North America highrise construction map

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Likewise we could start calling Vancouver as Vancouver-Surrey, but no one outside of Canada is going to use the “Surrey” part.

The difference being Surrey is an overgrown suburban bedroom community just 13 miles from Downtown Vancouver. Would Surrey even exist as it is without Vancouver? Fort Worth is, and always has been, its own city, with its own suburbs, 30 miles from Downtown Dallas.

There's a reason Dallas-Fort Worth is called "Metroplex." The definition of "metroplex" being "a conurbation with more than one principal anchor city of near equal importance."

You'll have to excuse my bristling at Dallas being given more credit than its true size deserves. <--- (The true reason for my rant.)

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Now the above are some fascinating complaints.

But I hate to be the one to say this, outside of the USA Dallas-Fort Worth is 99% of the time referred to as……. Dallas. In Canada you grow up hearing about the Dallas Cowboys, the Dallas Stars, etc… On maps is Houston and Dallas often shown for Texas.

Here in Japan if I say Dallas, there is a good chance people know where I’m talking about, if I say “Fort Worth” it will be a blank stare.

So, I’m sorry, internationally Dallas-Forth Worth is almost always referred to simply as Dallas.

Likewise we could start calling Vancouver as Vancouver-Surrey, but no one outside of Canada is going to use the “Surrey” part.

Same with Seattle-Tacoma. Internationally it’s Seattle.

i hate to be the one to break it to you, but its the same across the usa too.

this is a forum of urbanist geeks remember.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Fort Worth is big because it annexed a lot of suburban areas around it. I still think the Dallas side of the metroplex is a lot bigger. The two cities are so glued together by sprawl its' hard to tell where one's influence ends and the other begins. DFW genuinely is one unit despite starting out as a pair of separate cities that were a bit too far apart to be classical twin cities a la Minneapolis-St. Paul.

There's a joke/meme on Reddit and around social media about clueless people calling either Dallas or Fort Worth "Downtown DFW" but there's some kernel of truth to the fact that the airport is the geographic center of the metro area.

that seems about right to me, that the dfw barycenter is around the no mans land sprawl at the airport.

minneapolis-st paul barycenter would probably be in eastern minny maybe around um i guess?

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Fort Worth is big because it annexed a lot of suburban areas around it. I still think the Dallas side of the metroplex is a lot bigger. The two cities are so glued together by sprawl its' hard to tell where one's influence ends and the other begins. DFW genuinely is one unit despite starting out as a pair of separate cities that were a bit too far apart to be classical twin cities a la Minneapolis-St. Paul.

While certainly true, Fort Worth's growth is not nearly the kind of annexation bloat that a place like Jacksonville (875 sq mi) has. FW's area (347 sq mi) is roughly equivalent to Austin's (320 sq mi), so FW passing Austin and cracking into the top 10 largest cities list will at least make some kind of sense lol.
From 2010 to 2020, annexation grew FW's city limits by only 2.2% (added 8 sq miles), while its population in that same time grew by 24% (added 177k people).

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Now the above are some fascinating complaints.

But I hate to be the one to say this, outside of the USA Dallas-Fort Worth is 99% of the time referred to as……. Dallas. In Canada you grow up hearing about the Dallas Cowboys, the Dallas Stars, etc… On maps is Houston and Dallas often shown for Texas.

Here in Japan if I say Dallas, there is a good chance people know where I’m talking about, if I say “Fort Worth” it will be a blank stare.

So, I’m sorry, internationally Dallas-Forth Worth is almost always referred to simply as Dallas.

Likewise we could start calling Vancouver as Vancouver-Surrey, but no one outside of Canada is going to use the “Surrey” part.

Same with Seattle-Tacoma. Internationally it’s Seattle.

An interesting caveat with this particular scenario is that unlike those two examples there is a very real possibility that Fort Worth becomes more populous than Dallas sooner rather than later. Hell, if their current growth patterns hold for a just a little while longer it could be in only about 15 to 20 years.

Though I agree in general. I love Fort Worth but Dallas has too much global cultural cache that Fort Worth just can't overtake until enough globally significant things occur there in such a way that it forces outsiders to draw a hard distinction between FW and Dallas. Like, we're talking Fort Worth having to host a summer Olympics entirely on its own without any use of facilities over in Dallas so that all eyes are on Fort Worth and the media branding is entirely Fort Worth-based. It can't be the "Dallas-Fort Worth Olympics", it would have to be the "Fort Worth Olympics" for people outside of Texas to really begin grappling with Fort Worth as its own thing worth distinguishing outside of its relation to being near Dallas.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

An interesting caveat with this particular scenario is that unlike those two examples there is a very real possibility that Fort Worth becomes more populous than Dallas sooner rather than later. Hell, if their current growth patterns hold for a just a little while longer it could be in only about 15 to 20 years.

