.
I'm assuming that some office buildings will be tasteless, yes. It's almost unavoidable, and the case in all cities. That's why I like the idea of this CBD being somewhat of a blank slate, an ideal playground for these corporations and their shiny glass dicks. Plus, it's at a very strategic location (the very top major nexus for the Greater City area by far) and not that far from the core anyway (a few km, and there can easily be very fast transit options on that axis if needed - it's very wide, as you know).



Quote:
Ignoring the obvious human health and efficiency issues to this
Sitting at a downtown desk while breathing polluted air isn't exactly optimal for human health, either. What you eat and the amount of exercise you get are the main factors, and it's perfectly possible to be in great health without living in downtowns.


Quote:
Oh, and I know sometimes CBDs move around. Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York, even Boston, are good North American examples of this. But moving the CBD to an auto-suburb is very uncommon for a major North American city. It's a bit more common in Europe, where the designs are less auto-orientated, but that's about it.
But having a modern CBD in the city's old walled core would also be completely unheard of for a Canadian/American city, given that it's the only city that has one. So in any case it would have been blazing a new trail (its own) for a North American city for how to handle its CBD.

Ste-Foy isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it's not that far from the core, actually.

Just for fun, defining the center as the Parliament building in both cities (a decent standard IMO, you can pick your own if you want to nitpick this ), the Ste-Foy CBD would be approximately around Rexall Place... and that's as the crow flies; in Edm, there isn't a wide axis going straight to Rexall Place.

If Edmonton's core was several centuries old and considered a fairly unique architectural gem for this continent, it would make total sense IMO to put the glass towers around Rexall Place instead of spoiling the core with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 4:30 AM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by tascalisa View Post
I do believe that Birmingham could become a great city if the Magic City was allowed by the State of Alabama to take the necessary measures to beef up her infrastructure.

The city's topography is beautiful and has a deep history (despite its young age), and its urban citizens (myself included, I live w/in the city limits) desire comprehensive construction of a true mass (and rapid) transportation system.

The city is perfect for it! It has a massive, established street-grid, and the metropolitan population wants to be in the CBD more than ever before!

I would never say that Birmingham is next "it" city, but I think it is reasonable to see how things play out between now and the 2020 Census.
I think it's too late for Birmingham to become a large, elite powerhouse. It's way too close to Atlanta...most firms would probably choose Atlanta due to the superior central location in the SE. Not saying the Birmingham metro can't have moderate growth(200k-300k per decade), but I can't ever see it having gangbusters type growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 4:33 AM
ue ue is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,757
I never said anywhere Sainte-Foy is in the middle of no where. You're arguing against nothing there. That doesn't change the fact that Sainte-Foy is a suburban district.

Haute-Ville and Saint-Roch are outside of the walled city.

Exercise is not as common in auto-orientated neighbourhoods, thus causing health issues, due to their auto-centric design that does not facilitate active modes of transport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 9:58 AM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007 View Post
Often I've wondered, and the comments in the Phoenix thread made me wonder further, is there ever going to be another "new, big" city in the US? Or Canada for that matter?

By that I mean, not a completely new city, of course, but a city that's maybe small or middle-sized at most, as Phoenix was 50+ years ago, but is erstwhile not much to note, but that becomes big enough to harbor multiple big league sport teams, has at least 3 or 4 million in the metro, etc.
If current population trends continue, there are 3 medium-sized metro areas that will top 4 million in 25 years time.

Austin: current pop 1.7 million; pop. growth rate 16.6% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.3 million
Orlando: current pop. 2.1 million, pop. growth rate 11.8% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.2 million
San Antonio: current pop. 2.1 million, pop. growth rate 11.3% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.1 million

Even the large metro areas in Texas and Florida currently enjoy relatively high population growth rates.
The Houston metro area has a growth rate of 12.4% per 5 years
The Dallas metro area has a growth rate of 10.5% per 5 years
And the Miami metro area has a growth rate of 8.0% per 5 years

Texas and Florida have a relatively low cost of living, are attractive to business and have no personal income tax.

