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

[mhays]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

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?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

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).

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.

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.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by tascalisa

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.

[ue]

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.

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

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.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

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.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

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"?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

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.

[hipster duck]

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.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

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.

[pdxtex]

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...

[Leo the Dog]

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.

[Ant131531]

Dallas is already the logistics hub of Texas.

[brickell]

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.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

[ChargerCarl]

^Agreed. Theres nothing charming about a city only the mega rich can afford to live in.

[pdxtex]

trump's gonna buy the elvis honeymoon house and set up shop!

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

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.

[ChargerCarl]

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.

Quite easily. Urban areas use a very small % of water in comparison to agriculture.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by tech12

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.