Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli (Post 9323639)

Wrong again. Heres the post I was talking about:



Nice try, dumbass.

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli (Post 9323668)

Speaking of backpeddling...:haha:

Im fine though, thanks.

Originally Posted by wwmiv (Post 9323673)

I never backpedaled. I added detail so the person I responded to would understand my thought process and not respond in an abusive disgusting way like you have (not saying they would have, just drawing further attention to your behavior).

I’m disengaging now.

Originally Posted by wwmiv (Post 9323644)

After I read this, I’m left with the nagging question about where exactly you disagreed with my previous lengthy post on this in this thread?

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli (Post 9323628)

Nice try dumbass but he said "US cities" not American.

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 9320276)

Agreed. Since returning to LA I've noticed a ton of construction, but almost all of it is between three and seven floors.

Originally Posted by C. (Post 9320182)

Data from Emporis on number of 12+ floors buildings under construction in select US cities. Please feel free to update the numbers below if the data on Emporis is inaccurate.

New York City - 299
Toronto - 243
Houston - 81
Miami - 38
Chicago - 34
Panama City, Panama - 27
Detroit - 26
Los Angeles - 25
Atlanta - 21
Seattle - 17 (22 per mhays)
Philadelphia - 17
Jersey City - 16
Boston - 12
Dallas - 12
Bellevue - 11

Originally Posted by Austin55 (Post 9323953)

Another argument that that population growth ≠ high rise growth

Fort Worth is the 2nd fastest growing city in the country and has never built an apartment tower with more than 12 floors, and only has 2 apartment buildings taller than 6 or 7 floor wood-framed buildings. There’s currently a grand total of 2 tower cranes in the city, one is a hospital and another is a garage at a mixed-use project.

There’s only been 3 buildings over 12 floors built in the city in the last decade, 1 office, 1 hotel, and 1 senior living center. The population grew 300k in this time period.

Originally Posted by Austin55 (Post 9323953)

Another argument that that population growth ≠ high rise growth

Fort Worth is the 2nd fastest growing city in the country and has never built an apartment tower with more than 12 floors, and only has 2 apartment buildings taller than 6 or 7 floor wood-framed buildings. There’s currently a grand total of 2 tower cranes in the city, one is a hospital and another is a garage at a mixed-use project.

There’s only been 3 buildings over 12 floors built in the city in the last decade, 1 office, 1 hotel, and 1 senior living center. The population grew 300k in this time period.

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9323795)

I was there last in 2019 and DTLA alone was hopping with new development. Seemed more active than SD or SF.

Originally Posted by Omaharocks (Post 9320698)

I work in the development industry, and most of my work is in the west. But I'm very familiar with the goings on in Atlanta, and if you were to take the total amount of construction going on intown as the OP alluded - not just high-rises but midrises and all forms of housing, I would guess Atlanta would be in the top handful, alongside Austin and Nashville on a per-capita basis.

Nearly every block in the city of Atlanta (outside the downtown core) has some form of residential construction going on...I don't think it's just boosterism.

Originally Posted by montréaliste (Post 9323017)

Where are Laval and Repentigny?

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli (Post 9320501)

No matter how much Torontonians wish they were in the us theyr are still in Canada last I checked.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport (Post 9324837)

very few Torontonians would rather that their city was in the United States. Instead of being the supreme city of a major country, it would likely have been a also-ran great lakes city of a Buffalo or Rochester -level significance.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 9325466)

If you're referring to his post on Page 5, it doesn't suggest otherwise. Just that "America" has a bunch of meanings, some of which he outlines.

Originally Posted by Doady (Post 9325507)

I think it would be most correct to refer to people of the US as "United States Americans" or "US Americans". Actual "American" is more analogous to "Asian" or "European", e.g. "Native American". And yes, people in Canada, including Toronto, do often refer to indigenous people as "Native Americans".

Originally Posted by Doady (Post 9325507)

And yes, people in Canada, including Toronto, do often refer to indigenous people as "Native Americans".

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9325568)

I know, but that's just Americanization from media and pop culture, though.

Referring to Indigenous people in Canada as "Native Americans" actually makes no sense.

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9325633)

At least they don't call them indians (or do they?).

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9325726)

^ speaking as an American, from our perspective, Canada will always be the kids table, for better or worse.

You don't become the most navel-gazing society in the history of our species by recognizing things beyond your borders.

Originally Posted by Centropolis (Post 9325861)

cancun

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9326021)

Even so, the Cancun Americans engage with in 99% is basically just a transposition of US culture onto Mexican soil.

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9326021)

:haha:

Even so, the Cancun Americans engage with in 99% is basically just a transposition of US culture onto Mexican soil.

Similarly, Paris is quite popular with Americans as well (for different reasons) but an American's Paris isn't the same as a French person's Paris.

The real Paris isn't French Kiss, Midnight in Paris or Emily in Paris, or even Gershwin's "An American in Paris".

I am not saying this to bash on Americans exclusively BTW, as all nationalities do this to some degree. (You don't want to hear me on Québécois in Cuba or the Dominican Republic.) But the level of visitor immersion in local culture does vary, and Americans tend to be on the "low immersion" side.

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9325568)

I know, but that's just Americanization from media and pop culture, though.

Referring to Indigenous people in Canada as "Native Americans" actually makes no sense.