Fort Worth has slightly more land area than Dallas, but it seems like an even more sprawly city than Dallas. Granted, I've spent just a small amount of time in FW, so I might have missed something, but it seemed to me even more spaced out than Dallas. So if Fort Worth is going to grow larger than Dallas, it has to be done through a much denser development pattern.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Fort Worth has slightly more land area than Dallas, but it seems like an even more sprawly city than Dallas. Granted, I've spent just a small amount of time in FW, so I might have missed something, but it seemed to me even more spaced out than Dallas.

The 300k population difference adds a lot to Dallas's relative density--that's a whole Corpus Christi's worth of a difference in population.
Plus Dallas has a much larger (undevelopable) floodplain than FW has, and the Great Trinity Forest accounts for a significant chunk of land within Dallas's city limits; those factors help condense Dallas's 1.3 million population into a smaller space than it otherwise would be.

But if FW keeps adding +20k people every year and Dallas stays relatively flat, then that 300k difference will shrink really quick.
(But honestly I don't think Dallas will stay as flat as it has been)

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So if Fort Worth is going to grow larger than Dallas, it has to be done through a much denser development pattern.

They certainly have that chance if Panther Island materializes the way they hope it will. And there's no shortage of surface lots in its downtown to keep building vertically if and when they need to.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

The 300k population difference adds a lot to Dallas's relative density--that's a whole Corpus Christi's worth of a difference in population.
Plus Dallas has a much larger (undevelopable) floodplain than FW and the Great Trinity Forest accounts for a significant chunk of land within Dallas's city limits, those factors help condense Dallas's 1.3 million population more than it otherwise would be.

But if FW keeps adding +20k people every year and Dallas stays relatively flat, then that 300k difference will shrink really quick.
(But honestly I don't think Dallas will stay as flat as it has been)



They certainly have that chance if Panther Island materializes the way they hope it will. And there's no shortage of surface lots in its downtown to keep building vertically if and when they need to.

More on Panther Island:

https://www.archpaper.com/2024/04/la...-island/?amp=1

https://pantherisland.com/assets/doc...compressed.pdf

[BlueDot]

Originally Posted by LivinAWestLife

Wow, this did not come up at all when I was doing research for the graphic. Good to see that Nola has something under construction.

Not only that ,but the upcoming River District which will include several high rises.

[Zapatan]

Canada is insanely impressive given its relatively small population. It (and Australia) both manage to make it into the top 10 countries globally in terms of 150m+ buildings.

USA has way more (and taller ones) but it's also a nation of nearly 350 million. If US could build proportionally the way Canada/Oz do that would be epic.

Here's to hoping the US starts building more skyscrapers if feds lower interest rates next month. For a country of such scale / global standing I would expect more.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Canada is insanely impressive given its relatively small population. It (and Australia) both manage to make it into the top 10 countries globally in terms of 150m+ buildings.

USA has way more (and taller ones) but it's also a nation of nearly 350 million. If US could build proportionally the way Canada/Oz do that would be epic.

Here's to hoping the US starts building more skyscrapers if feds lower interest rates next month. For a country of such scale / global standing I would expect more.

I mean, aside from the classic factors like the interstate system, household wealth at midcentury, etc, I would assume it's also partially because the USA has a significantly larger amount of arable land than Canada or Australia resulting in the historical population centers historically being much more widely distributed across the interior - resulting in less of a real estate crunch in just a few peripheral / coastal cities.

I don't know if the US Census Estimate of 400 million by 2060 will hold true or not but I would assume places like the LA Basin and urban Texas will see a steady increase in residential highrise construction. Even then, there's still significant existing interior capacity (water, infrastructure, easily buildable or infilled lots, etc) in the U.S. compared to Canada (unless new cities and significant new amounts of infrastructure are built across the Canadian Shield or whatever) or Australia.

[iheartthed]

I know this is goes against the mission statement here, but I don't see why the US should strive to build skyscrapers at the same rate as Canada or Australia.

[Centropolis]

A collapse of the Florida and some other eastern/southern coastal real estate and insurance markets due to potential sea level impacts at mid-century may also radically shift "highrise type" development...to somewhere. Super-Asheville, dunno...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Super-Asheville, dunno...

