Tomorrow's Stars

[alchemist redux]

Interesting thread.

In the US, apart from obvious candidates like Miami, a city that I've followed with some interest now is Denver. I don't know how important it is, economically, but it has an astounding amount of new infill under construction, probably the most envious transit expansion on the continent, and a world class international airport with a lot of expansion potential. While it isn't in the heartland of the next region of major growth in the US, the northern Great Plains states, it's the only real city in the vicinity (Minneapolis might be physically closer, but probably not psychologically). Denver is one to watch.

LA is undoubtedly one of the most important cities in the world, but what has been fascinating to watch is LA unfold into a vibrant, traditional walking city. It's not there yet, but if it plays its cards right, LA could have one of the top 5 US downtowns within a decade or two.

In Europe, given that Germany seems to hold the balance of power, maybe one of the second tier cities will emerge to join Berlin as a great European city. Until now, despite their size and importance within the EU, major German cities are somewhat underwhelming. Hamburg and Munich are probably the closest second German cities to approach "greatness" but they're missing a certain je ne sais quois. Frankfurt and Stuttgart are the equivalent of Dallas or Atlanta: globally important, but not a lot of 'there' there.

I don't know enough about Asia, but I think Yangon will probably become much more important in the next few decades. That's not hard, though, because it's essentially starting from the bottom.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by alchemist redux

While it isn't in the heartland of the next region of major growth in the US, the northern Great Plains states, it's the only real city in the vicinity (Minneapolis might be physically closer, but probably not psychologically).

I wouldn't be sure about that. The Dakotas are absolutely part of Minneapolis' economic and cultural hinterland (except for Rapid City which is more in Denver's orbit). Minneapolis' economy is benefiting greatly from the downstream effects of the Bakken and is also a significant source of oil field workers. Minnesota is experiencing a fairly heavy out migration to North Dakota (but is still growing itself because of immigration and natural increase).

[dc_denizen]

From looking at the construction threads on this site and the recently posted, awesome aerial photos, I think it's very clear that Seattle is going to win the race to creating a seamless urban expanse between downtown and the peripheral neighborhoods.

What I mean is, the total elimination of all parking and substandard uses adjacent to the core.

In this respect, Seattle is neck and neck with DC, where the underutilized land east of the convention center and west of N Capitol street, basically the only downtown areas left to develop, are rapidly being filled in.

So Seattle and DC would join the more or less 'seamless' metropoli of SF, Boston, Portland, and NYC. The 'stars' of the urban built environment in the US if you will.

Not sure who would get there next. Chicago, Philly, Austin?

[mhays]

DC's urbanity seems more substantial than Seattle's. That's based on bing maps of DC mostly. Seattle still has a couple booms worth of parking lots to fill. But yes it's exciting to watch its transformation and especially the current boom, which just keeps going and going.

Portland? Portland has reduced its parking lot count impressively, but it's is singular for the exact opposite of cohesive transformation from core to other neighborhoods -- very good core districts but they're isolated from non-core neighborhoods by hills on one side and a river that's mostly industrial on the other side. It's also very sparsely populated, with tracts topping out in the 20s in the last census and a general lack of major multifamily outside the single core. Good or very good city, just not dense at all.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

So Seattle and DC would join the more or less 'seamless' metropoli of SF, Boston, Portland, and NYC. The 'stars' of the urban built environment in the US if you will.

Not sure who would get there next. Chicago, Philly, Austin?

While Portland has a "seamless" urban zone in that it lacks areas of blight or large parking lots on the periphery of its core, DC, Chicago, and Philly otherwise have "greater" urban forms, for what it's worth.


(also I'd say DC is already there and has been for a while)

[dc_denizen]

^ agree, but DC still only today is managing to fill in those areas I mentioned, plus the area around the ballpark. When this is complete though, you will be able to walk from the white house in basically any direction without running into substandard uses/parking. right now, north of the verizon center (very close to union station and the capitol) things are still a bit iffy despite vast progress.

In Portland, I agree the river and the SE industrial district make it complicated. Of course in Portland, the industrial district is still active and bustling and producing various products (artisanal coffee, furniture, distilled beverages etc). What I'm getting at is more the Pearl and downtown, as exemplars of how to fill in a midwestern-city type with new construction and eventually eliminate underutilized areas.

Philly is different, you have more of the abandonment issues for example north of Broad where you should have vitality stretching up from city hall. Despite the obviously strong and active urban environment in 3 out of 4 directions. Chicago seems kind of this way to me.

Houston or Denver in 1970 are basically one end of the axis, with Portland at the other end and Seattle getting there.

