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

[GlassCity]

I think Calgary being further south helps its image too, if even subconsciously. Not knowing much about cities, you could assume that Calgary would be bigger and more important than Edmonton, since its further south and that's generally how it works in Canada.

[exposed1011]

Give it another 20 years... Mississauga (city connected to Toronto) will go from 800k-900k it is now to about 1.3-1.5m. Doesn't stop growing, big city for Canada. Currently 6th largest.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think Calgary being further south helps its image too, if even subconsciously. Not knowing much about cities, you could assume that Calgary would be bigger and more important than Edmonton, since its further south and that's generally how it works in Canada.

Yeah Edmonton is pretty far north, even for Canadian cities. It must get bitterly cold this time of year.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

Id say it already is. Cleary there is a population shift occurring in the midwest. Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Columbus are now the other top tier cities along side Detroit and Chicago.

oh yeah certainly that is already true, but i was taking op as meaning some next level type growth. like one of those three jumping detroit region. i cant see any of them jumping over chicagoland though, but you never know, just look what is happening with toronto. i guess austin would be a similar non-midwestern/texas example of those 3 cities.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by exposed1011

Give it another 20 years... Mississauga (city connected to Toronto) will go from 800k-900k it is now to about 1.3-1.5m. Doesn't stop growing, big city for Canada. Currently 6th largest.

Mississauga is a suburb of Toronto, no matter how much Hazel wanted it to be recognized as it's own city. Doesn't really count for this discussion. It also won't get anywhere close to that population, even in 20 years. The city is essentially built-out at this point and virtually all new growth will be through intensification. And while there is a fair amount of this, growth rates are dropping considerably as it's simply harder to fit that many people in through infill compared to greenfield development.

It's currently around 770k now and by the city's own commissioned forecasts is projected to be between 844k and 872k in 2036. Source: http://www5.mississauga.ca/research_..._2011_2051.pdf

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It takes 45 minutes to drive there from Halifax. I'm not sure how the size of the agricultural area is relevant any way. The reason Nova Scotia and Halifax didn't become big population centres has little to do with a lack of agricultural land and everything to do with Confederation.

No, Halifax is small because it is an amazing port in a terrible location. St. John's didn't have all those restrictions of confederation, yet remains significantly smaller than Halifax. Why? Because they're good stopping points, but with a very limited hinterland. New York or Montreal thrived because they let you land in a region filled with people and options. Halifax is good for Nova Scotia, but there's not a huge amount there (and a decent chunk of the resources are up on Cape Breton). To connect to the rest of North America you have to get around the Bay of Fundy, at which point your competing with St. John for that market, and proximity wins for ports pretty well every time. Without Canada throwing all sorts of military investments and such I suspect that Halifax would be smaller than it ended up. Possibly a bit richer, but when you're a stepping stone port you need to be somewhere pretty important to grow (Singapore is doing nicely, Punta Arenas not so much).

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think Calgary being further south helps its image too, if even subconsciously. Not knowing much about cities, you could assume that Calgary would be bigger and more important than Edmonton, since its further south and that's generally how it works in Canada.

Yet Saskatoon is larger than Regina, Vancouver larger than Victoria, and Toronto is larger than Hamilton, London, etc. so being further north doesn't mean smaller.

As for the main topic, if we count Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa as 'big cities', then my money would be on Winnipeg or Quebec City.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

oh yeah certainly that is already true, but i was taking op as meaning some next level type growth. like one of those three jumping detroit region. i cant see any of them jumping over chicagoland though, but you never know, just look what is happening with toronto. i guess austin would be a similar non-midwestern/texas example of those 3 cities.

Columbus will be the one to watch if current growth rates continue. Its growing like a sun belt city at the moment. That's exciting. Id bargain that Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis are about as big as they are ever going to get, well at least in our lifetime, they'll see population gain, or shifts in demographics but inclement weather, sheer size, and perception of crime will continue to not work in any of their favor. Columbus is definitely the Midwest all rounder at the moment and seems to be doing everything right.