It's pronounced "char-lanta".

[WhipperSnapper]

Couldn't you easily retrofit towers for sea level rise by abandoning flooded floors; tweaking the elevator; adding docks for personal watercraft, pontoons and, gondolas? There's electrical cables running in saltwater. Plumbing again would be accessing a clean water source than piping in saltwater

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Couldn't you easily retrofit towers for sea level rise by abandoning flooded floors; tweaking the elevator; adding docks for personal watercraft, pontoons and, gondolas? There's electrical cables running in saltwater. Plumbing again would be accessing a clean water source than piping in saltwater

I don't know the "correct" answer for that, but from an engineering and materials perspective sea level rise (and when I say sea level rise, really what I'm talking about is severity of periodic storm flooding) was absolutely not accounted for at the design phase in normal residential/commercial projects so I imagine extensive retrofitting would be prohibitively expensive to say a condo building. Impacts of salt water intrusion/corrosion and erosive characteristics/wave action of flooding to the structural and service infrastructure...no way. It wont be insured and... later wont be repaired. Places like Miami-Dade can have mitigation plans to do the equivalent of pushing a finger in the dike and buy a few decades to keep water off structures to begin with as long as possible, but longer term, likely nah...

Thats not to say people wont be living there - it's just that I imagine the "system" will abandon maintenance of swaths of built areas.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Canada is insanely impressive given its relatively small population. It (and Australia) both manage to make it into the top 10 countries globally in terms of 150m+ buildings.

USA has way more (and taller ones) but it's also a nation of nearly 350 million. If US could build proportionally the way Canada/Oz do that would be epic.

Here's to hoping the US starts building more skyscrapers if feds lower interest rates next month. For a country of such scale / global standing I would expect more.

Canada has more poor people, Americans are wealthier. Canadians are forced to live in high-rises because they can't afford to live in a proper house like people in a proper first-world country. That is also the reason Canada has higher transit ridership than the US. It's more Canadastan than Canada now, thanks to Justin "Diversity is our strength" Truedope.

[mhays]

The "feds" (federal government) have nothing to do with interest rates. That's the purview of the Fed, i.e. the Federal Reserve.

[LivinAWestLife]

Originally Posted by Doady

Canada has more poor people, Americans are wealthier. Canadians are forced to live in high-rises because they can't afford to live in a proper house like people in a proper first-world country. That is also the reason Canada has higher transit ridership than the US. It's more Canadastan than Canada now, thanks to Justin "Diversity is our strength" Truedope.

Across developed countries outside of Europe, high-rise construction and living are ubiquitous. Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Australia are plenty rich and their skylines are similarly much larger for the size of their cities. The US is, more than any other country on Earth, culturally and institutionally against apartment living. It’s not a matter of wealth.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Doady

Canada has more poor people, Americans are wealthier. Canadians are forced to live in high-rises because they can't afford to live in a proper house like people in a proper first-world country. That is also the reason Canada has higher transit ridership than the US. It's more Canadastan than Canada now, thanks to Justin "Diversity is our strength" Truedope.

Good grief. Where does one even start. There are many reasons why a lower % of Canadians buy SFHs and you seem to know none of them. Most Americans couldn't afford a SFH in Canada either.

Canadian Urban planning policies encourage Transit Oriented Development because its a more sustainable long term strategy, severely restrict cities from endlessly sprawling out on to rural land (also good), Canada has a far higher % of its population than the US concentrated in pricey real estate markets (people in Manhattan don't buy SFHs either), and there's far more societal interest in urban living in Canada than the US.

Yes, the population boom has exacerbated the housing crisis but Canada had a housing crisis LONG before Trudeau came along. I'm no fan of Trudeau either but this has VERY little to do with him and NEXT to nothing to do with Canadian income levels. Canada actually has one of the highest median income figures in the world if you bothered to look.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by LivinAWestLife

Across developed countries outside of Europe, high-rise construction and living are ubiquitous. Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Australia are plenty rich and their skylines are similarly much larger for the size of their cities. The US is, more than any other country on Earth, culturally and institutionally against apartment living. It’s not a matter of wealth.

I wouldn't take his comments too seriously. There are loads of very angry people in Canada these days. They lash out at everything and anything with little interest in data, facts, or reason. You're absolutely correct but you're wasting your time trying to reason with someone who isn't interested in being reasoned with.