Power Shift: Cities

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I think it's at least arguable. It isn't particularly interesting or sexy, but English Canada is remarkably successful, cohesive, stable and content.

"French" Canada is also very successful I would say. Montreal & Quebec City have regained their "mojo" and are arguably at least as interesting a place to live/visit as "English" Canada. Massive hydro & mineral resources. Even Newfoundland is coming up. A very interesting place to visit. Not even part of Canada until the 1940s. Some little French islands off the coast too. The other Atlantic provinces are very interesting as well.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

"French" Canada is also very successful I would say. Montreal & Quebec City have regained their "mojo" and are arguably at least as interesting a place to live/visit as "English" Canada. Massive hydro & mineral resources. Even Newfoundland is coming up. A very interesting place to visit. Not even part of Canada until the 1940s. Some little French islands off the coast too. The other Atlantic provinces are very interesting as well.

you watched the new bourdain, too? (i saw it last night)

i actually didn't like how he brought the québécois with him to newfuhnlan, sorta mucked things up. i fucking love those quebec episodes, don't get me wrong. newfoundland clearly has it's own heart that he sort of went halfway...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

you watched the new bourdain, too? (i saw it last night)

i actually didn't like how he brought the québécois with him to newfuhnlan, sorta mucked things up. i fucking love those quebec episodes, don't get me wrong. newfoundland clearly has it's own heart that he sort of went halfway...

I agree. It's not a big deal but the presence of the Quebec guys kind of detracted a bit from the spotlight that should have been on Newfoundland. It's not as if Quebec food people are experts on the Newfoundland scene (they generally aren't) and absolutely needed to be there...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

"French" Canada is also very successful I would say. Montreal & Quebec City have regained their "mojo" and are arguably at least as interesting a place to live/visit as "English" Canada. Massive hydro & mineral resources. .

"French-speaking Canada" is doing well it is true but I wouldn't call it a star performer among western nations. It's pretty average I'd say.

It's odd to say this but in a number of ways Quebec to me always kinda felt more like the "rest of the world" than the rest of Canada did. Which runs totally against a certain conventional wisdom in my country that Quebec has its head on backwards and goes against the ways of the contemporary world.

[Yuri]

Resurrecting the thread, with a massive shift.

Yesterday, Australians released their 2020 estimates and Melbourne overtook Sydney as Australia's biggest city: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/australia/cities/

Both cities had started to grow faster than Australian average for the past 10 years, but Melbourne at an even faster rate. Not sure if we'll see an economic shift as well, like the one that happened in Brazil or Canada. Nonetheless, it's not every day we see a change on the top like that.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Resurrecting the thread, with a massive shift.

Yesterday, Australians released their 2020 estimates and Melbourne overtook Sydney as Australia's biggest city: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/australia/cities/

Both cities had started to grow faster than Australian average for the past 10 years, but Melbourne at an even faster rate. Not sure if we'll see an economic shift as well, like the one that happened in Brazil or Canada. Nonetheless, it's not every day we see a change on the top like that.

i’m used to a little different archetype in the commonwealth - must be specifically toronto vs montreal. instead this seems more like dallas vs houston or something.

[Crawford]

Sydney is still Australia's alpha, and will be for decades.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i’m used to a little different archetype in the commonwealth - must be specifically toronto vs montreal. instead this seems more like dallas vs houston or something.

I guess the Texan comparison is a better one, specially as Sydney didn't slow down as badly as Montreal and Rio de Janeiro, allowing Toronto, and specially São Paulo, completely dominating the national scene within few years after the population overtook.

And let's see if the Australian 2021 Census confirms that overtook or if Sydney will still appear barely ahead.

[Centropolis]

very confusing. looks like a historical tit-for-tat between the two going back a century or more.

[Crawford]

There's a legacy aspect to power/prominence. Montreal is still globally as prominent as Toronto, even though Toronto left Montreal in the dust by any objective factor decades ago.

Dallas will probably one day have the economy of London and Paris, and might even approach their population. Does anyone think Dallas will, even a century from now, be considered a metro of equivalent stature?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

very confusing. looks like a historical tit-for-tat between the two going back a century or more.

It seems Melbourne jumped ahead in the 1860's, during the Australian Gold Rush. Then, Sydney was once more ahead and kept the distance since ever.

South Africa had a similar case, due its local Gold Rush. Cape Town was the biggest city since its establishment on 17th century. Then, within 10 years after Johannesburg's foundation in the late 19th century, it jumped ahead and was never challenged again. And both countries "birth" are marked by Cape Town and Sydney foundations.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's a legacy aspect to power/prominence. Montreal is still globally as prominent as Toronto, even though Toronto left Montreal in the dust by any objective factor decades ago.

Dallas will probably one day have the economy of London and Paris, and might even approach their population. Does anyone think Dallas will, even a century from now, be considered a metro of equivalent stature?

It's open to discussion whether Montreal still has more international prominence than Toronto.

[tayser]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Resurrecting the thread, with a massive shift.

Yesterday, Australians released their 2020 estimates and Melbourne overtook Sydney as Australia's biggest city: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/australia/cities/

Both cities had started to grow faster than Australian average for the past 10 years, but Melbourne at an even faster rate. Not sure if we'll see an economic shift as well, like the one that happened in Brazil or Canada. Nonetheless, it's not every day we see a change on the top like that.