[ThePhun1]

Isn't QC bounded by a city wall? How much could it grow?

[niwell]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Isn't QC bounded by a city wall? How much could it grow?

Only the very oldest part of the city. I'm not sure exactly when it expanded beyond the boundaries of the wall but it was certainly well before 1900. Streets like this exist in the areas surrounding the old walled city: https://goo.gl/maps/Q5wKYWRLJtL2


Fun fact - Quebec City is actually among the sprawliest cities in Canada despite the very dense core. The new business district (Ste-Foy) is emerging in the suburbs a good 8km or so from the core.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Beedok

No, Halifax is small because it is an amazing port in a terrible location. St. John's didn't have all those restrictions of confederation, yet remains significantly smaller than Halifax. Why? Because they're good stopping points, but with a very limited hinterland. New York or Montreal thrived because they let you land in a region filled with people and options. Halifax is good for Nova Scotia, but there's not a huge amount there (and a decent chunk of the resources are up on Cape Breton). To connect to the rest of North America you have to get around the Bay of Fundy, at which point your competing with St. John for that market, and proximity wins for ports pretty well every time. Without Canada throwing all sorts of military investments and such I suspect that Halifax would be smaller than it ended up. Possibly a bit richer, but when you're a stepping stone port you need to be somewhere pretty important to grow (Singapore is doing nicely, Punta Arenas not so much).



Yet Saskatoon is larger than Regina, Vancouver larger than Victoria, and Toronto is larger than Hamilton, London, etc. so being further north doesn't mean smaller.

As for the main topic, if we count Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa as 'big cities', then my money would be on Winnipeg or Quebec City.

Halifax probably still wouldn't have been as big as Montreal if Nova Scotia was actually arable, but it would definitely have been a much bigger city if it did.

And I know about the north-south relationships of course, and I think the Vancouver/Victoria and especially Toronto/London & Hamilton examples are not that important. They're so close to each other that the distance is irrelevant. And regardless, if you look at it from a national as opposed to provincial perspective, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the population is concentrated in the south. Toronto is bigger than Vancouver, which is bigger than Calgary which is bigger than Yellowknife.

I'm not saying it's an accurate way to figure out city size, but I think there could be a sub-conscious thing that does give that impression. Most people outside this forum don't know if Saskatoon or Regina are bigger. Especially for people outside of Canada, it wouldn't be surprising if they assumed Edmonton was significantly smaller, simply from knowing that lots of people live in the US and very few people live in the Arctic.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Isn't QC bounded by a city wall? How much could it grow?

Lévis (suburb) on the south shore of the St.Lawrence River is growing rapidly. +11% since 2006.

[GlassCity]

The wall surrounds a tiny part of the modern city, basically just the city centre at this point. The built up area already extends far beyond it.

[exposed1011]

Originally Posted by niwell

Mississauga is a suburb of Toronto, no matter how much Hazel wanted it to be recognized as it's own city. Doesn't really count for this discussion. It also won't get anywhere close to that population, even in 20 years. The city is essentially built-out at this point and virtually all new growth will be through intensification. And while there is a fair amount of this, growth rates are dropping considerably as it's simply harder to fit that many people in through infill compared to greenfield development.

It's currently around 770k now and by the city's own commissioned forecasts is projected to be between 844k and 872k in 2036. Source: http://www5.mississauga.ca/research_..._2011_2051.pdf

Fair enough. However it is it's own city by definition, not a suburb. Would you tell the same thing to Oakland? St.Paul? Jersey City? Ft. Worth? They wouldn't agree with that. Fact is (for Canada) it's already a large city.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by exposed1011

Fair enough. However it is it's own city by definition, not a suburb. Would you tell the same thing to Oakland? St.Paul? Jersey City? Ft. Worth? They wouldn't agree with that. Fact is (for Canada) it's already a large city.

What definition? Pretty much all suburbs are legally "cities." I don't think there's a point where a suburb transitions from being a suburb to being its own city. Even when a suburb becomes big and has its own collection of offices, entertainment and commercial opportunities, I still can't think of it as a city.