So I think it's reasonable to expect the currently high population growth rates of Austin, San Antonio, and Orlando to continue for the next 25 years.

Last edited by Rocket49; Jan 12, 2017 at 12:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 3:55 PM
Pavlov's Dog Pavlov's Dog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Agree, there is no reason that Portland couldn't look at least more like Austin in terms of new projects. The skyline is stuck in the 1990s, new prominent buildings would be nice to complement all the infill
I assume you mean building height because Portland is booming all over. It's hard to keep track of all of the activity. It's not just quantity but there is a lot of quality as well. Portland's urban character is improving by the day and surface parking lots are quickly disappearing in much of the city.

Land values have increased rapidly the past 5 years so I assume that conditions are ripe to build some taller buildings downtown and in the Lloyd District as the number of projects in the 10-20 story range is substantial.

http://www.nextportland.com/2016/05/...uildings-2016/

I think most Portland forumers here wish for the same thing but some influential old-money Portlanders don't want their views of the volcanos spoiled by skyscrapers. Hence Portland has pretty tight height restrictions.

Last edited by Pavlov's Dog; Jan 12, 2017 at 4:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 5:23 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 16,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
I never said anywhere Sainte-Foy is in the middle of no where. You're arguing against nothing there. That doesn't change the fact that Sainte-Foy is a suburban district.
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"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 5:28 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 16,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket49 View Post
If current population trends continue, there are 3 medium-sized metro areas that will top 4 million in 25 years time.

Austin: current pop 1.7 million; pop. growth rate 16.6% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.3 million
Orlando: current pop. 2.1 million, pop. growth rate 11.8% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.2 million
San Antonio: current pop. 2.1 million, pop. growth rate 11.3% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.1 million

Even the large metro areas in Texas and Florida currently enjoy relatively high population growth rates.
The Houston metro area has a growth rate of 12.4% per 5 years
The Dallas metro area has a growth rate of 10.5% per 5 years
And the Miami metro area has a growth rate of 8.0% per 5 years

Texas and Florida have a relatively low cost of living, are attractive to business and have no personal income tax.

So I think it's reasonable to expect the currently high population growth rates of Austin, San Antonio, and Orlando to continue for the next 25 years.
For the record, the freshest population growth stats have these two (TX and FL) the ones with the highest absolute growth numbers for North American states/provinces, higher than California or New York or Ontario or anyone.

I expect these trends to continue for the foreseeable future at least, but beyond that, who knows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 6:33 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Car-oriented Toronto
Posts: 1,586
The "dark horse" for where the next city will emerge always seems to be the northern Great Plains and Mountain West. Canada offers some point of comparison: Alberta has more people than Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming combined.

But I don't see Bismarck or Billings ever being significant cities. The resources under Alberta are managed and controlled in Alberta, whereas the resources under the northern Mountain West and Great Plains states are controlled elsewhere. Not to mention the fact that resource economies are fickle.

My money is on Texas and Florida, and really on already established cities growing larger. I can see Austin becoming more important than it already is and Seattle being a "Tier 1" city, similar in presence to the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 6:36 PM
James Bond Agent 007's Avatar
James Bond Agent 007 James Bond Agent 007 is online now
Posh
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
Posts: 17,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket49 View Post
If current population trends continue, there are 3 medium-sized metro areas that will top 4 million in 25 years time.