Although maybe you have to differentiate between midwest/east coast underutilization/abandonment and recovery, vs Denver/Houston/Portland/Seattle style deliberate destruction/industrial landscape and recovery at various paces.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by mhays

Portland? Portland has reduced its parking lot count impressively, but it's is singular for the exact opposite of cohesive transformation from core to other neighborhoods -- very good core districts but they're isolated from non-core neighborhoods by hills on one side and a river that's mostly industrial on the other side. It's also very sparsely populated, with tracts topping out in the 20s in the last census and a general lack of major multifamily outside the single core. Good or very good city, just not dense at all.

Low density but still in use for something besides billboards and parking lots is basically what I'm getting at.

[ssiguy]

Toronto is definitely ascending up the ranks and that will continue.

There will be some interesting relative increases such as Calgary gaining significantly on Vancouver as Calgary booms and Vancouver's immigration numbers continue to decline and the young fleeing for higher wages and lower housing costs.

I think one of the most interesting races to watch will be in Australia. Melbourne is growing significantly faster than Sydney and the difference between the 2 is only about 400,000 as it is. I think within 20 years Melbourne will overtake Sydney as Australia's premier and largest city as it once was 100 years ago.

[hammersklavier]

My own $0.02:

1) The EU's eastern bloc will add several more globally prominent cities as it develops. I'd keep my eye on Polish cities especially--it's a large and populous country, voraciously expanding. While Katowice is its major financial center, I suspect Warsaw or Krakow will become a major destination--especially whenever bohemians get priced out of Berlin. Similar holds true for Prague (already a major bohemian center, unsurprising as it's in the heart of Bohemia) and Budapest. Romanian cities have to grow some more, but it's a large country and Bucharest is going to appear on the map sooner or later.

2) I fully agree about Latin America. São Paulo is already South America's largest and wealthiest city, and once people become aware of it it's going to rise in global prominence in a big way. Rio has fallen somewhat, it's become more like, well, Berlin (relative to the EU, not to Germany) or Portland.

3) Most Chinese cities have yet to make their way onto the world stage. Shanghai and the PRD still punch below their weight in general--the latter, especially, I can easily see becoming the financial capital of all of East Asia, dropping Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Seoul to secondary status in the local hierarchy. In addition, China's interior remains underdeveloped relative to its coast. Chongqing is the most prominent city there, but I wouldn't be surprised if even relative unknowns e.g. Kunming, Urumqi, and Harbin developed "Denver effects" of becoming the major population and economic centers of vast and (in some cases, quite literally) sparse regions.

4) Africa can only grow. But which cities grow to become more important depend a great deal on where economic activity sparks and/or political stabilization happens. That said, a cluster of stable African nations, once sparked, will probably grow at a pace that could only be considered "meteoric" or "Renaissance-esque".

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Toronto is definitely ascending up the ranks and that will continue.

There will be some interesting relative increases such as Calgary gaining significantly on Vancouver as Calgary booms and Vancouver's immigration numbers continue to decline and the young fleeing for higher wages and lower housing costs.

I think one of the most interesting races to watch will be in Australia. Melbourne is growing significantly faster than Sydney and the difference between the 2 is only about 400,000 as it is. I think within 20 years Melbourne will overtake Sydney as Australia's premier and largest city as it once was 100 years ago.

15 years ago I never would have imagined that Calgary could usurp Vancouver's role as western Canada's principal city. Fast forward to 2014 and Calgary looks destined to pull up even with that city. Calgary is already western Canada's chief head office city and arguably its political centre. Calgary's economy and population continue to grow at a staggering clip.

Lost in the conversation is Edmonton. It has no where near the high profile of Vancouver or Calgary, but it's quietly booming in Calgary's shadows. Canadians are going to wake up in 20 years and realize what a big city Edmonton is. They could hit 2.5 million by then.

Melbourne vs. Sydney? Melbourne has always struck me as the more serious of the two. Melbourne will be Australia's #1 city within 10-15 years. Will it develop some separation like happened in Canada when Toronto zoomed past Montreal?

[ue]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

My own $0.02:

2) I fully agree about Latin America. São Paulo is already South America's largest and wealthiest city, and once people become aware of it it's going to rise in global prominence in a big way. Rio has fallen somewhat, it's become more like, well, Berlin (relative to the EU, not to Germany) or Portland.

I think a better analogy would be Rio=Montreal and Sao Paolo=Toronto, or perhaps an American analogy would be Rio=Philadelphia/Boston and Sao Paolo=New York/Chicago.

3) Most Chinese cities have yet to make their way onto the world stage. Shanghai and the PRD still punch below their weight in general--the latter, especially, I can easily see becoming the financial capital of all of East Asia, dropping Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Seoul to secondary status in the local hierarchy. In addition, China's interior remains underdeveloped relative to its coast. Chongqing is the most prominent city there, but I wouldn't be surprised if even relative unknowns e.g. Kunming, Urumqi, and Harbin developed "Denver effects" of becoming the major population and economic centers of vast and (in some cases, quite literally) sparse regions.