It's a personal thing though, depends on how you see things. I prefer cities to be unitary, with suburbs really just being arbitrary manifestations of unnecessary borders. As such, I am a supporter of calling all municipalities outside-but-near major cities suburbs, regardless of their built form, and a very big supporter of labelling yourself a Torontonian even if you live in Brampton. All these random divisions are an annoyance and make no sense in the interconnected nature of modern urban areas. I think it divides people more than it accomplishes anything useful.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Only the very oldest part of the city. I'm not sure exactly when it expanded beyond the boundaries of the wall but it was certainly well before 1900. Streets like this exist in the areas surrounding the old walled city: https://goo.gl/maps/Q5wKYWRLJtL2


Fun fact - Quebec City is actually among the sprawliest cities in Canada despite the very dense core. The new business district (Ste-Foy) is emerging in the suburbs a good 8km or so from the core.

The metro area can in fact merrily sprawl in every single direction (though there's some hilly terrain to the north, not that suitable) given that the River only acts as a barrier for municipalities, and city limits are quite meaningless when looking at the built area. (In other words, though Quebec City can't sprawl south, Lévis can.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Isn't QC bounded by a city wall? How much could it grow?

The walled core is only a tiny part of the city. The city grew beyond that centuries ago.

This gate, for example, the view in that pic is outbound, i.e. those buildings you see are "outside"; it's the person taking the pic who's "inside".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Fun fact - Quebec City is actually among the sprawliest cities in Canada despite the very dense core. The new business district (Ste-Foy) is emerging in the suburbs a good 8km or so from the core.

The fact that this "Biggest Dick East of Toronto" is planned for a suburb (which has been the de facto CBD for a long time now) is quite telling. We're in the same leagues as Houston (Williams Tower, right?) on that one... that kind of thing is very likely the exception more than the rule. Normal cities build their tallests in (or at least near) their cores.

[exposed1011]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

What definition? Pretty much all suburbs are legally "cities." I don't think there's a point where a suburb transitions from being a suburb to being its own city. Even when a suburb becomes big and has its own collection of offices, entertainment and commercial opportunities, I still can't think of it as a city.

It's a personal thing though, depends on how you see things. I prefer cities to be unitary, with suburbs really just being arbitrary manifestations of unnecessary borders. As such, I am a supporter of calling all municipalities outside-but-near major cities suburbs, regardless of their built form, and a very big supporter of labelling yourself a Torontonian even if you live in Brampton. All these random divisions are an annoyance and make no sense in the interconnected nature of modern urban areas. I think it divides people more than it accomplishes anything useful.

Like all major cities, there are divisions within but when we are asked from someone outside the area we all say we're from Toronto. I'm born and raised in Toronto but live now in Mississauga, have friends all over. When we talk among ourselves there are differences and we recognize them. If you're from the outside looking in, you'd consider us all the same. But like you said it's a personal choice, my friends in 'Sauga who are born and raised here will always consider it a city on it's own - unless they go on vacation somewhere and then they just say Toronto because it's recognizable on a world level.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The wall surrounds a tiny part of the modern city, basically just the city centre at this point.

Minor nitpick but the walled core is actually quite a bit smaller than the "city centre". There are areas that are squarely "downtown" - Parliament buildings, "G" building, the Hilton, etc. - that are already outside the fortifications. And the Lower Town is also most definitely functionally downtown, yet it's - obviously - outside the fortifications.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by lio45

Minor nitpick but the walled core is actually quite a bit smaller than the "city centre". There are areas that are squarely "downtown" - Parliament buildings, "G" building, the Hilton, etc. - that are already outside the fortifications. And the Lower Town is also most definitely functionally downtown, yet it's - obviously - outside the fortifications.

Thanks, I don't actually know much about Quebec City and wasn't sure if the areas outside it would be considered part of it or not. Frankly just a guess on my part of what the definition was.