Major Agglomerations on that site is basically the SUA - Significant Urban Area data from the ABS. This is not the headline figure we use for quoting a city's population (for 'metropolitan area' populations - we never, ever break down individual municipal populations because they're so small).

Sydney is still ahead in the headline data: GCCSA - Greater Capital City Statistical Area is our "metropolitan area" population figure.

SUA = contiguous from the city centre to the end of the sprawl
GCCSA = SUA + commuter towns within easy reach of the SUA.

explanation from the ABS

This map explains it well:

Dark blue: built-up area of Melbourne (or other statelite towns/cities - you can tell which is Melbourne and which is not).
Light blue: the extent to which Melbourne will eventually sprawl - this is all land (regardless of use - it'll include large industrial areas, green wedges, residential and commercial uses - eventually.) that is within the Urban Growth Boundary
Yellow: extent of Melbourne's GCCSA area (everything covered within yellow counts for the GCCSA population figure - the SUA figure is Dark blue).



Melbourne GCCSA: 5,159,211 <--- Melbourne is still second in rank on this widely used method/figure.
Melbourne SUA: 4,969,305 <--- the site is using this figure.

Hope that clears things up.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's a legacy aspect to power/prominence. Montreal is still globally as prominent as Toronto, even though Toronto left Montreal in the dust by any objective factor decades ago.

Dallas will probably one day have the economy of London and Paris, and might even approach their population. Does anyone think Dallas will, even a century from now, be considered a metro of equivalent stature?

probably not, but its also interesting to note the status of older or larger midwestern cities that were steamrolled by capitalism and for whom status proved to be nothing as things accelerated.

[llamaorama]

Having never been to either city but taking a look at Google Earth, it seems like Melbourne has an abundance of room to grow outward. It also has the infrastructure to do so in an intelligent fashion, with some improved regional/commuter rail lines going out to neighboring towns like Geelong. Put intermediate stations down, finance extensions of water and sewer, and that area would EXPLODE with development probably given how expensive housing in Australia is.

Sydney looks more like LA or the Bay Area. It's all boxed in by hills and mountains except for a bit of the western metro area that doesn't have any rail lines or freeways.

Melbourne seems like, in a perfect world where urban growth was more like Simcity and not the economic reality it truly is, the better "Australia's largest city" because it could accommodate a lot more people with housing they could afford.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Having never been to either city but taking a look at Google Earth, it seems like Melbourne has an abundance of room to grow outward. It also has the infrastructure to do so in an intelligent fashion, with some improved regional/commuter rail lines going out to neighboring towns like Geelong. Put intermediate stations down, finance extensions of water and sewer, and that area would EXPLODE with development probably given how expensive housing in Australia is.

Sydney looks more like LA or the Bay Area. It's all boxed in by hills and mountains except for a bit of the western metro area that doesn't have any rail lines or freeways.

Melbourne seems like, in a perfect world where urban growth was more like Simcity and not the economic reality it truly is, the better "Australia's largest city" because it could accommodate a lot more people with housing they could afford.

I read that Melbourne housing is cheaper than Sydney, and that is one reason driving the more rapid growth.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's a legacy aspect to power/prominence. Montreal is still globally as prominent as Toronto, even though Toronto left Montreal in the dust by any objective factor decades ago.

Dallas will probably one day have the economy of London and Paris, and might even approach their population. Does anyone think Dallas will, even a century from now, be considered a metro of equivalent stature?

My gut feeling is no - no TX city will rival London and Paris, or even NYC or LA in stature. They may be considered in the same league as Chicago. TX has multiple large clusters so it would be hard to say one will come to overwhelmingly dominate even TX. It's really impossible to project out decades into the future. If you looked at cities in the 1940s, you would have projected that Detroit would rival NYC in 50 years as it boomed in the 1920s through the 1940s with the auto and manufacturing industry. That obviously has not happened.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

It's open to discussion whether Montreal still has more international prominence than Toronto.

Depends on where you sit in the world.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by DCReid

My gut feeling is no - no TX city will rival London and Paris, or even NYC or LA in stature. They may be considered in the same league as Chicago. TX has multiple large clusters so it would be hard to say one will come to overwhelmingly dominate even TX. It's really impossible to project out decades into the future. If you looked at cities in the 1940s, you would have projected that Detroit would rival NYC in 50 years as it boomed in the 1920s through the 1940s with the auto and manufacturing industry. That obviously has not happened.

Texas is a 21st century anomaly that is inevitably doomed. In this day and age when people can live anywhere, a city's surrounding physical geography and its existing architecture are its most important assets.. maybe even its only important assets. My thought is that all the inland texas cities (which is to say, most of them) will ultimately face the same fate as all the other inland cities in this country... people will get bored and leave when they can. Theres nothing about (for example) Dallas that will ever be able to prevent it from eventually just becoming another Kansas City. And KC has better architecture than Dallas.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

It's open to discussion whether Montreal still has more international prominence than Toronto.

No it's not. Toronto is THE premier Canadian city. Full stop.

Montreal is indeed a very important city but it is way behind Toronto and that gap grows every year.

In English Canada, Toronto dominance is complete and over riding. It is the economic, political, social, intellectual, cultural, financial, and media capitol..........there is no 2nd place. Hell, you would even be hard pressed to say there is a 3rd place.