US equivalents of Calgary?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

Skyline-wise, nothing in the U.S. comes close in the similar size range. Calgary also has a far higher transit share than comparable U.S. cities.

I will say though, that it doesn't necessarily translate to a much more vibrant downtown. There are many U.S. cities of similar size that have more energy at the street level, notably Portland, but also Austin, New Orleans, and others.

Calgary historically was a much smaller city and modern development including high rises typically is much more sterile than provided in cities with older density. Perhaps downtown Calgary features too many office towers and not enough condos to animate downtown streets.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

According to Emporis:



Whats interesting is the large quantity of low-rise (<12 story) in the US cities.

and that Salt Lake City has far less highrises as well as lowrises compared to its peers

Is Emporia a reliable source? My sense has always been "no". Calgary has likely built 300 lowrises in the past ten years alone (if not much more).

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Denver

I agree that Denver has a similar Great Plains meet Mountains vibe to Calgary, but it's also twice as big.

I've always wondered what it would be like if there were a large city East of the Rockies in Montana, maybe where Great Falls is.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Canada has about 37 million people per Wiki, and Calgary is the 3rd largest city and 4th largest metro. Given its size influence to Canada, should it be compared to bigger US metros like Atlanta, rather than Austin, and does it really 'punch above its weight' in that regard?

I don't see what the rank of the cities in their country has to do with the question I posted. Just wondered were there any US cities/metros of similar size that had a skyline that punched above it's weight in a similar fashion.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I agree that Denver has a similar Great Plains meet Mountains vibe to Calgary, but it's also twice as big.

I've always wondered what it would be like if there were a large city East of the Rockies in Montana, maybe where Great Falls is.

Denver is nowhere near as an important of an oil & gas center as Calgary though. There is a decent-sized industry cluster including some smaller HQ's and some production north of Denver but nowhere on the same scale as Calgary.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Honolulu does have a crapload of 100+m buildings, but it really lacks upper end height. It's extremely "plateau-y".

According to the CTBUH, Honolulu is home to:

0 towers over 200m
0 towers over 150m
84 towers over 100m


As a good example, Calgary's tallest tower is roughly twice as tall as Honolulu's tallest.

Yeah, Calgary definitely has a more top-heavy skyline. But Honolulu is a smaller metro than Calgary and definitely punches above its weight in high-rises (and mass transit use, for that matter).

[summersm343]

Agree with others. Austin or Denver would probably be your closest comparison to Calgary in the US.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

Skyline-wise, nothing in the U.S. comes close in the similar size range. Calgary also has a far higher transit share than comparable U.S. cities.

I will say though, that it doesn't necessarily translate to a much more vibrant downtown. There are many U.S. cities of similar size that have more energy at the street level, notably Portland, but also Austin, New Orleans, and others.

Agree although in 2019 Austin (2,227,083) and Portland (2,492,412) are considerably bigger metros. The corresponding figure for Calgary was 1,514,723. Downtown Calgary's CBD lacks a large resident population and all the amenities (retail, restaurants, cultural attractions) that come with that. One has to leave and travel to the Beltline to find stuff like that.

The public realm is the other noticeable deficiency. Both of these things are fixable, of course, but Calgary needs another 15-20 years for these things to be realized imo.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Is Emporia a reliable source? My sense has always been "no". Calgary has likely built 300 lowrises in the past ten years alone (if not much more).

well all cities have been adding lowrises, especially austin and denver. look at the multifamily permitting census data for instance.

I think emporis' definition of lowrises includes too many buildings, better to cut it off at 6 stories or so.

[dc_denizen]

Interesting photo of Austin, 3 years of of date. I would expect Calgary to be far more centralized than this.

IMG_8110.jpg by Rich Good, on Flickr

here we see a better view of the east of i-35 restaurant district. all low-rises, under 15 years old.

Austin City Skyline Aerial by formulanone, on Flickr

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree although in 2019 Austin (2,227,083) and Portland (2,492,412) are considerably bigger metros. The corresponding figure for Calgary was 1,514,723. Downtown Calgary's CBD lacks a large resident population and all the amenities (retail, restaurants, cultural attractions) that come with that. One has to leave and travel to the Beltline to find stuff like that.

The public realm is the other noticeable deficiency. Both of these things are fixable, of course, but Calgary needs another 15-20 years for these things to be realized imo.

Austin is just growing insanely fast. The two metros were much closer in size a decade ago.

[dc_denizen]

Interesting low-rise areas of Austin

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Au...!4d-97.7430608

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2444.../data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Au...!4d-97.7430608

my sense is these would be highrise towers in Calgary

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3967...7i13000!8i6500

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Austin is just growing insanely fast. The two metros were much closer in size a decade ago.

The population gap in absolute terms is increasing but their relative size is staying the same. Austin's population growth rate is blisteringly fast but Calgary is growing at pretty much the same rate. I used 2011 as accurate Census data in Canada is easier to come by for 2006, 2011, 2016, etc. It bears mentioning that Edmonton, 3 hours drive north of Calgary, is growing just as fast. Alberta seems to grow extremely quickly regardless of what oil does. When their energy sector tanks they add a ton of people. When it's expanding, they add people at an even faster clip. Alberta has 2 speeds: fast and faster.


