Author Topic: Surprising Skylines  (Read 2567 times)

ProjectMaximus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3063
Re: Surprising Skylines
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2018, 06:10:54 PM »
Calgary definitely belongs in this thread. Not just skyline but urban vibrancy (at least in the summertime) is off the charts. Good light rail ridership. On the ground it definitely does not feel like a barely over 1M metro. And in that same vein, I submit Calgary's little sister, Edmonton. Slightly smaller metro pop, and urban area pop around 1M. Also pretty decent light rail system, but I have no first hand experience.




jaxnyc79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
Re: Surprising Skylines
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2018, 06:30:39 PM »
Calgary definitely belongs in this thread. Not just skyline but urban vibrancy (at least in the summertime) is off the charts. Good light rail ridership. On the ground it definitely does not feel like a barely over 1M metro. And in that same vein, I submit Calgary's little sister, Edmonton. Slightly smaller metro pop, and urban area pop around 1M. Also pretty decent light rail system, but I have no first hand experience.



Canada offers some great models.  Many of those cities aren't that large, and yet dense vibrancy.  You can have a vibrant urban core as a relatively new city without millions and millions in population.

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27924
    • Modern Cities
Re: Surprising Skylines
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2018, 06:58:01 PM »
I find most countries to be denser with development than the US. Our economy is heavily autocentric and has been since WW2. ....  So the skylines represent their status at a time when we still valued the pedestrian and human scaled development over cars and highways.

Exactly the point.  How long does reliance on the auto excuse our development patterns?  As you know, even by low US standards, Jax/NE Fla is way behind in encouraging density with below average investment in urban infrastructure and mass transit accommodations.  Contrast the recent and ongoing investments of billions in expanding and spreading our interstate system to facilitate traffic to the burbs (9B, express lanes, overland bridge, outer beltway, rebuilt interchanges, etc.) plus new and expanded feeder roads, all of which only makes us even more autocentric, to what is being spent to facilitate mass/public transit and development within the urban core.

No disagreement with you, just hammering home the point  8)
Yes, if comparing Jax to a similar sized metro outside of the US, like a Canadian city, yes the skyline would be considered underdeveloped. But it's basically what it should be in the US as the principal city for the 40th largest MSA. It could be worse. Check out San Jose's!
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27924
    • Modern Cities
Re: Surprising Skylines
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2018, 07:00:54 PM »
Calgary definitely belongs in this thread. Not just skyline but urban vibrancy (at least in the summertime) is off the charts. Good light rail ridership. On the ground it definitely does not feel like a barely over 1M metro. And in that same vein, I submit Calgary's little sister, Edmonton. Slightly smaller metro pop, and urban area pop around 1M. Also pretty decent light rail system, but I have no first hand experience.



Canada offers some great models.  Many of those cities aren't that large, and yet dense vibrancy.  You can have a vibrant urban core as a relatively new city without millions and millions in population.
Urban development patterns in Canada and the US are completely opposite. Why? What is happening at a federal or national level that drives the overall outcome?
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Surprising Skylines
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2018, 01:25:14 PM »
Hiroshima and Nagaski

Before:




Today



Third Place

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Surprising Skylines
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2018, 07:40:12 AM »
Calgary definitely belongs in this thread. Not just skyline but urban vibrancy (at least in the summertime) is off the charts. Good light rail ridership. On the ground it definitely does not feel like a barely over 1M metro. And in that same vein, I submit Calgary's little sister, Edmonton. Slightly smaller metro pop, and urban area pop around 1M. Also pretty decent light rail system, but I have no first hand experience.



Canada offers some great models.  Many of those cities aren't that large, and yet dense vibrancy.  You can have a vibrant urban core as a relatively new city without millions and millions in population.
Urban development patterns in Canada and the US are completely opposite. Why? What is happening at a federal or national level that drives the overall outcome?

A few things: the Housing Act, the Interstate Highway Act, and the GI Bill - all enacted in the late 1940s early '50s made us what we are today.  Other contries didn't do that.
Third Place

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Surprising Skylines
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2018, 01:00:48 PM »
Grand Rapids, MI

City Population: 190,000
Urban Population: 570,000





Proposed residential tower
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 01:04:17 PM by Kerry »
Third Place