I could see the PRD growing as the financial capital of East Asia too, but more of an extension of Hong Kong, perhaps. Currently, it feels like Shanghai is the metropolis of China, including financially, but that could change relatively quickly.

Originally Posted by isaidso

15 years ago I never would have imagined that Calgary could usurp Vancouver's role as western Canada's principal city. Fast forward to 2014 and Calgary looks destined to pull up even with that city. Calgary is already western Canada's chief head office city and arguably its political centre. Calgary's economy and population continue to grow at a staggering clip.

Lost in the conversation is Edmonton. It has no where near the high profile of Vancouver or Calgary, but it's quietly booming in Calgary's shadows. Canadians are going to wake up in 20 years and realize what a big city Edmonton is. They could hit 2.5 million by then.

Melbourne vs. Sydney? Melbourne has always struck me as the more serious of the two. Melbourne will be Australia's #1 city within 10-15 years. Will it develop some separation like happened in Canada when Toronto zoomed past Montreal?

Yup, Calgary is very front and centre in the Canadian consciousness now, but Edmonton sadly is not, despite being only a couple hundred thousand less and of roughly equal actual importance (just in different fields). 9/10 when an Albertan city is mentioned, it's Calgary, even from places where Edmonton is closer (Saskatoon comes to mind). That being said, I do think it will be awhile, if it ever happens, before Calgary actually overtakes Vancouver in population.

There are reasons for why this is and I've posted about it at length so I won't again unless someone is particularly interested and hasn't seen my previous posts on the matter.

Although I don't tend to like the Alberta-Texas comparisons, the two do share a few things in common, one of them is having two very similarly sized large American cities which constantly battle it out for national attention. I think overall Houston wins, but Dallas still has plenty of punch. Unlike other American states or Canadian provinces which don't have one dominant city, Calgary and Edmonton and Houston and Dallas are pretty similar to each other, which makes it hard for both to carve out their niche like LA and SF or Miami and Orlando have.

[isaidso]

The Alberta - Texas comparison does come up a lot. Granted Texas is far further along in its development and settlement, but it's interesting to analyze another 'frontier' type jurisdiction that went through an oil boom and then diversified. Alberta has a good shot at replicating all the successes that Texas has realized. Calgary may be more of a Denver, but for the purposes of Alberta looking at Texas makes more sense.

I'd argue that Calgary and Dallas have very well defined identities, it's Edmonton and Houston that seem to lack that. Houston does have NASA while Edmonton is the provincial capital, but beyond that people's perceptions are fuzzy.

[ue]

It's hard for me to get behind Alberta-Texas comparisons because they are still quite different and often people make the comparison out of superficial stereotypes which are never very positive for either place. The Colorado comparison is more apt in ways (and not just for Calgary), but it's hard to deny similarities do exist between Alberta and Texas.

I'd say Dallas has the easy-to-sum-up identity compared to Houston, yes, but Houston just strikes me as the city that will end up being Texas' global city if it ever gets one. It seems like a city people know more and bring up more than Dallas for whatever reason. It's got NASA, the Houston Medical Center, not to mention all the huge refineries and seeming to control all the Gulf outposts.

[isaidso]

Canadians are more liberal than Americans right off the bat, so it would benefit those engaged in the debate to take that into consideration rather than jumping to conclusions about Alberta's social values. Colorado is closer to Alberta politically than Texas, but the comparison doesn't hold much value beyond that.

People get too wrapped up in the negative stereotypes of Texas to allow themselves to see the similarities between Texas and Alberta. Alberta holds the same amount of power and influence in Canada that Texas holds in the US; actually Alberta's status is even higher. Colorado just doesn't have that kind of sway in the US sphere nor does it have that potential.

The Texas - Alberta comparison is far more fitting and interesting. The condescending attitude of Americans toward Texas and Canadians toward Alberta is the same, but it would be beneficial to get past all of that and see what's actually there. Besides, those negative attitudes usually always come from people who revel in put downs. Alberta might be our most Conservative province, but it's far more progressive than other parts of Canada on a number of fronts.

[ue]

Colorado and Alberta are also very similar in climate and geography, some aspects of history, and urban forms. Alberta shares some similarities with Colorado and some with Texas.

I think eventually Alberta will become like the Ontario of the west in terms of influence and power. BC was never going to be that Western centre of power like California is in the US. Alberta has the attitude and the economy to do it, and like Ontario, it isn't as centralized in population. In many ways it already has; Alberta may still be Canada's 4th province for another 8-10 years, but in the minds of Canadians, it seems to be acting more and more like the 3rd. It will be interesting to see how Saskatchewan develops relative to this.