2011 Population

Austin: 1,780,535
Calgary: 1,214,839 (68.23% the size of Austin MSA)
Edmonton: 1,159,869 (65.14% the size of Austin MSA)


2019 Population

Austin: 2,227,083
Calgary: 1,514,723 (68.01% the size of Austin MSA)
Edmonton: 1,447,143 (64.98% the size of Austin MSA)


https://www.census.gov/data/tables/t...al-areas.html#
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...&GK=CMA&GC=825

[dc_denizen]

some very dense suburb of Austin. this looks like suburban toronto, ahhahaha

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Au...!4d-97.7430608

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't know, I still look at Calgary and think it has more bulk than Austin. Considering how fast we've grown, though, I wouldn't think it too unreasonable to assume that we might approach Calgary's bulk eventually. I get that the question was which city punches above its weight, but I still look at places like Calgary, Denver, and Minneapolis as the next ones to approach.

I do feel pretty comfortable about saying that we've already passed Pittsburgh and New Orleans.

I think right now the city that is most like Austin with skyline girth, and to a lesser extent, height is Charlotte. We're probably about the size they are, but they have some more height on us.

Skylines are different though. There are skylines with tall towers but not a lot of bulk, and then there are the ones with bulk but little height. And then there are the monsters with both.

So while you might compare a skyline like Austin to Charlotte and consider them, there are other skylines that are what I consider bulky but that don't have a lot of height and probably themselves wish they did, but I think they have some bulk that can't be overlooked. Places like San Diego and Honolulu are two big ones that come to mind.

Austin's getting both these days. More height and more bulk with more towers being built in parts of downtown where there weren't many or any before. Austin's central skyline compromises of the boundary lines of downtown from the river north to 19th Street (MLK Boulevard) and from Lamar Boulevard east to I-35. This area includes where the Frost Bank Tower is up to north of the Capitol. North of MLK is outside of the boundary lines of downtown, but that area includes the University of Texas Campus and West Campus, and those two are part of the same skyline as downtown is. The UT Campus has 21 high rises - buildings over 115 feet. West Campus is mostly student housing, and it's really taken off in the last 10 years with more towers being built. There are 16 buildings there now over 115 feet. All of those are student housing. There's another one starting now that will be 321 feet with 30 floors. That will be the tallest building on the northern end of our central skyline. There's another 320 footer proposed a couple of blocks away from that one.

I made these rough Google Earth models of the development here.

Green - complete
Amber - site prep/site demo
Red - Construction
Blue - Proposed

West Campus with downtown to the south.


University of Texas Campus and West Campus.


Note: Some of these towers have started construction since I took these screenshots.









6 X Guadalupe under construction now - 848 feet with 65 floors. The 2nd tall one there is the BBVA Tower, and it's 774 feet with 60 floors. The tall tower in the lower right is The Republic - 708 feet with 46 floors, and the tall one to the left of the Frost Bank Tower is Tower 5C and is 670 feet with 40 floors. Those last three are proposed.



There is also the Domain, which is the first real 2nd skyline in Austin. This area is 8 miles north of downtown - driving distance is 13 miles, and there are several 200 footers up there and a handful of 300 footers underway.

[Dariusb]

^^Wow! Great diagrams!

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

and that Salt Lake City has far less highrises as well as lowrises compared to its peers

I think the potential reasons for this are interesting and almost entirely cultural. SLC is in a central position geographically, has access to natural resources, and has wonderful access to nature and national parks. Why is the downtown underdeveloped?

First, SLC is historically the center of Mormonism, and Mormons tend to enjoy their large families and single family houses even more than the average American. They also don't drink alcohol, so a lot of the appeal of downtown living is lost right there.

Second, the primary battleground of Mormons/anti-Mormons in Utah has been and still is SLC, so much of the city's history has been shaped by this feud. Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Main Street even had competing Mormon (around the Temple) and non-Mormon (around City Hall) districts that tried to outdo each other. The city also didn't take the opportunity annex it's neighbors, so officially it's only ~200k residents and a small part of the Salt Lake Valley (population ~1.2m). Nowadays, SLC proper is the least Mormon city in Utah, with the majority being non-Mormon and the politics being dominated by progressives of various stripes. Some of these progressives, being ex-Mormons themselves, are openly (and sometimes annoyingly) hostile toward the LDS church.

This latter dynamic has caused the more devout Mormons to move out to the suburbs and to Utah County, where the culture is much more orthodox due to the presence of BYU. Further, many of these people, consiously or subconsciously, do not want the capital to grow in importance too much because of its political and cultural divergence. The reality of all of this is probably more complex than this simple picture, but I think it's accurate to say that the legislature isn't very supportive of the city and sometimes actively undermines it.

When an MLS stadium was going to be built in SLC for Real Salt Lake, it was instead built in Sandy (10 miles south) because SLC was denied certain funding sources that were not denied to Sandy. When the legislature decided to move the Utah State Prison from Draper so that that city could develop the land, they decided to move it to an uninhabited part of SLC that also had high development potential (and is also ecologically sensitive). Even in the last few months, the legislature decided to create an inland port in SLC and not give the city any representation on the decision-making board. After complaints and a sovereignty lawsuit against the state, they finally gave the city a marginal say in the process. The lawsuit is still active though.

Things are changing, and the skyline of SLC will be much different in five years. We have a lot of cool projects under construction and on the horizon, on top of a more-than-decent transit system, so I'm optimistic! Anyway, thanks for reading if you made it this far!

[dc_denizen]

^^ interesting. I do think the city has a ton of potential. I read somewhere that Utah is the only state / province in N America that has actually gained manufacturing jobs since 1990

[dc_denizen]

here is Charlotte, showing many midrise developments surrounding the core as well as many still-undeveloped parking lots

Charlotte, NC by Jack Landau, on Flickr

[dc_denizen]

this seems a bit redolent of calgary to me:

AdobeStock_218415561 by LittletonAdvertising, on Flickr

As a secondary banking center Charlotte, will likely continue to benefit from drain of these jobs from high-cost new york and other locations. this will likely mean more towers/large multifamily investments continuing in the core.