US equivalents of Calgary?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

NS definitely was widely considered the "14th colony" up until the revolution which it just happened to not want to join. Not sure what the "almost" is that you're referring to.

This is semantics, but it would have needed to join the revolution in order to be the 14th colony. That's why it was "almost" such.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Weren't there more than 14 colonies in north america? I thought '13 colonies' came about to those who supported the revolution.

Yes, and, obviously, there was also the Caribbean.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by edale

The most interesting part of this conversation, for me, is the theories around why Calgary has such a massively oversized skyline, not the analogues that don't exist in the US.

Skyscrapers are largely the result of economics. Land values are high, space is limited, so we build up rather than out, at least in the core. Calgary, however, is a pretty small city/metro, and has ample land to build out onto. Thus, it seems that Calgary's skyline exists in defiance of normal economic and urban development theory. Its skyline is not a product of market forces. Its skyline is mostly comprised of office buildings, so you can't point to urban living preferences or hotels/tourism like you can with a city like Honolulu.

So, it seems like Calgary's oversized skyline can best be explained by....ego. It's Canada's energy hub, and oil and gas companies are often showy. While these industries do consume a lot of office space, there's no reason that office space couldn't be spread out in midrises or corporate campuses. But the highrise strokes the ego of the CEOs, so that's what gets built- 30% vacancy rate be damned.

Is it also possible that, as Canada's newest 'big' city, Calgary feels like it has to prove itself a bit? They build big buildings to prove to the rest of the country that they're more than just an upstart city in flyover country? Seems like there might be a bit of that going on there, too.

There are many reasons for the big skyline:
-high percentage of lrivate sector, white collar workers
-large corporate presence for a city of its size
-lots of wealth for a relatively small and new city
-basically a unicity that doesn't compete with its suburbs, although that is changing. Many reasons for this: southern AB had few towns that could grow into suburbs. Those that can are limited by water. The City of Calgary along with three large irrigation districts control almost all of the senior water rights as AB follows prior appropriation similar to western US. Calgary annexed all of its then suburbs in the 60's
-leapfrog development is challenged by necessity of hooking up to city of Calgary water. Much of the region has poor ans/or unreliable ground water
-the inner city is land locked by rivers and hills
-poor freeway system until recently. Calgary was too small in the 50s and 60s to attract much large scale urban redevelopment. Most of the freeway proposals from that era failed due to xost and neighbourhood opposition. Building freeways into the inner city is challenging due to geography
-the dt was basically a blank slate for redevelopment with few heritage buildings of substance or institutional uses. I moved to Calgary at age 5 in 1977 and lived in a run down apartment on 8th street. The building boom was well underway but much of dt was still low quality sfh that was easy to demolish. Most other cities had substantial heritage buildings that would need to be cleares

By far the biggest reason is a unique quirk in AB's land ownership. The province owns most of the subsurface mineral rights, the major exception being land that was originally granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway. AB adopted a regime where surface land owners cannot negotiate access to subsurface minerals. The entity exploring and possibly developing those minerals must pay a prescribed amount for a surface lease and abide by guidelines around reclamation, setbacks from residences etc. The right to explore and develop minerals is sold via regular auctions, called by the misleading term "land sales". Companies and individuals bid on the right to explore. The highest bidder then has a defined timeline to explore and possibly develop the minerals. If the permit expires, it can be auctioned again. In the past, land sales were done in person so energy companies sought to locate close to office of that government agency whose name has changed many times (once known as the Energy Resources Conservation Board). Many companies used to enter joint ventures to share bids, which also promoted colocation. While land sales transitioned to Fax and then electronic a long time ago, the culture of energy companies locating next to one another persisted. Supporting business like banks and law firms sought to be close to their clients, which attracted other development and so on

So ironically, growth of the oil and gas industry promoted density.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Doug