[isaidso]

As usual, putting things neatly in a box never quite works. Everything has its characteristics that are unique to itself and places are rarely the mirror image of other places. I suppose I prefer the Texas comparison because my interest is in geo-political issues and economy. Granted, there are reasons why Colorado crops up but it's less aligned with my personal interests so I tend not to look at it for long.

I'm surprised that you don't see BC ever morphing into Canada's 'California'. You're correct that BC is dominated by Vancouver but I think other BC cities will start outpacing Vancouver in growth. Vancouver is expensive and growth will move to Kelowna, Prince George, Victoria, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, etc. These smaller cities are far more pragmatic places and a pipeline to Kitimat would be a game changer for BC. It's been voted down, but it will likely go through anyway. The potential revenue lost for BC is just too big for it not to happen.

I agree that BC seems to lack the economic ambition of places like Alberta or California, but something's surely got to give. BC just can't continue to be as anti-development as its long been. Alberta's rise is a big shock for BC and when Alberta finally passes them, BC will have a day of reckoning. Alberta is already 3rd in the minds of many Canadians and will be Quebec's equal in a generation or 2.

Saskatchewan? It really is a mini-Alberta, isn't it. It's where Alberta was in 1960. All of this makes me think that Canada really is a nation only now starting to fire on all cylinders. The US blossomed a century ago. Canada was always wealthy, but we seem to be hitting our stride now and at the very beginning of our big growth spurt. 100,000,000 by 2100? Many Canadians don't like the prospect of that, but it has a decent chance of happening.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by ue

That being said, I do think it will be awhile, if it ever happens, before Calgary actually overtakes Vancouver in population.

I can't see that ever happening. Alberta overtaking BC is certainly plausible in the near future but here's some food for thought:

If Vancouver keeps growing at it's slower than average pace of the last 4 years and Calgary keeps growing at its above average pace of the last 4 years it will take Calgary 28 years to just be the size Vancouver is now, and it would be the year 2145 before the two cities were the same size.

The current gulf is just so large, and given that the BC economy is finally showing serious signs of life I expect the Van/BC growth rate to really pick up.

And while I agree in that I don't think the politics of either place are the same, I do think that in terms of economic and political clout in their respective countries, Texas/California comparison is at least relatively close. Texas is a very powerful economic and political force in the US, like Alberta to Canada, and while BC certainly lacks California's economy, both have a similar economic/social make up and are sitting second fiddle to their booming inland cousins at the moment.

[jcchii]

just as long as Chicago is still the Miami of Canada

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by ue

I think a better analogy would be Rio=Montreal and Sao Paolo=Toronto, or perhaps an American analogy would be Rio=Philadelphia/Boston and Sao Paolo=New York/Chicago.

Well I could see a Boston comparison more than a Philly one. A major reason why I thought of Berlin is because it is much more of an international destination than an intranational one. Similarly, Rio is the better-known Brazilian city, despite the fact that most of the country's economic engine is found in São Paulo. Cf. the Ruhr Valley, hardly known outside of Germany, but its major economic and population center.

Montréal as Rio also makes sense in this context.

I could see the PRD growing as the financial capital of East Asia too, but more of an extension of Hong Kong, perhaps. Currently, it feels like Shanghai is the metropolis of China, including financially, but that could change relatively quickly.

Right. My thought is that if (when, more like) China begins to exert hegemony over the region, then the financial capital will shift to the hegemon's financial capital, i.e. Shanghai. After all, that's a big part of what ran Victorian London, when the British Empire exerted hegemony, and New York's finance sector over the past century or so, as the U.S. has exerted hegemony. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Frankfurt became more globally important as well, since Germany is increasingly exerting intra-EU financial hegemony.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by ue

It's hard for me to get behind Alberta-Texas comparisons because they are still quite different and often people make the comparison out of superficial stereotypes which are never very positive for either place. The Colorado comparison is more apt in ways (and not just for Calgary), but it's hard to deny similarities do exist between Alberta and Texas.

I'd say Dallas has the easy-to-sum-up identity compared to Houston, yes, but Houston just strikes me as the city that will end up being Texas' global city if it ever gets one. It seems like a city people know more and bring up more than Dallas for whatever reason. It's got NASA, the Houston Medical Center, not to mention all the huge refineries and seeming to control all the Gulf outposts.

When I lived as an expat overseas, it always surprised me that the local folks I talked to had always seemed to have heard of Houston. The space program helped the most, followed by being a major oil center. My conversations never drifted to Dallas, so I can't say whether they were familiar with Dallas or not.