HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 8:11 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
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.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 8:34 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 58,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
"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.
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.
__________________
Désolé de vous déranger.
(Sorry for making you deranged.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 8:39 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 33,849
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?

Last edited by JManc; Jun 29, 2021 at 8:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 8:48 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
"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.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 8:51 PM
Camelback Camelback is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,231
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 9:02 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 58,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
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
__________________
Désolé de vous déranger.
(Sorry for making you deranged.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 9:23 PM
wg_flamip wg_flamip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 9:28 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is online now
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver & SLC
Posts: 1,386
This thread is way off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Hill View Post
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:

__________________
r/DevelopmentSLC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2021, 11:43 PM
Maldive's Avatar
Maldive Maldive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
This thread is way off topic.
^^


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


wmedia
__________________
Pancake City - home to river valleys, the most extensive urban ravine system in the world, 600km of trails and a 130 metre climb to North York. Just add maple syrup.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2021, 2:59 AM
Wigs's Avatar
Wigs Wigs is online now
Great White Norf
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Niagara Region
Posts: 4,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelback View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2021, 11:26 AM
daniel daniel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Jerusalem
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigs View Post
Thanks for the calculations. But your list is missing Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2021, 2:30 PM
3rd&Brown 3rd&Brown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by daniel View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2021, 3:04 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,032
The counts aren't perfect either. But they're probably a lot closer to the truth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2021, 3:33 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelback View Post
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".
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%.

Last edited by iheartthed; Jun 30, 2021 at 3:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2021, 6:03 PM
Austin55's Avatar
Austin55 Austin55 is offline
__________
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 4,990
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.
__________________
Fort Worth Urban Development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2021, 8:09 PM
Camelback Camelback is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2021, 10:35 PM
jbermingham123's Avatar
jbermingham123 jbermingham123 is offline
Registered (Nimby Ab)User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At a computer, wasting my life on a skyscraper website
Posts: 573
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
__________________
Anything not forbidden by the laws of physics is achievable, given the right knowledge
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2021, 11:17 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,810
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.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2021, 3:36 AM
afonega1's Avatar
afonega1 afonega1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2021, 3:51 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 33,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.