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown (Post 9326222)

Why not? In South America, students are taught that North and South America are one continent simply called America.

Culturally, they think of themselves as new world (largely immigrant populations account for much of South America's populace in the same was as they do in North America).

It's actually very insulting to tell someone in Argentina, Chile, or Brazil that you're "American". If you do so, they'll very often say something like, "yo tambien". i.e. "Me too".

So through that lense, you could make the argument calling someone "Native American" is to merely differentiate between indigenous people and immigrants, generically, across the continent.

Originally Posted by Camelback (Post 9321699)

Who is building the most?

Easy check: which city gained the most in population over X amount of years.

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9326393)

Yeah, I know that.

My issue isn't so much with the use of the word "American", but rather the term "Native American" which is a US-invented term to describe Indigenous people in that country. Like most terms invented to describe these people, it's an awkward kludge at best. The Canadian-invented terms or terms used in other languages like Spanish, French or Portuguese aren't necessarily any less awkward, but at least they are rooted in the reality and history of their countries.

When I hear a Canadian say that such and such a person is "Native American" from the Tsawwassen reserve in BC or the Saugeen reserve in Ontario, my first thought is always that the speaker has been watching too much American TV.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9326410)

"native american" really is a stupid term for people of the new world who trace their ancestry back to pre-colonial times.

native means "associated with the place or circumstances of a person's birth", so that's pretty much anyone who was born here, ie. not an overseas immigrant.

"aboriginal american" would've been a million times better from a strictly definitional perspective.

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9326452)

"Amerindian" AFAIK has never really caught on with English speakers.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9326475)

not so much, that i'm aware of, but "american indian" was once the preferred term back in the day before "native american" took over.

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9326452)

Canada's gone through lots of names as well. Aboriginal was one of them until fairly recently in fact.

It was shelved and the current term is Indigenous.

Native was also used to some degree in Canada but obviously never as "Native American". At least not by anyone even semi-official.

I've always shared the same view of you when it comes to the word "Native". It doesn't really make sense.

Interestingly, Portuguese and Spanish have the term "Amerindio" which combines the notion of the Americas with the historical error that led people to think these people were "Indians" because they thought they'd arrived in India. French also has the similar term "Amérindien" though it's definitely fallen out of favour here. "Amerindian" AFAIK has never really caught on with English speakers.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill (Post 9323525)

As for this debate over whether MSA or CSA numbers more accurately describe SLC, SLC is in a unique situation. I can’t think of another metro with a larger disparity between its CSA and MSA figures. The fact of the matter is, every American metropolis is different, and there are no perfectly defined borders that can be used to determine where exactly the edge of suburbia lies and which populations should or shouldn’t count as part of the metro.

For example, neither the MSA nor the CSA definitions work well for my current city (Denver). One excludes Boulder, which is obviously part of the metropolis; the other includes Boulder but also includes a bunch of far-off towns which are obviously not part of the metropolis. The true population of this metro is somewhere in between.

As is the case with SLC.

I’ve spent much time in that town, having been a truck driver with a dedicated route based out of SLC (Costco distribution center), which meant I spent every other night there and had countless back-hauls that led to seemingly innumerable points within the metropolis - and having visited at least once a year all throughout my life since childhood, because my family is from Sandy and most of my family still lives there. Even in my current job as a flatbed driver I’ve picked up countless loads from Interstate Brick in West Jordan, delivered countless loads to the IFA DC on West 1700 South, etc, etc, etc. I know the town well. I know many towns well.

I think all of you on either side of the “how big is SLC” debate are kidding yourselves. I think it’s obvious SLC isn’t nearly as large or prominent as its CSA peers such as St Louis or Pittsburgh. It doesn’t feel that way, on the ground, within those towns, at all; nor does it feel that way in terms of the cultural, historical and economic gravitational pull those towns exert within the American collective consciousness. It’s equally obvious SLC is far larger and more prominent than its MSA peers such as Louisville or Buffalo. Those cities don’t belong in the same conversation with SLC.

It’s somewhere in between. And unfortunately a number in between those vastly disparate CSA and MSA figures - a number that could be used to accurately rank SLC among its peers - doesn’t exist. More than any other metropolis I can think of, SLC doesn’t have a definitive size that will work within the realm of this forum and its home-town-boosting, city-vs-city culture. There just isn’t a good, useful number for poor SLC.

Edit: I propose we just use SLC’s CSA figure when we’re making comparisons, and call it good. I mean, close enough. Otherwise we’re just going to keep getting hung up on this.

Originally Posted by Atlas (Post 9326550)

This thread is way off topic.

Originally Posted by Camelback (Post 9326409)

Top 15 metros, ranked by population. The percentage is the population change from 2010 to 2020.

New York City -- +1.20%
Los Angeles -- +2.19%
Chicago -- −0.58%
Dallas -- +20.85%
Houston -- +20.84%
Washington -- +11.95%
Miami -- +10.93%
Philadelphia -- +2.39%
Atlanta -- +15.15%
Phoenix -- +20.68%
Boston -- +7.16%
San Francisco -- +8.34%
Riverside -- +10.73%
Detroit -- +0.18%
Seattle -- +16.83%

Red = Under 2% growth
Magenta = 2% - 9.99% growth
Blue = 10% - 19.99%
Green = 20%+

The high growth metros are "building the most".