That is if there's the usual bum rush a "comparison" or "vs." thread attracts.
Otherwise, interesting. Calgary looks even more north/south skewed when compared to Denver.
We hear a lot about how Calgary is one of the most sprawling cities in North America, I was just curious on what it actually looks like. Calgary is somewhat at an unfair advantage as it is pretty clear what Calgary is, in terms of where it starts and ends. But somewhere like Portland, where does it start and where does it end?
^Yeah that's the thing. Calgary is an exception, not the rule. I wasn't trying to criticize what you're trying to do. It's just that these sort of threads tend to attract people from other cities who invariably take exception and defend their own city. Either that or they have a dislike for either Calgary or Alberta and just try to bash it. Check out the "Suzuki calls Calgary an Ecological Disaster" thread. Anyway, hopefully that doesn't happen.
I remember doing this with places like Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston and seeing quite a difference.
^Yeah that's the thing. Calgary is an exception, not the rule. I wasn't trying to criticize what you're trying to do. It's just that these sort of threads tend to attract people from other cities who invariably take exception and defend their own city. Either that or they have a dislike for either Calgary or Alberta and just try to bash it. Check out the "Suzuki calls Calgary and Ecological Disaster" thread. Anyway, hopefully that doesn't happen.
I remember doing this with places like Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston and seeing quite a difference.
You mean like this... (see below). I'll try to keep it clear of any editorial comment. I'm not trying to say anything about these other cities; if I am criticizing anything it is the notion that Calgary's sprawl is somehow exceptional.
If anything these comparisons show that Calgary is actually quite compact in terms of land area. It looks to be about half the urban footprint of the Vancouver area, with half the population. In terms of the contiguous portion of the Denver metro area (excluding the stuff way to the north), it looks to be about 1/4 the urban footprint, again with about half the population.
Interesting thread if it can avoid the inevitable.
I've done a few of these when bored and can more or less agree with the results although for some reason Calgary:GTA looks a little small, everything else is bang on.
Maybe Denver looks so much bigger in the OP because it's higher in altitude, thus closer to the satellite! LOL
There was a similar thread on SSC, where skyline size / impact was compared which was also pretty interesting.
Awesome thread. If anyone turns this into a shouting match (usual result), I implore the mods: do your jobs, and tempban the asshats. Don't lock down a very interesting thread just because of a few miscreants.
I did this for most Canadian cities > 500,000 a few years back, but I think I lost the files. Ironically it started as a "Calgary vs Winnipeg sprawl" argument.
Not surprising...if you look at what the actual built up areas for these cities are, Ottawa appears to have a much smaller overall footprint than Calgary. I visit Ottawa often, and in comparison to Calgary I am struck both by how compact the city is for its population, and how densely populated both older neighborhoods and nodes along the Transitway are.
^Yeah if my post had a point, it was that. As much as the larger cities get vilified for sprawl issues, smaller cities are equally or more guilty, it is just that the scale is smaller.
In Lethbridge's case, the built area is spread out, but takes up only about 2/3 of the area of the image above. The small (but growing) west side is separated from the older south and north sides by a huge river valley and park area.
Yes that is Lethbridge's flag. I like their crest much better
Prev
(see below). I'll try to keep it clear of any editorial comment. I'm not trying to say anything about these other cities; if I am criticizing anything it is the notion that Calgary's sprawl is somehow exceptional. 
Linear Mode