By far the biggest reason is a unique quirk in AB's land ownership. The province owns most of the subsurface mineral rights, the major exception being land that was originally granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway. AB adopted a regime where surface land owners cannot negotiate access to subsurface minerals. The entity exploring and possibly developing those minerals must pay a prescribed amount for a surface lease and abide by guidelines around reclamation, setbacks from residences etc. The right to explore and develop minerals is sold via regular auctions, called by the misleading term "land sales". Companies and individuals bid on the right to explore. The highest bidder then has a defined timeline to explore and possibly develop the minerals. If the permit expires, it can be auctioned again. In the past, land sales were done in person so energy companies sought to locate close to office of that government agency whose name has changed many times (once known as the Energy Resources Conservation Board). Many companies used to enter joint ventures to share bids, which also promoted colocation. While land sales transitioned to Fax and then electronic a long time ago, the culture of energy companies locating next to one another persisted. Supporting business like banks and law firms sought to be close to their clients, which attracted other development and so on

So ironically, growth of the oil and gas industry promoted density.

Very interesting! I guess it's more similar to a financial district that grows around a stock exchange then.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Doug

By far the biggest reason is a unique quirk in AB's land ownership. The province owns most of the subsurface mineral rights, the major exception being land that was originally granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway. AB adopted a regime where surface land owners cannot negotiate access to subsurface minerals. The entity exploring and possibly developing those minerals must pay a prescribed amount for a surface lease and abide by guidelines around reclamation, setbacks from residences etc. The right to explore and develop minerals is sold via regular auctions, called by the misleading term "land sales". Companies and individuals bid on the right to explore. The highest bidder then has a defined timeline to explore and possibly develop the minerals. If the permit expires, it can be auctioned again. In the past, land sales were done in person so energy companies sought to locate close to office of that government agency whose name has changed many times (once known as the Energy Resources Conservation Board). Many companies used to enter joint ventures to share bids, which also promoted colocation. While land sales transitioned to Fax and then electronic a long time ago, the culture of energy companies locating next to one another persisted. Supporting business like banks and law firms sought to be close to their clients, which attracted other development and so on

So ironically, growth of the oil and gas industry promoted density.

Fascinating! Thanks for your response-- I think it sheds a lot of light on this subject.

Historically, was Edmonton the bigger city in AB? Does it also have oil and gas companies? I know the two cities are pretty close and have a bit of a rivalry. I became friends with a girl from Calgary who lived in my dorm building freshman year of college. She would often talk about the stampede, and she actually took a group of us to see the Flames play the Caps in DC. I also remember her calling Edmonton "Deadmonton" and talking shit about it pretty often.

[Centropolis]

interesting stuff regarding calgary. in some ways it’s got the vibes of a 1920s north american city booming 100 years later.

something like that.

[Docere]

Both Calgary and Edmonton had less than 100,000 people before WWII.

Calgary was the bigger city, even though Edmonton was the capital of Alberta.

Edmonton surpassed Calgary in the 1960s I think. But then Calgary pulled back ahead around 2000 or so.

Calgary is home of the energy industry HQs and is an affluent, more white collar city. Edmonton has the provincial government and the major university but is also much more of a "blue collar" city, albeit blue collar royalty (tradesmen working in the oil industry etc.)

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by Docere

Both Calgary and Edmonton had less than 100,000 people before WWII.

Calgary was the bigger city, even though Edmonton was the capital of Alberta.

Edmonton surpassed Calgary in the 1960s I think. But then Calgary pulled back ahead around 2000 or so.

Calgary is home of the energy industry HQs and is an affluent, more white collar city. Edmonton has the provincial government and the major university but is also much more of a "blue collar" city, albeit blue collar royalty (tradesmen working in the oil industry etc.)

Kind of reminds me of the dynamic between Houston and Dallas albeit without the capital/university component.

[Docere]

The white collar/blue collar distinction is less pronounced though. Dallas and Houston seem pretty much the same socioeconomically.

But yeah you have a rivalry between two big cities virtually the same size.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Docere

Both Calgary and Edmonton had less than 100,000 people before WWII.

Calgary was the bigger city, even though Edmonton was the capital of Alberta.

Edmonton surpassed Calgary in the 1960s I think. But then Calgary pulled back ahead around 2000 or so.

Calgary is home of the energy industry HQs and is an affluent, more white collar city. Edmonton has the provincial government and the major university but is also much more of a "blue collar" city, albeit blue collar royalty (tradesmen working in the oil industry etc.)