Austin: current pop 1.7 million; pop. growth rate 16.6% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.3 million
Orlando: current pop. 2.1 million, pop. growth rate 11.8% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.2 million
San Antonio: current pop. 2.1 million, pop. growth rate 11.3% per 5 years; est. pop. in 2040 4.1 million ...
I wouldn't be surprised at any of those, but as I said, I'm not so much interested in the ones that "are almost there" (or at least well on their way) as I am about speculating which smaller cities might, maybe 50 years from now, completely explode into something big. Are we even going to have any more of those at all? IOW, San Antonio right now wouldn't be a surprise, but, say, Columbus, GA would. Maybe 30 years ago San Antonio would have fit my bill, but not anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 6:41 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,261
so maybe Austin is the answer everybody in this thread is looking for. it indeed will be the next big, top tier city. lets examine the evidence...its a state capital, has a large research university, is a sun belt city with extremely unique topography, is extremely safe, for the meantime affordable (look out though, see Portland), has a diverse high tech economy, is close to mexico (maybe this helps it become a logistics hub??), may be the counter culture capital of the south.....now all it needs is a more comprehensive transit system...
__________________
Portland!! Where young people go to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 6:46 PM
Leo the Dog Leo the Dog is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Lower-48
Posts: 4,789
With all this talk on Texas and Florida (rightfully so), I think we should include Arizona.

Close physical ties to large pricey CA cities. Very few natural disasters that would devastate a metro for years if not a solid decade. High natural population growth alongside growing international and domestic migration.

Cheap, abundant developable land. Phoenix metro potentially merging with Tucson to form an urbanized region of 10+ million. Combined they're currently approaching 6 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 6:48 PM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,241
Dallas is already the logistics hub of Texas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 7:21 PM
brickell's Avatar
brickell brickell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: County of Dade
Posts: 9,365
Looking back 50 years, Orlando had no Disney and was barely a blip, now it's a top 30 Metro.

Vegas is similar.

Maybe when trump decides to move the White House to Mar-A-Lago, we can start talking about how Palm Beach will take off.
__________________
That's what did it in the end. Not the money, not the music, not even the guns. That is my heroic flaw: my excess of civic pride.

Last edited by brickell; Jan 12, 2017 at 8:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 7:29 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
You remind me of those people on SSP who were seriously advocating destroying San Francisco's charm in order to make sure we can accomodate all the hordes of people who wish to move there currently (to the current version of SF, mind you). That's frankly nonsense of the first order. There's no need to always shoot for more and more density. The goal is to have a pleasant, functional, sustainable, appealing urban environment, not to cram the most people per square foot just to win data dick-measuring contests on internet forums.
Who exactly is advocating "destroying san francisco's charm" and who is doing that just for "data dick-measuring contests"?

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) because the city is in a housing crisis that is causing people to get pushed out unless they're wealthy.

People want to live in SF, and they're coming whether there's enough housing or not. So we should build more housing. And in a city like SF, that means increased density. And SF's charm doesn't need to be destroyed at all in order to build the necessary amount of housing...well, unless you consider midrise and highrise buildings to be inherently offensive, i guess.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 7:32 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
^Agreed. Theres nothing charming about a city only the mega rich can afford to live in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 7:34 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,261
trump's gonna buy the elvis honeymoon house and set up shop!
__________________
Portland!! Where young people go to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 7:57 PM
BG918's Avatar
BG918 BG918 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo the Dog View Post
With all this talk on Texas and Florida (rightfully so), I think we should include Arizona.

Close physical ties to large pricey CA cities. Very few natural disasters that would devastate a metro for years if not a solid decade. High natural population growth alongside growing international and domestic migration.

Cheap, abundant developable land. Phoenix metro potentially merging with Tucson to form an urbanized region of 10+ million. Combined they're currently approaching 6 million.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 8:01 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by BG918 View Post
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.
Quite easily. Urban areas use a very small % of water in comparison to agriculture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 8:19 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
People want to live in SF, and they're coming whether there's enough housing or not. So we should build more housing. And in a city like SF, that means increased density. And SF's charm doesn't need to be destroyed at all in order to build the necessary amount of housing...well, unless you consider midrise and highrise buildings to be inherently offensive, i guess.
SF doesn't even need to do that. By and large it's a city which tops out at three stories outside of its core. If it just built up to Paris scale (six story walkups) it could fit twice as many people. And Paris of course has plenty of charm, being absolutely nothing like say Hong Kong in its core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.