SkyscraperPage Forum - Who is building the most in North America?

Viewing Page 8 of 18

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)

- - Who is building the most in North America? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=247297)

Quote:

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.

"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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9326410)

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.

I see little issue with the terms "Native American" or "Alaska Native" as they are proper nouns (capitalized) and most people aren't confused about who they reference. if someone wrote native American, that's a little more ambiguous. Were they born in the US or are they a Native?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9326452)

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

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.

I know a great way of ending this discussion!

Just assign them a letter(s) or an emoji so we don't offend them. A feather, igloo, teepee would probably work. We have POCs, LGBTQIA+, AAPIs, AAs, WASPs, LatinX, why wouldn't it work with Indians, Native Americans, Indigenous People?

I can see it now, "NAs" or "IPs".

Quote:

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.

I just checked and the beautiful museum in DC is still called the Museum of the American Indian.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8881...7i16384!8i8192

It was designed by the same architect who did Canada's national history museum, which is located in my city. Note the resemblance.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4298...7i16384!8i8192

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9326452)

The word "Amerindian" was used fairly widely in some academic fields in the past, particularly anthropology and linguistics. Due to this, it does sound somewhat detached and even a bit dehumanizing (cf. "female" or "homosexual"). It never caught on in the mainstream, likely because (as noted above) "American" and related words are way more strongly associated with the US in English.

I believe we've seen the use of the word "Indigenous" really take off over the past few years because: (a) "Aboriginal" was largely used synonymously with "First Nations", thereby excluding the Inuit and Métis, and (b) the word "Indigenous" has become more clearly articulated at the international level, including in the UNDRIP.

This thread is way off topic.

Quote:

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.

Thanks for the perspective. SLC is an oddball and the CSA is very much tri-modal, both geographically and culturally, but with SLC being the clear center of power. Anyone from the SL Valley will tell people that they're "from SLC" but people from Utah County or Weber/Davis Counties won't do that despite being directly connected to it.

I guess that the original point I was making is that if it's thrown in with cities with similar MSAs like Buffalo, Grand Rapids, etc. then I think it is over-performing when it comes to building towers right now. Compared to similar CSAs, maybe not. I don't think we are having the same kind of tower boom as Nashville and Austin, but we are probably building as many residential units around the CSA as those places. There is still an ocean of underdeveloped lots around downtown that are currently being swiped up for huge low/mid-rise developments so I'd expect taller projects to start to emerge once those are all gone. In terms of SFH, I'd guess the SLC CSA is adding as much as any urban area in the country, for better or for worse.

Here's a cool image that user Blah_Amazing made a few weeks ago that shows all of SLC's active tower projects, for anyone interested:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlas (Post 9326550)

This thread is way off topic.

:haha: ^^

Of the 320+ construction cranes in Toronto plus burbs, this one added today is particularly welcome (SkyTower @ 312.5m, 95s).

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attach...42-jpg.331164/
wmedia

Quote:

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".

Thanks for the calculations. But your list is missing Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wigs (Post 9326925)

Thanks for the calculations. But your list is missing Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa :P

And it's based on estimates that we already know are off and are too high for Phoenix and too low for new York. And even if it were correct this thread is about high-rise building and not population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daniel (Post 9327134)

And it's based on estimates that we already know are off and are too high for Phoenix and too low for new York. And even if it were correct this thread is about high-rise building and not population.

+1. The numbers used for this calculation are based of of US Census Bureau "estimates" that have already proven to be wrong based on 2020 physical counts which have only been released for states, but not counties.

The states with the largest underestimates were largely urban and blue. i.e. NY, NJ, PA, etc.

We'll see what happens when county level numbers are released, but I can tell you NYC and Philly will have population numbers that are far higher than the "estimates" based on the counts that have already been released for their states.

The counts aren't perfect either. But they're probably a lot closer to the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelback (Post 9326409)

We already know that NY Metro has grown more than 2% based off of the state numbers. NYS grew by 4.2% and New Jersey grew by 5.7%. About 70% of NYS is in NY Metro, and about 70% of New Jersey is also in NY Metro, so it's virtually a given that NY Metro grew by at least 4%. None of Connecticut is included in the NY Metro MSA, so the picture is pretty clear cut without considering CT, but Connecticut was by far the slowest growing of the three states in the NYC region. I think this suggests that almost all of the growth in NYS and NJ will have occurred in the urban cities.

Based on back of napkin calculations, my floor for NY Metro population growth is 4.8%.

About 2 years ago I made a spreadsheet with 109 American (and Canadian!) cities with at least one 400 foot building (and arbitrary cutoff). I then added up the age of the 10 tallest buildings in the city and divided by the total to get an average age of top ten tallest buildings by city, which feels like a decent metric for which city has built a lot. Of course, since this only includes the 10 tallest, places like Dallas, which has a lot of growth but not in the top ten, are dragged back, and cities with pre-war highrises in the top 10 tallest get knocked pretty hard.

Does it show who's building the most? Not really. Does it show who's building the most tall buildings relative to the rest of the buildings in the city? Sure.

Link to sheet.

Random stat: The average age top 10 tallest buildings in those cities is 1989

Again, the sheet is a few years old now so it's a bit out od date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 9327310)

The counts aren't perfect either. But they're probably a lot closer to the truth.

Yeah the counts aren't perfect, but they're close enough to perfect. The numbers are for MSAs and it's now July 1st, 2021, so even if I posted the exact accurate count for MSAs of 2020, it would be out of date.

Just read through this thread for the first time... Nothing too surprising; the only thing that really surprised me is the fact that Darkoshvilli is Canadian! I guess there are exceptions to every stereotype

Despite all doom and gloom Portland press, surprisingly our apartment construction boom seems to be soldiering on. There are tons of huge apartment buildings still going up all over the city. Its been 10 years it seems like. No real big towers that I know of tho. I think investors put the brakes on the four seasons hotel too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9320734)

I'm surprised Houston has that many. The local economy isn't exactly in the greatest shape lately. I'd at least assumed Austin would be building way more than us.

Houston is over 400 sq miles. Miami is 83sq mi. Philly and Atlanta are around 130 +- sq miles

Quote:

Originally Posted by afonega1 (Post 9349426)

Houston is over 400 sq miles. Miami is 83sq mi. Philly and Atlanta are around 130 +- sq miles

The vast majority of major development is in concentrated inside the loop (or just outside, Uptown) and west of downtown. Probably comparable to Atlanta and Miami. Still again, the economy isn't in the greatest shape with not only covid but a major downturn in oil and gas.

Viewing Page 8 of 18