No, early in the 20th century, Calgary was bigger for a short period, but Edmonton was larger by the start of WWII. The City of Calgary surpassed Edmonton in the late '80s or early '90s, and the metro area surpassed Edmonton's for the 2001 census. Both had around 150,000 in 1950.

It also bears mentioning many of the white collar jobs Calgary now has originated in Edmonton. Shaw and Telus are probably the most prominent examples, but even some of the oil companies had larger corporate presences here at one point. The transition began in the '80s and was strongest in the '90s.

Re: Texas - Edmonton sometimes draws comparisons to Austin. More for the arts/university/government angle.

[ue]

Originally Posted by edale

Fascinating! Thanks for your response-- I think it sheds a lot of light on this subject.

Historically, was Edmonton the bigger city in AB? Does it also have oil and gas companies? I know the two cities are pretty close and have a bit of a rivalry. I became friends with a girl from Calgary who lived in my dorm building freshman year of college. She would often talk about the stampede, and she actually took a group of us to see the Flames play the Caps in DC. I also remember her calling Edmonton "Deadmonton" and talking shit about it pretty often.

Edmonton has been around longer. The original fort (which moved around a few times) was established in 1795, only a couple years after Toronto was first settled. In 1875, Fort Calgary was established, and it became a town before Edmonton (in 1884 vs 1892 for Edmonton, it was around this time that Calgary was larger which lasted into the turn of the century).

Edmonton has a long fur trade history as an HBC fort and was located on a navigable river in a more fertile geography (Calgary is drier and more grassland prairie rather than Edmonton's parkland prairie). Calgary also had the railway first (1885 vs 1891 for Edmonton via the C&E Railway).

Edmonton was the larger and arguably more prominent Alberta city for much of the 20th century and this began changing in the 1980s with Calgary hosting the '88 Winter Olympics as well as the city growing faster and the increased corporate oil development. By the '90s, Edmonton-based companies like Telus (from the former provincial government telephone company) and Shaw migrated south and a series of strong austerity cuts to healthcare, education, and government directly hurt Edmonton while Calgary, more reliant on private sector, chugged along fine, with its metro area surpassing Edmonton by the early 00s.

Edmonton these days is largely where oil gets refined. There is some smaller corporate presences but the big offices are more or less all in Calgary. Both cities have had significant populations that live on a fly-in/fly-out schedule working on the oil sands up in Fort McMurray. I do think this is a bigger thing in Edmonton, but someone can correct me on this.

By the mid-00s, Edmonton began growing fast again, but either just as or just slightly slower than Calgary, meaning the established gap between the two (which isn't that great but still means Calgary is slightly larger) has stayed put. Calgary is far more centralized, whereas in Edmonton, downtown is a significant employment zone, but it also competes with the UofA, Refinery Row, Nisku, various office parks, and so forth.

Edmonton is less flashy, more 'liberal', has a stronger arts tradition (though Calgary has caught up a lot in the last decade). Calgary is better at branding itself and is thus more known, and has more visitors aided by the larger international airport and the large sums of visitors to Banff, an hour away. Jasper, Edmonton's mountain park, is 3hrs away, and also more rugged. I think the history of the two cities over the '80s, '90s, and '00s caused Edmonton to have an inferiority complex and small-town mindset for a long time that has been shed significantly over the past 10-15 years.

The "Deadmonton" moniker was a derisive term coined in the '90s when the city was at a low point. It's kind of outdated at this point and not really used by young people, who would now be too young to remember that Edmonton which the moniker is referring to.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by edale

The most interesting part of this conversation, for me, is the theories around why Calgary has such a massively oversized skyline, not the analogues that don't exist in the US.

Skyscrapers are largely the result of economics. Land values are high, space is limited, so we build up rather than out, at least in the core. Calgary, however, is a pretty small city/metro, and has ample land to build out onto. Thus, it seems that Calgary's skyline exists in defiance of normal economic and urban development theory. Its skyline is not a product of market forces. Its skyline is mostly comprised of office buildings, so you can't point to urban living preferences or hotels/tourism like you can with a city like Honolulu.

