Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great thread! I've spent a lot of time in Calgary, and have lived there off and on as well. As a Denver resident, there are similarities between both cities. What I love about Calgary is the grand entrance into town from the South, especially at night. I also like Calgary's layout.
I plan to spend more time in Calgary and other cities starring next year (hopefully), so I'll be able to enjoy everything I love about both cities.
I agree with J2Xs. Just because a city expands it's city limits to include more people doesn't automatically mean it's going to have more development and thus a greater skyline. If this argument of yours was true then that would mean that El Paso,Texas should have a bigger skyline than Denver's. But it doesn't because of it's smaller metro area. And Conversely, It would mean Denver should have a larger skyline than Atlanta. But Atlanta has a much larger skyline. Why? Because it has a much larger metro.
Also, although the two skylines are very similar. I have to give a slight edge to Calgary just because the buildings look a little more modern.
Yes, el paso and other cities with large pops ought to have larger skylines. Cities like pittsburgh often get raves about its skyline because its cities pop is less than what we would expect.
I think you're confusing the current status of a skyline with what it ought or ought not be
I can't believe you're this dense. I've explained it to you 5 or 6 times already, and you just don't get it. The metro population adds skyscrapers because people from all over the metro area work in those skyscrapers. It doesn't matter if they all happen to be in downtown Denver. You think if Denver was an isolated city of 600,000 surrounded by nothing but countryside and wilderness, and no suburbs, that it's skyline would be the same size it is now? That's nonsense. It would be a fraction the size it is now, because there would be only one-fifth as many workers in the region to fill those office towers. Downtown Denver has about 150,000 office workers, give or take. There probably aren't even close to that many office workers living in the city of Denver - at least office workers in the types of industries that would occupy downtown office towers. If Denver were a unicity (like Calgary, where over 90% of the population lives within city limits) of 600,000 people, it's skyline would be more on par with places like Des Moines, Iowa, or Providence, Rhode Island. It would look NOTHING like it does today. It looks like it does BECAUSE IT HAS A POPULATION OF 3 MILLION PEOPLE FROM WHICH TO DRAW WORKERS. My argument is that with 3 million people from which to draw, it should have more than twice as many highrises as a metro that has 1.2 million people from which to draw.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, so I'll just ignore it.
They're urbanized densities are quite close actually. The reason the city of Calgary has a much lower density than the city of Denver is because CALGARY'S SUBURBS ARE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS (or at least 90% of them). Calgary's "Aurora, Lakewood, Littleton, and Arvada" are within Calgary city limits. That doesn't make them any less "suburban" than these areas of Denver. If Denver were to amalgamate 90% of it's metro population into one city, I doubt it's density would be any higher than Calgary's. It might even be lower. It makes zero difference if all these Denver suburbs have "an inefficient building approval process and a lack of vision". They aren't where the skyscrapers would be built anyways. The skyscrapers are built downtown, and people who work in these sprawling communities can work in those skyscrapers just as city of Denver residents can.
Egads, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Calgary has an incredible skyline for a metro of 1.2 million. The numbers speak for themselves. It has more highrises than Denver, more highrises under construction than Denver, and more 500+ footers than Denver with less than half the metro population. And yes, the sprawl is part of the "city itself" because they city accounts for more than 90% of the metro population. So of course it has bedroom communities and subdivisions within the city. IT'S SUBURBS ARE WITHIN CITY LIMITS. They are no different from Denver's suburbs other than a municipal boundary. No metro area in North America is "urban" over 90% of it's population. That's ridiculous to expect.
Now, let's talk about LRT ridership. Denver has 2.5 times the metro population to draw upon. It has more downtown office workers despite having less downtown office space (Calgary has a ridiculous amount of square footage per office worker for some reason). Yet it only has 70k riders per day vs. 300k riders per day. The vast majority of downtown Denver's workforce does not take the LRT to work, and that is a real shame.
Sorry your childish attacks dont help your argument.
You need to address why a city with 1 million in its pop isnt on par with other cities like philly and houston.
The metro area does not add to a skyline - it takes it away with sprawl. Both Atlanta and LA lost many highrises in its core to outer areas...
Somehow you think sprawl helps make a skyline. That is absurd!
To anoyone who's been there: What is the streetscape like in Calgary (downtown and other areas)? More urban than Denver? Less?
I'm growing more and more curious about this city...
I would like to go to Calgary and see for myself. Always wanted to visit the city. I was disappointed to found out it has a lower pop density than Denver. I never thought of Denver as a high density pop city but it beats Calgary. It beats it quite a bit if we exclude DIA airport which is 1/3 of Denver's land mass at 5990 per square mile verses 3700 per square mile for Calgary.
Thre is also a lot more people living in Denver's CBD than Calgary
I've explained it to you at least half a dozen times now. Downtown skylines/office space inventories are functions of the metro area because they draw workers from across the metro area. City population is completely and totally irrelevant. It's a line on a map - a municipal technicality.
If you still don't get it, I give up. Anyone here with an IQ over 50 understands what I'm talking about. And that's without me having to explain it over and over.
Calgary's downtown even destroys Denver's pitiful downtown in retail offerings. As I'm sure you know, downtown Denver doesn't have a single department store left. Calgary still has three - The Bay, Sears, and Holt Renfrew. And yes, I know about Cherry Creek, but that's not downtown, nor is it even within walking distance of downtown. It's more than three miles away.
This is probably the largest department store in downtown Calgary. As you can see, it has six floors above ground. Not sure if there are any basement levels.
I've explained it to you at least half a dozen times now. Downtown skylines/office space inventories are functions of the metro area because they draw workers from across the metro area. City population is completely and totally irrelevant. It's a line on a map - a municipal technicality.
If you still don't get it, I give up. Anyone here with an IQ over 50 understands what I'm talking about. And that's without me having to explain it over and over.
Seriously, the name calling is uncalled for.
I would really like you to address how urban sprawl constributes to a skyline than rather take away from it. People dont move into a suburb of a city and that causes a highrise to go up...
Also, a cities vision for highrise development doesnt involve the loss of its constituents to adjacent cities...
"However, this figure does not include the 1,700 that live in Eau Claire, the 1,400 in Chinatown, and the nearly 17,000 that live in the Beltline."
To not include Eau Claire or Chinatown is stupid. That would be like not counting LoDo for "downtown Denver". The Beltline is arguable.
Did you read the whole link? Even about the part where it said Calgary has a much lower resident pop than many other ctiies? Or the fact that the 6900 figure is a CBD tally and not an entire downtown total???
If you want to compare entire downtown pops than thats fine. Denver has 63k. Even adding the hoods you suggest you still see far off...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