So, it seems like Calgary's oversized skyline can best be explained by....ego. It's Canada's energy hub, and oil and gas companies are often showy. While these industries do consume a lot of office space, there's no reason that office space couldn't be spread out in midrises or corporate campuses. But the highrise strokes the ego of the CEOs, so that's what gets built- 30% vacancy rate be damned.

Is it also possible that, as Canada's newest 'big' city, Calgary feels like it has to prove itself a bit? They build big buildings to prove to the rest of the country that they're more than just an upstart city in flyover country? Seems like there might be a bit of that going on there, too.

Edmonton and Ottawa are just as big as Calgary and have been so for a dacades so i don't know what you mean by Calgary being newest big city.
Canadian Corporation are notorious for their conservatism so not showy at all. and finally flyover country is a strickly american term, no one would call Alberta flyover country in Canada.

by the way here is Edmonton for those who haven't seen it.

Edmonton

[Docere]

University degree

Calgary CMA 38.2%
Edmonton CMA 28.8%

[ue]

Originally Posted by Nite

Edmonton and Ottawa are just as big as Calgary and have been so for a dacades so i don't know what you mean by Calgary being newest big city.
Canadian Corporation are notorious for their conservatism so not showy at all. and finally flyover country is a strickly american term, no one would call Alberta flyover country in Canada.

by the way here is Edmonton for those who haven't seen it.

Edmonton

That's a good pic of the Edmonton core, showing the layered density as well as the new tallest building (which is the tallest in Canada outside of TO) and other new development. The stubbier height of Edmonton's pre-2013 towers due to the former City Centre Airport, which closed that year. No doubt if Edmonton didn't have a height overlay through the '60s, '70s, and '80s, there'd be way more height to Edmonton's skyline. Perhaps some of the corporate oil egos would've plopped major skyscrapers here instead of Calgary in some cases.

As for 'newness'... I can see why Calgary would be construed as such. Similarly sized Ottawa is much older, and was significantly larger until the '80s/early '90s. Edmonton has a similar newness to Calgary, but Calgary didn't really have 15-20 years of stagnation starting around 1990 and continued to have a dynamic energy to it that has only recently been recaptured in Edmonton. Edmonton, being the capital, and formerly largest Alberta centre, also has some more established/prestigious institutions (the UofA being most obvious).

Before the oil boom that kickstarted just south of Edmonton in 1947, Alberta wasn't much different than Saskatchewan. In Western Canada, Winnipeg and Vancouver were the largest cities by far, and it shows to this day in their built history and the extent of their pre-war fabric. Neither city feel as 'new' as Alberta and Saskatchewan cities do.

Out east, the only equivalents I can think of to this 'newness' are maybe Barrie or Moncton. Or the inland Newfoundland communities like Gander, Corner Brook, and Clarenville.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Docere

The white collar/blue collar distinction is less pronounced though. Dallas and Houston seem pretty much the same socioeconomically.

But yeah you have a rivalry between two big cities virtually the same size.

I don't know Houston as well as Dallas, but my perception is that Houston is much more blue collar than Dallas. Dallas has a much more diverse economy and a larger services sector.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't know Houston as well as Dallas, but my perception is that Houston is much more blue collar than Dallas. Dallas has a much more diverse economy and a larger services sector.

Re. Dallas and Houston, median income and college attainment are more or less the same. I think they're roughly equally white collar.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't know Houston as well as Dallas, but my perception is that Houston is much more blue collar than Dallas. Dallas has a much more diverse economy and a larger services sector.

But the energy industry HQs are in Houston as well.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by ue

Before the oil boom that kickstarted just south of Edmonton in 1947, Alberta wasn't much different than Saskatchewan. In Western Canada, Winnipeg and Vancouver were the largest cities by far, and it shows to this day in their built history and the extent of their pre-war fabric. Neither city feel as 'new' as Alberta and Saskatchewan cities do.

Alberta and Saskatchewan were the "last best west" - the last of the North American Great Plains to be settled; Manitoba was really a generation earlier. As you say Winnipeg and Vancouver were really the only big cites pre-WWII. Alberta became massively urbanized and changed dramatically after WWII due to the oil boom, while Saskatchewan saw more modest urbanizaton and didn't grow much in population. In some ways Saskatchewan resembles North Dakota in its trajectory (rural character, wheat farming to oil boom on a more modest scale than Alberta) , while it's hard to really pinpoint the "American Alberta."

[memph]

Originally Posted by Nite

Edmonton and Ottawa are just as big as Calgary and have been so for a dacades so i don't know what you mean by Calgary being newest big city.

I think Calgary has significantly more infill though, including and perhaps especially, in its central residential areas outside downtown.

This blog shows some good examples:
https://everydaytourist.ca/city-plan...infill-housing

So even if the total population growth has been similar, a higher percentage of Calgary's growth has involved a replacement of older (mostly 1940s-1950s?) housing in the inner city with new housing (last 2 decades especially).

Edmonton has started catching up in the last 10-15 years but with less infill and more suburban sprawl, so the new growth is not as noticeable to someone that spends most of their time in the central areas of the city.

Age of housing stock by year of construction as of the 2016 census.

Calgary CMA vs Edmonton CMA
pre-1960: 9.2% vs 12.2%
1961-1980: 27.5% vs 30.7%
1981-1990: 12.5% vs 12.2%
1991-2000: 16.1% vs 11.9%
2001-2005: 11.6% vs 9.5%
2006-2010: 11.7% vs 11.3%
2011-2016: 11.4% vs 12.2%

[ue]

Originally Posted by memph

I think Calgary has significantly more infill though, including and perhaps especially, in its central residential areas outside downtown.

This blog shows some good examples:
https://everydaytourist.ca/city-plan...infill-housing

So even if the total population growth has been similar, a higher percentage of Calgary's growth has involved a replacement of older (mostly 1940s-1950s?) housing in the inner city with new housing (last 2 decades especially).

Edmonton has started catching up in the last 10-15 years but with less infill and more suburban sprawl, so the new growth is not as noticeable to someone that spends most of their time in the central areas of the city.

Age of housing stock by year of construction as of the 2016 census.

Calgary CMA vs Edmonton CMA
pre-1960: 9.2% vs 12.2%
1961-1980: 27.5% vs 30.7%
1981-1990: 12.5% vs 12.2%
1991-2000: 16.1% vs 11.9%
2001-2005: 11.6% vs 9.5%
2006-2010: 11.7% vs 11.3%
2011-2016: 11.4% vs 12.2%

Yes, I'd agree. Calgary has been doing more infill, for longer. As a side note, due to Calgary's more aesthetic inclinations, the infill also tends to be higher quality. Edmonton really is a value engineered city (doesn't help there's a lack of architecture school and only recently got a planning school). Edmonton has been catching up, though, with the skinny homes in particular. Calgary's infill sometimes reminds me more of what you see in American cities like Denver, Portland, Austin, and Minneapolis.

Originally Posted by Docere

Alberta and Saskatchewan were the "last best west" - the last of the North American Great Plains to be settled; Manitoba was really a generation earlier. As you say Winnipeg and Vancouver were really the only big cites pre-WWII. Alberta became massively urbanized and changed dramatically after WWII due to the oil boom, while Saskatchewan saw more modest urbanizaton and didn't grow much in population. In some ways Saskatchewan resembles North Dakota in its trajectory (rural character, wheat farming to oil boom on a more modest scale than Alberta) , while it's hard to really pinpoint the "American Alberta."

Very true... it wasn't that long ago that Saskatchewan was pretty sleepy and its cities stagnant. Regina and Saskatoon were barely growing until around 2010. Now there's potash and oil, so it's approaching a mini Alberta vibe, even politically. Manitoba, particularly around the Red River Settlement (present day Winnipeg) is very obviously older. The UofM was established when Calgary was barely settled. Winnipeg also has the highest % of pre-WWII stock of all major Canadian cities, including the older ones to the east. Winnipeg was very stagnant for like 30 years and only in the past decade has it really picked up, which, along with already having a larger pre-WWII size, means it's an older looking city compared to its Prairie peers.